Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

ballot form offers only a yes option. Officer omitted the no on purpose.


star1441

Recommended Posts

An absentee ballot was sent to the membership for a vote on accepting applicants for memberhsip.

 

 The bylaws provide that

 

“active members shall decide by secret ballot and by a majority vote whether to accept the applicant as a member. Those unable to attend may cast an absentee ballot by letter or FAX."

 

"Whether"...

 

The printed ballot had only a "YES"  box to check . No alternative. No "NO" box.

 

Q1:

 

Is this allowed, or does it make the ballot invalid?

 

Q2:

 

The COO who created the ballot said that he omitted the NO box intentionally, so as to influence the outcome [and hoping to have more yes votes and more applicants  admitted].

 

Allowed?

Objectionable?

Punishable?

 

Thank you,

 

Yoram Kahana

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based upon what you have posted, it would appear that this is not a case in which there are a limited number of memberships available, but rather one in which each candidate is being voted on individually (although on the same ballot).

 

Under these circumstances, the form of the ballot was improper, and there may be instances in which it cannot be determined whether or not a particular candidate received a majority sufficient number of favorable votes. If this is the case in any instance, the vote on that candidate should be retaken in a proper manner, assuming it is at all feasible to do so.

 

[Modified to hopefully improve the wording a bit.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An absentee ballot was sent to the membership for a vote on accepting applicants for memberhsip.

 

 The bylaws provide that

 

“active members shall decide by secret ballot and by a majority vote whether to accept the applicant as a member. Those unable to attend may cast an absentee ballot by letter or FAX."

 

"Whether"...

 

The printed ballot had only a "YES"  box to check . No alternative. No "NO" box.

 

Q1:

 

Is this allowed, or does it make the ballot invalid?

 

Q2:

 

The COO who created the ballot said that he omitted the NO box intentionally, so as to influence the outcome [and hoping to have more yes votes and more applicants  admitted].

 

Allowed?

Objectionable?

Punishable?

 

 

Allowed? No.

Objectionable? Very.

Punishable?  It depends.  Given the admission that this nonsensical method was intended to influence the outcome, I'd say probably.  See FAQ 20.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Dan-

I am sorry that I did not anticipate all the fine points and angles

 

yes and no:

to clarify, the Bylaws allow a  limited maximum of five new members a year,

this year there are seven qualified applicants, vetted and approved by the credentials committee.

And the vote is on each candidate , separately.

a majority needed for acceptance.

[in some sorrorities in the ol' south this used to be defined as blackballing, but that is another story].

 

So the main issue is not the clarity of the vote, but the [admitted] attempt by the COO to influence/guide/

tilt the voting towards a certain desired outcome. [not offer the traditional alternative, NO option, and thus-

COO hoped- to increase the number or weight of the YES response.

Yoram

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Dan-

I am sorry that I did not anticipate all the fine points and angles

 

yes and no:

to clarify, the Bylaws allow a  limited maximum of five new members a year,

this year there are seven qualified applicants, vetted and approved by the credentials committee.

And the vote is on each candidate , separately.

a majority needed for acceptance.

[in some sorrorities in the ol' south this used to be defined as blackballing, but that is another story].

 

So the main issue is not the clarity of the vote, but the [admitted] attempt by the COO to influence/guide/

tilt the voting towards a certain desired outcome. [not offer the traditional alternative, NO option, and thus-

COO hoped- to increase the number or weight of the YES response.

Yoram

 

If there are seven candidates for five positions, it would appear that you should hold an election in accordance with the rules on page 441, lines 11-24, of RONR (11th ed.), and the ballot was in proper form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there are seven candidates for five positions, it would appear that you should hold an election in accordance with the rules on page 441, lines 11-24, of RONR (11th ed.), and the ballot was in proper form.

Dan, I think there might need to be some modifications to that procedure. This doesn't seem exactly like elections for board members or similar positions. While the society cannot elect more than five new members, it is permitted to elect fewer than five - or even to not elect any new members at all. So it seems to me that there does need to be some way for members to vote against a particular candidate, or even to vote against all of the candidates if a member chooses to do so.

I think the assembly might need to adopt some special rules to handle this situation, since it is a bit unusual - each position is a separate question which may be adopted or rejected... up to a point, since the assembly cannot elect more than five members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks josh and daniel-

 

the main issue here is the wording, construction, of the ballot.

