I am a very active member of a local club which functions under a set of bylaws. Our initial president's term has expired (three years). At last Saturday's meeting, elections were held. The Nominating Committee presented one candidate (without Executive Committee approval). A motion was made to accept the candidate and approved. A call for nominations from the floor was made. There were no additional nominations. The candidate the Nominating Committee selected was elected.

Here's the problem: Our bylaws require that the Nominating Committee be comprised of no fewer than three members and no more than five members. This committee was comprised of only two members. Is this election null and void? - Anon., Sep. 17, 1999

A: Ideally, before the election, a member would rise to a Point of Order, noting the violation of the bylaws. The third member of the committee would be appointed or elected, the meeting would recess while the committee met, then the meeting would continue with the committee's report.

It's too late for this. Usually violations of the rules must be objected to by a Point of Order promptly. For example, if the presiding officer states a motion that is out of order at the time, the Point of Order must be made immediately. If the Point isn't made promptly, it's no longer germane.

On the other hand, if the breach is of a continuing nature, the Point of Order can be made at any time and, if sustained, the offending action is nullified. An example of this might be if a motion was adopted that violated a law. Even years later, a Point could be raised and sustained that cancels the vote on the old motion. See RONR p. 251.

So the question is whether this case fits the rule or the exception.

The most imporant question I'd ask myself is whether anyone's rights were violated. It would seem not.

Nominations from the floor could fix any lack of consideration the committee may have experienced due to its reduced size. Committee sizes are usually specified because it's been found that certain sizes work well. A minimum size spreads the workload and may get a more diverse set of opinions; a maximum size makes meetings manageable. But committees of a size outside the limits can still function.

So, I would suggest to the chair that a Point of Order at this time should be "not well taken" (rejected). (See sections 23 (Point of Order) and 24 (Appeal) in RONR.)