Invalid Elections

[Guest Karl]

Hi, I will try to make this brief and would appreciate insight into the matter as soon as possible. Please understand that I will have to leave out certain minute details as we by nature have things which I cannot disclose.

I am a member of a fraternity. My chapter holds weekly meetings. My fraternity requires, in its governing laws, that every chapter have bylaws. As such, my chapter does. One of our bylaws is, "Newly initiated brothers will not be given a vote until the meet the _________ requirements prescribed by__________. A grace period of 30 days exists in order to allow compliance with this provision."

In this past weeks meeting, which was actually 60 days after they had been initiated, the President (Chair of the meeting) said that all brothers would be allowed to vote in chapter awards and the election of an important chapter office. When the objection was raised that this directly contradicts our bylaws, the Chair claimed that as Chair he had the ability to decide. He has now, after issue has been taken with this, also argued that it is tradition within the chapter, even though last year newly initiated brothers who had not met the requirements were not allowed to vote (brothers are initiated and these awards/position are elected at the same times each year). To clarify, the brother's who had not met the requirements long after the grace period had expired were all allowed to vote.

Also, there is a formal process laid out in our bylaws for amending them, and obviously this process has not been followed here.

The reason I am posting it here is that it says in our bylaws, "All regular chapter meetings shall be conducted according to the provisions of Division 1 in the _____________. Procedures not covered in the ___________shall be conducted according to Robert’s Rules of Order." I couldn't find anything in what it is that I blanked out which would help with this matter, nor can I find anything in Robert's Rules which supports the position held by our Chair.

Is there anything in Robert's Rules which would support the position of the Chair, or support my position that the elections were illegal?

[Josh Martin]

Is there anything in Robert's Rules which would support the position of the Chair, or support my position that the elections were illegal?

There's several sections you should review in RONR:

• Since this is ultimately a question of interpreting your Bylaws, see RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 570-573 for some Principles of Interpretation.
• I'm not sure what the chair meant that "he had the ability to decide." If he meant he could simply ignore your Bylaws, that's obviously incorrect. Rules in the Bylaws may not be suspended unless they are in the nature of rules of order (this one isn't) and the rules may not be suspended to grant voting rights to a non-member (there's no such thing as a "non-voting member" in RONR, but I believe the principles are the same). See RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 254-256 on "Rules that Cannot be Suspended."
• If the chair meant that it is his role to interpret the Bylaws, he's partially correct. It is the chair's job to interpret the assembly's rules, but he doesn't get the final say. If you feel there is a violation of the rules you should raise a Point of Order and if you feel the chair rules incorrectly you may Appeal from his decision. A majority vote overturns the chair's ruling. See RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 240-252 for more information on both motions.
• Now, it is certainly out of order to allow non-members to vote (again, same principle should apply to non-voting members). Whether this means the elections are null and void depends on whether their votes could have affected the result. See RONR, 10th ed., pg. 402 (last paragraph).
• If the election is null and void, a Point of Order may be raised after the fact. See RONR, 10th ed., pg. 244.
• Tradition falls to the ground if it conflicts with written rules. See RONR, 10th ed., pg. 17 (first full paragraph).

Good luck!

[Guest Karl]

There's several sections you should review in RONR:

• Since this is ultimately a question of interpreting your Bylaws, see RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 570-573 for some Principles of Interpretation.
• I'm not sure what the chair meant that "he had the ability to decide." If he meant he could simply ignore your Bylaws, that's obviously incorrect. Rules in the Bylaws may not be suspended unless they are in the nature of rules of order (this one isn't) and the rules may not be suspended to grant voting rights to a non-member (there's no such thing as a "non-voting member" in RONR, but I believe the principles are the same). See RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 254-256 on "Rules that Cannot be Suspended."
• If the chair meant that it is his role to interpret the Bylaws, he's partially correct. It is the chair's job to interpret the assembly's rules, but he doesn't get the final say. If you feel there is a violation of the rules you should raise a Point of Order and if you feel the chair rules incorrectly you may Appeal from his decision. A majority vote overturns the chair's ruling. See RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 240-252 for more information on both motions.
• Now, it is certainly out of order to allow non-members to vote (again, same principle should apply to non-voting members). Whether this means the elections are null and void depends on whether their votes could have affected the result. See RONR, 10th ed., pg. 402 (last paragraph).
• If the election is null and void, a Point of Order may be raised after the fact. See RONR, 10th ed., pg. 244.
• Tradition falls to the ground if it conflicts with written rules. See RONR, 10th ed., pg. 17 (first full paragraph).

Good luck!

Hey Josh,

I greatly appreciate you getting back to me.

The site I've been using to look into this matter, as to what Robert's Rule's says, is http://www.robertsrules.org/rror--00.htm , but I will try to get my hands on a copy of the New Revised 10th edition.

As to what the chair meant when he said "he had the ability to decide", he meant that he could decide to disregard the bylaws. It was definitely not about him deciding how to interpret the bylaws. My research using the site above seems to also show I should use the Point of Order and if he rejects it then an Appeal of his decision.

Thanks again for helping Josh!

[Gary Novosielski]

Hey Josh,

I greatly appreciate you getting back to me.

The site I've been using to look into this matter, as to what Robert's Rule's says, is http://www.robertsru...rg/rror--00.htm , but I will try to get my hands on a copy of the New Revised 10th edition.

As to what the chair meant when he said "he had the ability to decide", he meant that he could decide to disregard the bylaws. It was definitely not about him deciding how to interpret the bylaws. My research using the site above seems to also show I should use the Point of Order and if he rejects it then an Appeal of his decision.

Thanks again for helping Josh!

Well, that site will tell you what Robert's Rules said in 1915. To find out what Robert's Rules said in 2000, begin by clicking here.

[hmtcastle]

As to what the chair meant when he said "he had the ability to decide", he meant that he could decide to disregard the bylaws.

Was there really anyone in your fraternity that thinks that passed the smell test? See FAQ #20 if you think it's time for a new president.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

...

the President (Chair of the meeting) said that all brothers would be allowed to vote in chapter awards and the election of an important chapter office.

When the objection was raised that this directly contradicts our bylaws, the Chair claimed that as Chair he had the ability to decide.

He has now, after issue has been taken with this, also argued that it is tradition within the chapter, even though last year newly initiated brothers who had not met the requirements were not allowed to vote (brothers are initiated and these awards/position are elected at the same times each year).

...

Also, there is a formal process laid out in our bylaws for amending them, and obviously this process has not been followed here.

...

Is there anything in Robert's Rules which would support the position of the Chair,

or support my position that the elections were illegal?

"Is there anything in Robert's Rules which would support the position of the Chair?"

No.

Chairs do not have such power under Robert's Rules of Order.

"Is there anything in Robert's Rules which would support my position that the elections were illegal?"

The elections were not necessarily illegal.

• Merely "not following the bylaws" does not turn an election into an illegal election.

• Merely having "ineligible people vote" may or may not turn an election into an a null and void election.

The things which turn an election from "proper" to "improper" are things you failed to mention.

Thus, there is not enough information to make this determination.

[Rob Elsman]

I do not understand why the president "...said that all brothers would be allowed to vote in chapter awards and the election of an important chapter office." Did he state this as his own opinion in response to a Parliamentary Inquiry? Or, was it a ruling of the chair made in response to a Point of Order? If neither of these, I would opine that the president should have kept his mouth tightly shut.