elections committee

[Guest akh720]

I am a voting member of a nonprofit group and we are currently in our annual board elections process. An elections committee was created by the current board of directors for the 2011 elections. The thing is, the elections committee is made up of several of the current board members, and many of those are running for office again.

Is there anything in Robert's Rules that can prevent this? This is a little too much like the fox guarding the hen house. Many of the voting members, including me, do not think that the elections can be fair because of this.

[hmtcastle]

Is there anything in Robert's Rules that can prevent this?

You should check your bylaws to see what role, if any, your board plays in the annual elections. Ideally, it would play no role at all.

If all else fails, don't vote for incumbents.

[Josh Martin]

Is there anything in Robert's Rules that can prevent this?

I would check your Bylaws to see if the board has the authority to create an elections committee for an election of the general membership at all.The board only has such power as the Bylaws provide, and it seems unlikely that the board has the power to create a committee relating to an election conducted by the general membership. What is this "elections committee" supposed to do anyway? The term is not found in RONR.

[David A Foulkes]

Lately we've been hearing about a number of boards that are misbehaving, ignoring the rules (RONR & bylaws) and grabbing for power at every chance they get. If yours isn't one of them (although it sounds suspicious so far), the elections should allow for nominations from the floor at the time, and you (and any other concerned members) can always vote for someone else you feel has your organization's best interests at heart. If "many of the voting members" means a majority, you can have yourself a new board. Might want to think of throwing your name in as well. Although the most appropriate way is to have another member nominate you, nothing in RONR prevents you from nominating yourself.

Also, the most likely process here is that the general membership votes at a general membership meeting, usually the Annual meeting. At any general membership meeting, the Board is not present in that capacity. They only exist as such at Board meetings. While the members of your Board may be in attendance, they are there as general members, not Board members (officers, directors, etc), and have no authority as such. The President may be presiding, and the Secretary may be taking minutes notes, but they are still only general members at the time. Your rules may vary, of course, but it would be highly irregular.

Best of luck!

[Guest akh720]

Thanks for the responses.

To clarify a bit, our group's bylaws do not say much about the elections process. In fact, all it says is that board members are elected to the board by a vote of the volunteers. A verbal or written nomination is required and the nominated member must accept the nomination. Votes are cast and the majority rules. One other thing that the bylaws states is that the annual board elections are to take place at our annual appreciation luncheon held every January. That is clearly what is not taking place. Voting is occurring BEFORE the annual appreciation lunch and the results are announced at the luncheon.

The elections committee that was created this year by the board is made up of a majority of the current board members. Most of them are running for office again. And a few of them are even presiding over the election itself such as monitoring the voting (votes are cast electronically). The committee also granted itself power to ratify the nominations even though the bylaws do not allow for this (we were told that RONR allows for this). And in the ratification process, they did not allow one nominated person to run for office. This happens to be a person that they consider a problem but it is really just a dislike of the person. Also, voting is supposed to include an option for write ins but the ballot does not include a write in option. And we are supposed to be able to view our ballot anytime and makes changes if we want until voting closed but this option was taken away by the administrator (one of the current board members) before voting closed.

The current board tends to revert to RONR when it benefits them, as the bylaws as written cannot stand on their own. It should be clear by now that there is a division in this group and the "bullies" on the board are trying to have "supreme power." (my opinion of course) There have been other areas in which the bylaws have been broken by the board, but right now we are just concerned about the election.

What recourse do we have, as voting members, to declare this election null and void?? Or do we?

Thanks in advance for your time!

[hmtcastle]

Voting is occurring BEFORE the annual appreciation lunch and the results are announced at the luncheon.

Just where is this pre-luncheon voting taking place?

Per RONR, voting (and darn near everything else) takes place at meetings. So lets first assume that this annual luncheon is an annual meeting. And that it's an annual meeting of the general membership (i.e. the association) and not a meeting of the board.

Good news (as one of our regulars likes to say). The board won't be there. The board can only act as a board at board meetings. All you'll have at the annual meeting are individual board members who enjoy no special status. They're just members like the rest of you, putting on their pants . . .

Well, I digress.

Tell the board (which, remember, won't be there) to keep its collective nose out of the election. Unless, of course, your bylaws say otherwise.

And I hope it goes without saying that none of the incumbent board members should be re-elected. Don't reward bad behavior.

Note: I now see that I've re-stated most of what Mr. Foulkes had already said. But I think it bears repeating.

[Guest akh720]

H Wm Mountcastle, thanks for replying. First of all, the bylaws are being broken by the board. The bylaws state that the election is to take place at the annual luncheon. BUT.....the elections have taken place prior to the luncheon via an online ballot that voting members were sent info on. So.....the election results are going to be announced at the luncheon. They kind of make up their own rules as they go along! (the board, that is).

