Election fails! What now?

Dec 16 16:30 UTC 1994

So what happens now?  I guess the Board of Directors election just held
was declared invalid because a quorum was not reached.  To my knowledge,
this situation is not covered in the bi-laws (or by-lawss however that's
spelled)  Obviously, we need to run another board election.  Do we start
all the way over with new nominations, or would we proceed directly to the
election with the candidates who were nominated for the last election? 
When will this be held?

response 2 of 54:

Dec 16 20:43 UTC 1994

The current slate of candidates were unable to achieve election.  I'd
say we are bound to start with new nominations (not that the previous
candidates were in anyway unsuitable, nor should they be barred from
further nomination).  Since we have a new issue to discuss (change in
by-laws to remove the board election quorum requirement), I'd also like
to see if anyone else wants nomination.  We can use some new views.

response 4 of 54:

Dec 16 23:06 UTC 1994

I'd just as soon stick with the same candidates, to avoid having to waste
time.  We are, after all, holding the election for the same set of board
seats.

response 6 of 54:

Dec 17 00:11 UTC 1994

Absolutely.  Technically, this is a completely different election,
which just happens to be trying to fill the same posts as the
last election attempt.

I intend to run in the next election.

response 8 of 54:

Dec 17 02:03 UTC 1994

Ajax says he apologizes for not voting.  He says he forgot.

response 10 of 54:

Dec 17 02:53 UTC 1994

The bylaws are utterly clueless as to what to do when a board election
fails to be valid. How do we know whether it is more legal for board
members whose terms were set to expire to be allowed to continue to serve
until a valid election can be held, or whether it is more legal for
us to hold a new election ASAP and until a valid election has been
held operate without enough board members for a quorum, so that in effect we
have no board at all?

If the two possibilities above are equally legal, then it makes more sense
to me to operate with a board that can function than to operate with a 
board that cannot. Keep in mind that I am one of the board members whose
term is set to expire.

Are there any legal opinions out there?

response 12 of 54:

Dec 17 04:50 UTC 1994

I'd say you keep running elections until you have a board of directors.
In the meantime, a board without a quorum is unauthorized to 
pass motions in conference.  This continues until there is a big
enough crisis (lawsuit, loss of equipment, something....) to get the
membership mobilized enough to elect enough board members to transact
business.  Board members with time remaining on their terms may continue
to hold monthly board meetings, but may not make any decisions requiring
a vote (assuming no quorum).  That is, the board may continue to discuss.
Board officers may continue in their duties (the treasurer can pay the
bills, for example, assuming the treasurer's term is not up, or that a
treasurer may be appointed without a vote of the board).  Et cetera.
  If a board member's term is "up" they are no longer on the board.
You need to be elected to be on the board (I'm assuming), so a board
seat can't be filled by appointment while waiting for an election.
  The situation sucks, but that's the way it is.  We're doing what we
are supposed to be doing:  re-evaluating the by-laws, proposing changes
in by-laws to get us out of this mess, and talking about running a new
election for board members.  To get the changes in by-laws we need to
prevent this situation from happening again, however, we will be right
up against the same quorum requirement that invalidated the last election.
So far, the assumption seems to be that *this* is enough of a crisis to
bring out the vote...I'm not sure that is correct.  

response 14 of 54:

Dec 17 11:22 UTC 1994

One more time.  Slowly this time.

   1.  The Board should immediately hold an emergency meeting voting to allow
       anyone donating money equal to membership dues the same Internet perks
       as members.

   2.  Contact all 80 members, pronto, explaining our predicament and
       asking permission for us to bump them to "donator with perks"
       status if they really don't care to be involved with
       the decision making and voting.

   3.  Now, armed with a new list of members, hold your election.

   4.  Then, and only then, in a calm and deliberate fashion,  go
       about making changes to the bylaws.  By then you should also
       be able to muster enough votes to do so.

response 16 of 54:

Dec 17 14:47 UTC 1994

Speaking of ideas, here's another one, though probably not a particularly
good one:

Would it make sense to count the ballots and see if there's such a clear
set of results that the missing 12 votes wouldn't have made any difference
anyway?

response 18 of 54:

Dec 17 16:10 UTC 1994

Is it up to the Board to decide who has voting status?  Or is that in
the by-laws?

response 20 of 54:

Dec 17 16:46 UTC 1994

        I think if the current (outgoing) Board acts in good faith to resolve
the present crisis, few if any Grex members are going to complain.
There's a mess, someone's got to solve it, and there's no one but the
Board (Board-in-exile? (-:  ) to do the job.

response 22 of 54:

Dec 17 18:22 UTC 1994

Re: 15  Gotcha.

response 24 of 54:

Dec 17 23:18 UTC 1994

        A year ago it didn't seem possible that a 2/3 quorum wouldn't be
reached, but Grex grew a lot and the new members surprised everyone when
not enough of them voted.  I guessed 2 years ago that that might happen.
Not that I'm a bit happy that I was right... but it would be foolish to
make the same mistake again, just with lower quotas.  Make the cut-off
10%, and some day there might be 5000 members, with only 200 voters.