Trina Posted February 17, 2012 at 12:22 PM Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 at 12:22 PM I acknowledge that RONR disagrees with my answer but I still disagree on principle. I find it pretty disconcerting that if someone had raised a Point of Order five seconds after the Chair had announced that D had won that we would have went from E winning the seat to D's election being null and void and having another ballot to complete the election. So while RONR says E would get the 4th seat this is a situation where what RONR p. 456 ll. 13-18 says should be taken into account in order to accurately reflect the will of the assembly.The difference is that I think that "if someone had raised a Point of Order five seconds after the Chair had announced that D had won", the point of order would be upheld, negating the chair's previous declaration, and the chair would then declare E elected.If the point of order about D's ineligibility were raised not five seconds after the announcement of results, but, rather, a month later at the next meeting, should E still be declared elected after the point of order is upheld? How about six months later? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted February 17, 2012 at 12:33 PM Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 at 12:33 PM If the point of order about D's ineligibility were raised not five seconds after the announcement of results, but, rather, a month later at the next meeting, should E still be declared elected after the point of order is upheld? How about six months later?How about we answer the pending question first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted February 17, 2012 at 12:50 PM Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 at 12:50 PM How about we answer the pending question first?I think my question is related. If the answer is 'no' a month later, exploration of when the situation changes (sometime between five seconds later and one month later) might throw some light on the pending question... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted February 17, 2012 at 02:22 PM Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 at 02:22 PM I think my question is related. If the answer is 'no' a month later, exploration of when the situation changes (sometime between five seconds later and one month later) might throw some light on the pending question...Yes, the questions are related (cousins, maybe ), but changed facts bring into play the application of other rules.If the chair declares an ineligible person elected to office, a point of order concerning the matter may be raised at any time during the continuance of the breach, but if the chair erroneously fails to declare a candidate elected who was, in fact, elected, a point of order concerning the matter will have to be raised promptly at the time the breach occurs. When he makes both errors at the same time, the applicable timeliness requirements may prevent the raising of a point of order as to one of them but not the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted February 17, 2012 at 04:12 PM Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 at 04:12 PM Out on the limb I go..... and I'm going to ruminate here, as is my wont.If all of D's votes had been write-in votes, I can't imagine there would be any question about the illegality of those votes as long as D's ineligibility had been disclosed prior to the chair announcing the results. When writing in for a candidate, the responsibility for knowing of the eligibility of that candidate must fall on the member.While RONR of course recognizes illegal votes for ineligible candidates, there are several phrases in the text along the lines of members being allowed to vote for eligible persons. (p. 431 ll.1-6; p.439 ll. 22-23, for examples) Obviously, the expectation is that members will vote for eligible persons and not "waste" their vote on ineligible persons. But that's always a possibility, people being people, and RONR offers no restriction to doing so.RONR also notes (p. 431 ll. 5-6) that, strictly speaking, in a ballot election nominations are not necessary. It goes on to say that while write-ins are possible, "under normal conditions it is likely that most members will confine their choice to the nominees" on the ballot. This seems a stab at deciphering social behavior, which may be accurate, but is certainly not a restriction or requirement on the member's part. Between write-in votes (for eligible and ineligible candidates) and abstentions, members always retain the right to do as they please in casting their vote regardless of what the ballot includes.In the pages covering the Nominating Committe (which I'll assume was involved since there is a pre-printed ballot), there is nothing that requires the committee to vet each candidate for eligibility. Yeah yeah, you'd think they would. But nothing in RONR in that section mandates it. So, the oops factor slips in and there you are with Mr. D on the ballot.So, whether it is the responsibility of the membership to be alert to the ineligibility of candidates (for whatever reason), or whether there is some unfortunate oversight on someone's part in placing an ineligible candidate on the ballot, it doesn't seem that any parliamentary rule or procedure has been violated. It's unfortunate that D was nominated, and placed on the ballot improperly, but had he received no votes at all, I can't imagine a Point of Order could have been raised in that regard since (in that situation) there was no other effect on the results of the voting.Had D not been placed on the ballot, members could have assumed he was eligible (for lack of any knowledge on his reaching the term-limit), and it would be a case of tough luck for those voters who wrote him in.As to JJ's previous post (#41) in which he wrote: "I don't believe that the tellers would, ultimately, have the authority to determine eligibility", the sample tellers' report provided on page 417 clearly indicates the tellers had determined that Mr. Friend was ineligible prior to (we assume) any Point of Order or ruling by the Chair on his eligibility. It seems the tellers knew (and we don't know what his ineligibility was, or how the tellers might have known), but they have made that determination on their own before