And it bears repeating that the online elections are being monitored by a few of the current board members who are also running for reelection. AND....we have no idea who qualified to be voting members. Other than those we know and talk to, we have no idea who the other voters might be or how many there are (the board won't give us that info).

If this isn't an example of the fox guarding the hen house, I don't know what is. What recourse do we have? Any idea?

[robert conway]

Lately we've been hearing about a number of boards that are misbehaving, ignoring the rules (RONR & bylaws) and grabbing for power at every chance they get. If yours isn't one of them (although it sounds suspicious so far), the elections should allow for nominations from the floor at the time, and you (and any other concerned members) can always vote for someone else you feel has your organization's best interests at heart. If "many of the voting members" means a majority, you can have yourself a new board. Might want to think of throwing your name in as well. Although the most appropriate way is to have another member nominate you, nothing in RONR prevents you from nominating yourself.

Also, the most likely process here is that the general membership votes at a general membership meeting, usually the Annual meeting. At any general membership meeting, the Board is not present in that capacity. They only exist as such at Board meetings. While the members of your Board may be in attendance, they are there as general members, not Board members (officers, directors, etc), and have no authority as such. The President may be presiding, and the Secretary may be taking minutes notes, but they are still only general members at the time. Your rules may vary, of course, but it would be highly irregular.

Best of luck!

[robert conway]

I agree and unfortunatley it might be a Lawyers field day?year. To get many dysfunctional associations on their feet.

[Guest akh720]

Marly, with all due respect, David Foulkes has great points but it doesn't answer my primary question. This election is obviously tainted. The results cannot be relied upon because:

1) An elections committee was created by the board without authorization

2) The elections committee consists of current board members

3) The elections committee consists of board members who are running for reelection

4) The board members monitoring the elections results are current board members running for reelection

5) The elections process violates the group's bylaws, as the election is supposed to take place at the luncheon, NOT via online voting.

Yeah, we can certainly vote them out of office, but how do we know that all the votes will be counted? We don't! We don't even know who all the voters are! These are the problems. Most of us trust several of the current board members about as far as we can throw them.

How can we declare this election null and void? This whole thing is SOOOO 3rd world country.......

[hmtcastle]

How can we declare this election null and void?

Raise a point of order at the next meeting. The chair will rule on the point of order (presumably that it is not well taken). Appeal the ruling of the chair and, if the numbers are on your side, the ruling won't be sustained.

[Josh Martin]

How can we declare this election null and void?

Raise a Point of Order that online voting is not authorized in your Bylaws and the election is therefore null and void. If the chair rules your point not well taken (which seems likely), Appeal from the decision of the chair. A majority vote is sufficient to overturn the ruling of the chair.

[robert conway]

Marly, with all due respect, David Foulkes has great points but it doesn't answer my primary question. This election is obviously tainted. The results cannot be relied upon because:

1) An elections committee was created by the board without authorization

2) The elections committee consists of current board members

3) The elections committee consists of board members who are running for reelection

4) The board members monitoring the elections results are current board members running for reelection

5) The elections process violates the group's bylaws, as the election is supposed to take place at the luncheon, NOT via online voting.

Yeah, we can certainly vote them out of office, but how do we know that all the votes will be counted? We don't! We don't even know who all the voters are! These are the problems. Most of us trust several of the current board members about as far as we can throw them.

How can we declare this election null and void? This whole thing is SOOOO 3rd world country.......

[robert conway]

I don't see who would respond to a Point of Order.

Nothing in this post is in order.

On line voting?

Board runs this ...Board runs that?

No RONR in bylaws or are bylaws just being written or have they been voted on with RONR as governing authority.

"Yeah, we can vote them out". But don't know if all the votes would be counted?

Sorry, you need Lawyer.

[hmtcastle]

Sorry, you need Lawyer.

And you don't need to quote previous posts without adding to them, followed by a second post (e.g. posts #8 and #9, and posts #13 and #14). You can preview your posts and edit them after you've posted so that the relevant quote and your reply are included in the same post.

[robert conway]

And you don't need to quote previous posts without adding to them, followed by a second post (e.g. posts #8 and #9, and posts #13 and #14). You can preview your posts and edit them after you've posted so that the relevant quote and your reply are included in the same post.

Thank you.

How this working.

[hmtcastle]

How this working.

Looks good.

[Josh Martin]

I don't see who would respond to a Point of Order.

The chairman responds to the Point of Order.

Nothing in this post is in order.

On line voting?

Board runs this ...Board runs that?

The online voting would be the best issue to raise a Point of Order on because it is the only violation egregious enough to cause a continuing breach regarding the election.

No RONR in bylaws or are bylaws just being written or have they been voted on with RONR as governing authority.

[/qupte]

Well, we generally assume that posters here are asking about assemblies which have adopted RONR as their parliamentary authority since this is a RONR forum. Even if the assembly has no parliamentary authority, RONR is one of the leading authorities on the common parliamentary law, which the assembly would be bound by.

[robert conway]

The chairman responds to the Point of Order.

The online voting would be the best issue to raise a Point of Order on because it is the only violation egregious enough to cause a continuing breach regarding the election.

No RONR in bylaws or are bylaws just being written or have they been voted on with RONR as governing authority.

[/qupte]

Well, we generally assume that posters here are asking about assemblies which have adopted RONR as their parliamentary authority since this is a RONR forum. Even if the assembly has no parliamentary authority, RONR is one of the leading authorities on the common parliamentary law, which the assembly would be bound by.

I disagree there are knock off parliamentary books, that could be adopted by a board that does not like RONR.

To generally assume assemblies have adopted RONR?

If bylaws state Websters...what ever parliamentary law not RONR. The common parliamentary law RONR is lost, by that assembly and "BOUND BY", would be their choice of "Websters....what ever".

Forums attract assemblies that are looking for a parliamentary base to start there ventures.

We all need RONR (the right book) in proceedings of infant societies, associations.

[Josh Martin]

I disagree there are knock off parliamentary books, that could be adopted by a board that does not like RONR.

Unless you are referring to a stand-alone board, that is not correct. A subordinate board does not have the authority to adopt a parliamentary authority for the society. As for the general membership adopting something else because it "does not like RONR," I would hope that the society would adopt one of the other legitimate parliamentary authorities in use rather than a cheap knockoff of RONR, although the latter does happen more often than I would like.

To generally assume assemblies have adopted RONR?

Considering that this forum is about Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 10th edition, I think it is fairly reasonable to assume that the poster's society has adopted RONR or at least considers it highly persuasive, or else it begs the question of why they're posting here. On the rare occasions that a society has adopted some other parliamentary authority (or a knockoff or third-party guide) the posters are usually quite upfront about that.

If bylaws state Websters...what ever parliamentary law not RONR. The common parliamentary law RONR is lost, by that assembly and "BOUND BY", would be their choice of "Websters....what ever".

I pity any society which has adopted Webster's as its parliamentary authority. What I said, however, is that a society which has not adopted any parliamentary authority is bound by the common parliamentary law. If they've adopted some other parliamentary authority (or a cheap knockoff or third-party guide), they are indeed bound by it, and they are beyond the help of this forum (other than to steer them toward The Right Book).

Forums attract assemblies that are looking for a parliamentary base to start there ventures.

Again, assemblies which are just starting out are usually quite upfront about this. The post usually starts with "We have no Bylaws" or something along those lines.

We all need RONR (the right book) in proceedings of infant societies, associations.

I appreciate the endorsement of The Right Book, but there is nothing in this post to suggest that akh's association is an "infant society" or that it has not adopted RONR as its parliamentary authority.

[David A Foulkes]

.......(we were told that RONR allows for this)........

And I believe here is the crux of your problem. Clearly you (and I group all your disenfranchised members in here) can only know so much about RONR or bylaws or parliamentary law. And it is quite understandable to accept the direction of your "leaders", as you expect they know more. We face that all are lives, with what are parents tell us a young children, right up to what our doctor tells us. But when the doctor tells us something we don't like, we get a second opinion, and so, here you are. And we hope to hear from you.

The solution to your situation may not come in time for this election to be resolved to your satisfaction, but you have to get started on it now. If you have not done so yet, get your hands on RONR (10th Ed.) as well as RONR-In Brief. Learn as much and as best as possible the intricacies of parliamentary law as explained there. Know your bylaws, inside and out. Educate the masses who, like you, feel run-over by this gang of bullies. With enough votes, and the proper steps to take in your tool box, you should be able to send a clear message to your Board and rein them in. Generally, in the case of a typical organization, it's "mob rule", which is to say that the general membership has - or at least should retain - authority over the Board. It may require amending your bylaws to remove any sections that work against this.

You'll need at least a majority of the members, and perhaps at times 2/3 of them, to accomplish your goal. Certain steps, such as raising a Point Of Order and a subsequent (and likely needed) Appeal only work if the Chair plays by the rules. And I'd tell you that, in my opinion, if you follow these steps because the Chair is violating your bylaws and generally applicable parliamentary law (even RONR), he's likely going to ignore this approach as well, perhaps even ruling you "out of order" and having you ejected from the meeting as a way of retaining his dictatorial authority. But you've got to start somewhere.

Take back your organization. Or find another one to join instead.

Best of luck.