the chair is handed the report.In conclusion (never thought I'd get here, huh?), I'll concur with those who say E is elected, and the election is complete (assuming all winners are present and don't decline, or have consented in advance, of course).Okay..... have at me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted February 18, 2012 at 12:35 AM Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 at 12:35 AM As to JJ's previous post (#41) in which he wrote: "I don't believe that the tellers would, ultimately, have the authority to determine eligibility", the sample tellers' report provided on page 417 clearly indicates the tellers had determined that Mr. Friend was ineligible prior to (we assume) any Point of Order or ruling by the Chair on his eligibility. It seems the tellers knew (and we don't know what his ineligibility was, or how the tellers might have known), but they have made that determination on their own before the chair is handed the report.No it doesn't. The tellers have not ultimately determined that Mr. Friend is ineligible. The chair could rule that in announcing the result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted February 18, 2012 at 12:40 AM Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 at 12:40 AM No it doesn't. The tellers have not ultimately determined that Mr. Friend is ineligible. The chair could rule that in announcing the result. Yes, a good point. Preliminarily they have made that determination, but indeed that itself does not make Mr. Friend ineligible, ultimately. Thanks for pointing out that error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted February 18, 2012 at 04:15 AM Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 at 04:15 AM Yes, a good point. Preliminarily they have made that determination, but indeed that itself does not make Mr. Friend ineligible, ultimately. Thanks for pointing out that error.The ultimately was in there for that purpose. I don't believe that, even in absolutely clear cases, the tellers' committee could make that determination finally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted February 18, 2012 at 02:29 PM Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 at 02:29 PM Yes, the questions are related (cousins, maybe ), but changed facts bring into play the application of other rules.If the chair declares an ineligible person elected to office, a point of order concerning the matter may be raised at any time during the continuance of the breach, but if the chair erroneously fails to declare a candidate elected who was, in fact, elected, a point of order concerning the matter will have to be raised promptly at the time the breach occurs. When he makes both errors at the same time, the applicable timeliness requirements may prevent the raising of a point of order as to one of them but not the other.Thanks for answering my question. I hadn't recognized the two separate errors. They're not entirely independent errors, though -- if the chair makes the first error (declaring D elected), he pretty much automatically has to make the second error (failing to declare E elected), since there are no more open positions to be filled after the election of D is announced. If he doesn't make the first error (i.e. he recognizes that D is ineligible), he still might make the second (failing to declare E elected).In your original post:Upon receiving the report of the tellers, which does not reflect the fact that the votes cast for D were illegal votes, what should the chair do?Is 'should' to be interpreted strictly in terms of the application of the rules in RONR? In other words is the chair an automaton with perfect comprehension of the rules? Or does 'should' include any aspect of what 'should' be done to arrive at a fair outcome? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted February 18, 2012 at 02:45 PM Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 at 02:45 PM In your original post:Is 'should' to be interpreted strictly in terms of the application of the rules in RONR? In other words is the chair an automaton with perfect comprehension of the rules? Or does 'should' include any aspect of what 'should' be done to arrive at a fair outcome?What the chair "should" do is to learn and enforce the rules which the assembly has adopted for the governance of its proceedings. Doing so doesn't turn him into an automaton; it is, in fact, the only way in which he can be fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted February 18, 2012 at 02:51 PM Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 at 02:51 PM What the chair "should" do is to learn and enforce the rules which the assembly has adopted for the governance of its proceedings. Doing so doesn't turn him into an automaton; it is, in fact, the only way in which he can be fair.I didn't really mean 'automaton' in a pejorative way, just that the automaton would have perfect knowledge of the rules, and no temptation to stray away from them.However, I think my underlying question was basically a foolish one -- I was thinking along the lines of the chair knowingly turning a somewhat blind eye to the rules in the pursuit of fairness. Not very helpful in a discussion of how the rules apply to the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kim Goldsworthy Posted February 21, 2012 at 02:18 AM Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 at 02:18 AM Two points.Those who voted for Mr. Ineligble are out of luck.Whether he is dead or ineligile, the votes cast for him are illegal, and a new calculation of "votes necessary to elect" will be necessary.The cleanest order is: the chair announces the report (because he cannot edit a teller's report), and immediately informs the assembly of the illegal ballots, and so a calculation will be necessary to see who won.If he can calulate this in his head, that's fine. (I wouldn't take this on, I'd rather have the same commitee do its job.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lages Posted February 21, 2012 at 03:31 AM Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 at 03:31 AM I'm not sure I understand why any recalculation would be necessary. RONR states that illegal votes count as votes cast but are not credited to any candidate (or choice). Thus the illegal votes remain as part of the total votes cast, and if they're not credited to any candidate, the vote totals for all other candidates won't change. The only 'calculation' that I see would be to determine whether any of the remaining eligible candidates received a majority of the votes cast, and if the tellers' report is done according to RONR, that magic number should be right there. No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted February 22, 2012 at 11:31 AM Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 at 11:31 AM I'm not sure I understand why any recalculation would be necessary. RONR states that illegal votes count as votes cast but are not credited to any candidate (or choice). Thus the illegal votes remain as part of the total votes cast, and if they're not credited to any candidate, the vote totals for all other candidates won't change. The only 'calculation' that I see would be to determine whether any of the remaining eligible candidates received a majority of the votes cast, and if the tellers' report is done according to RONR, that magic number should be right there. No?Oh!Good point.The votes cast, whether legal or illegal, were count-able in both cases.The calculated number itself won't change.Only the sub-tally "illegal ballots" will change (increase).My error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted February 23, 2012 at 07:17 AM Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 at 07:17 AM However, I think my underlying question was basically a foolish one Let me do a little housecleaning: Can we agree that it's idiotic to suggest that anything Trina says is foolish, and move on? Let us eschew such ad hominem disputes.-- I was thinking along the lines of the chair knowingly turning a somewhat blind eye to the rules in the pursuit of fairness. Not very helpful in a discussion of how the rules apply to the situation.I don't think we're dealing with turning a blind eye; the issue is whether any possible disenfranchisement of the voters, here, is severe enough to challenge the legitimacy of the election.Now, this is what I understand was said (and so please, nobody whack me for misquoting or misrepresenting what they said. I don't mean ever, just right now. Say from 1:48 when I've started typing to 3 AM EST when maybe I will be sleeping on the keyboard).Shmuel said that fairness would dictate throwing out the results and doing a new election. (He wasn't the only one, by that point; cf. Chris H's posts back in the single digits.)Dan said something that Trina saw and I didn't (Dan, please consider just editing to say you don't like it. Or pour Pepsi on your keyboard). Then, after an exchange, Dan said he's not sure he can say Shmuel is wrong.Then we got distracted with JJ vs. DAF on a minor point ("ultimately"), losing track entirely of David's excellent points.And distracted with Trina disrespecting Trina, which Trina, please stop it! That's ridiculous! And disrespectful!And distracted with Trina's "cousin" (DHH) scenario, which I'll admit I, either, didn't perceive as muddying the parliamentary issues until Dan pointed them out. But they are still not resolved, or even, mostly, addressed.(And distracted with Kim popping back up after taking off to exert his magnificent California mind powers on whatever he did, like maybe extirpating the Taliban from Rosemont and Sheepshead Bay.)I propose that where we are, still, is, what do we do with D's votes? I think that Shmuel's proposal to throw out the election depends on a determination that D's votes are sufficiently unfair as to be invalid. I think Dan disagrees, but is too scared of Shmuel's magnificent New York mental mind powers to commit himself to crossing him.Can we agree that if we don't invalidate the votes for D, then there is no question that E should be the winner, notwithstanding that complications may complicate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted February 23, 2012 at 11:00 AM Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 at 11:00 AM Can we agree that if we don't invalidate the votes for D, then there is no question that E should be the winner, notwithstanding that complications may complicate?Might be too early for me (I'm only on my third cup anyway), and Gary I realize you've been asleep on your keyboard for a couple hours now, but I'm unclear on this part. If we don't invalidate the votes for D (judge them illegal), doesn't that make them ........valid (legal votes)? And since D received more votes than E, how would E be the winner? I keep reading it over and I'm sure it's me (it so often is), but I'm still struggling. Wake Up! Explain this to me. Please and thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted February 23, 2012 at 01:02 PM Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 at 01:02 PM I propose that where we are, still, is, what do we do with D's votes? I think that Shmuel's proposal to throw out the election depends on a determination that D's votes are sufficiently unfair as to be invalid. I think Dan disagrees, but is too scared of Shmuel's magnificent New York mental mind powers to commit himself to crossing him.Well, you've certainly got this part right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted February 23, 2012 at 05:22 PM Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 at 05:22 PM ...if the chair makes the first error (declaring D elected), he pretty much automatically has to make the second error (failing to declare E elected), since there are no more open positions to be filled after the election of D is announced. If he doesn't make the first error (i.e. he recognizes that D is ineligible), he still might make the second (failing to declare E elected)....I didn't really mean 'automaton' in a pejorative way, just that the automaton would have perfect knowledge of the rules, and no temptation to stray away from them.......I propose that where we are, still, is, what do we do with D's votes? I think that Shmuel's proposal to throw out the election depends on a determination that D's votes are sufficiently unfair as to be invalid.What bugs me is that a chair who is imperfect in knowing and applying the rules -- i.e. one who is not the 'perfect automaton' I postulated earlier -- might make the second error (not declare E elected, after properly ruling that the votes for D are actually votes for an ineligible candidate, hence illegal). The society then votes again to fill the unfilled position, and the outcome is arguably more fair than if the chair had understood the rules perfectly and ruled accordingly.Why does it come out that way? Perhaps it's a statistical game -- the rules in RONR have been developed, with much trial and error, to lead to a fair result in the large majority of cases; but there is no guarantee that they lead to a fair result in each particular case...I'm back to my earlier question -- i.e. is there only one correct path for a chair who does have full understanding of the rules in this situation?If there is only one correct path, then it seems clear that the chair is not the one in a position to do anything about the possible unfairness of the outcome.edit: typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted February 23, 2012 at 05:48 PM Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 at 05:48 PM What bugs me is that a chair who is imperfect in knowing and applying the rules -- i.e. one who is not the 'perfect automaton' I postulated earlier -- might make the second error (not declare E elected, after properly ruling that the votes for D are actually votes for an ineligible candidate, hence illegal). The society then votes again to fill the unfilled position, and the outcome is arguably more fair than if the chair had understood the rules perfectly and ruled accordingly.Why does it come out that way? Perhaps its a statistical game -- the rules in RONR have been developed, with much trial and error, to lead to a fair result in the large majority of cases; but there is no guarantee that they lead to a fair result in each particular case...I'm back to my earlier question -- i.e. is there only one correct path for a chair who does have full understanding of the rules in this situation?If there is only one correct path, then it seems clear that the chair is not the one in a position to do anything about the possible unfairness of the outcome.A couple of questions for you:Don't all members, not just the chair, have some responsibility for knowing the rules?Why do you say that "The society then votes again to fill the unfilled position?" Why not vote again on all of them, or at least on all of them that may be affected by the number of votes cast for D? What's your rule about this?Suppose D was a write-in candidate. Does your "fairness doctrine" still apply? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted February 23, 2012 at 09:01 PM Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 at 09:01 PM I'm still in agreement with Dan H's original answer. And, bluntly, the "fairness" question can lead to an unfair result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted February 23, 2012 at 09:10 PM Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 at 09:10 PM I'm still in agreement with Dan H's original answer. And, bluntly, the "fairness" question can lead to an unfair result.If by that you mean post #30, me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted February 23, 2012 at 09:48 PM Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 at 09:48 PM A couple of questions for you:Don't all members, not just the chair, have some responsibility for knowing the rules?Yes, they do.Why do you say that "The society then votes again to fill the unfilled position?" Why not vote again on all of them, or at least on all of them that may be affected by the number of votes cast for D? What's your rule about this?Suppose D was a write-in candidate. Does your "fairness doctrine" still apply?I don't think it's my rule or my doctrine. I think it's up to the members to decide if the outcome is sufficiently unfair that they want to do something about it. If they are fortunate enough to have the 'or until successors elected' phrase in their bylaws, they can just remove any or all of the just-elected people from office (a la pp. 653-654) and vote again, remaining in perfect compliance with the rules the whole time. And, since we were told in post #1 (if I recall correctly) that the society had essentially the sample bylaws from RONR, see p. 585 ll. 26-27 for the definition of the term of office.From everything that has been said, I don't see that the chair has the latitude to do anything other than declare the votes for D illegal, and to declare E elected. But that isn't necessarily the end of the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted February 23, 2012 at 09:57 PM Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 at 09:57 PM From everything that has been said, I don't see that the chair has the latitude to anything other than declare the votes for D illegal, and to declare E elected. But that isn't necessarily the end of the story.Brilliant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alan Jennings Posted February 26, 2012 at 08:42 PM Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 at 08:42 PM "D" must have stood for "Dan," and if those who voted for him did so to honor his hutzpah for running while not eligible, which he certainly would have known, then why not just let him serve, bylaws be darned. Suspend the bylaws and give him the board chair. Don't say you can't, either. I see it done all the time and even when somebody says "You can't suspend the bylaws," there's always somebody to say, "Well, we did."I'd like to know who would be on the board if "D" was not ineligbile? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted February 27, 2012 at 11:09 AM Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 at 11:09 AM "D" must have stood for "Dan," and if those who voted for him did so to honor his hutzpah for running while not eligible, which he certainly would have known, then why not just let him serve, bylaws be darned. Suspend the bylaws and give him the board chair. Don't say you can't, either. I see it done all the time and even when somebody says "You can't suspend the bylaws," there's always somebody to say, "Well, we did."I'd like to know who would be on the board if "D" was not ineligbile?This post is pure nonsense, of course, and would be deleted were it not for the fact that it appears to be pure nonsense posted by an esteemed friend of ours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.