May a ballot that is sent, per the bylaws, to determine 'whether' an applicant is accepted [ how do you

stand on this issue, Yes or No] is designed without the NO option to check.

 

So if you oppose , what do you do?  you  write in your NO?

 

Our COO opinion is that if you oppose, you abstain, and your abstention is taken is a NO vote.

 

I do not think that RONR holds that position.

 

 

The second, related issue is that it was not a typing mistake by an office secretary, who forgot to

include a NO option/check box.

Rather,. It was deliberate, by the COO,  with an intention to influence the outcome.

 

the [new] COO decided to help raise the YES vote- he admitted to that-, by omitting the NO

box from the ballot form.

 

[Worse- he maintains that an abstention means no].

 

We have time [the GMM is May 12] to void this ballot and send out a poper [YES/NO] one.

 

thanks

 

Yoram

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks josh and daniel-

the main issue here is the wording, construction, of the ballot.

May a ballot that is sent, per the bylaws, to determine 'whether' an applicant is accepted [ how do you

stand on this issue, Yes or No] is designed without the NO option to check.

So if you oppose , what do you do? you write in your NO?

Our COO opinion is that if you oppose, you abstain, and your abstention is taken is a NO vote.

I do not think that RONR holds that position.

The second, related issue is that it was not a typing mistake by an office secretary, who forgot to

include a NO option/check box.

Rather,. It was deliberate, by the COO, with an intention to influence the outcome.

the [new] COO decided to help raise the YES vote- he admitted to that-, by omitting the NO

box from the ballot form.

[Worse- he maintains that an abstention means no].

We have time [the GMM is May 12] to void this ballot and send out a poper [YES/NO] one.

Based upon the facts provided, my opinion is that the ballots which were printed are improper and a "no" option should have been provided. If a member wishes to vote no, I agree that the member should write in "no" on the ballot. An abstention does not count as a no vote and generally has no effect on the outcome of the vote, but see FAQ #6 for more information.

You say that there is time to void the ballot and send out a proper one. I'm not entirely certain about that, as it depends on several factors - how far in advance the rules require the ballots to be sent, who has the authority to determine the form of the ballot, and (if that authority belongs to an assembly, rather than a single person) whether it is possible for that assembly to meet in time. If there is indeed time to do this, then that is one possible option.

If it ultimately turns out that the current ballot cannot be voided in time, then all is not necessarily lost. As Mr. Honemann noted in Post #2, the form of the ballot may mean that it will not be clear whether a particular candidate received the necessary number of votes. I don't think the COO is correct that blank ballots should be treated as "no" votes, but under the circumstances, I'm not sure they can be treated as abstentions either. It seems to me that they should be treated as ballots whose meaning is unclear, as it cannot be determined whether the member intended to abstain or to vote "no."

This may or may not be a problem for particular candidates. Let's suppose that for Candidate A, 80 votes are cast "Yes" and 20 are blank. The meaning of the blank ballots is unclear, but it doesn't really matter. Even if all of the blank ballots were intended as "No" votes, Candidate A still clearly received a majority. There's no need for that vote to be redone.

On the other hand, let's suppose that for Candidate B, 40 votes are cast "Yes," 30 votes are cast "No" (with the word written on the ballot), and 30 are blank. This poses a bigger problem. Because it is unclear whether the blank ballots are intended to be "no" votes or are intended to be abstentions, it's not clear whether Candidate B received a majority. So the vote would need to be redone.

Finally, to your second question, yes, the COO may be punished for his actions regarding the ballot. Whether he should be punished is a question for the society. If you choose to go down that route, see FAQ #20.

I agree that the way this election wad conducted was improper, but I'm curious as to why an objection to the form of the ballot would not have to be raised by a timely point of order at the time of voting. What rule does it violate that makes it a continuing breach?

A Point of Order would still be timely. The vote isn't over yet, and the results won't be announced until the meeting of the membership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan, I think there might need to be some modifications to that procedure. This doesn't seem exactly like elections for board members or similar positions. While the society cannot elect more than five new members, it is permitted to elect fewer than five - or even to not elect any new members at all. So it seems to me that there does need to be some way for members to vote against a particular candidate, or even to vote against all of the candidates if a member chooses to do so.

I think the assembly might need to adopt some special rules to handle this situation, since it is a bit unusual - each position is a separate question which may be adopted or rejected... up to a point, since the assembly cannot elect more than five members.

 

You're right; it's not the same thing as electing board members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THANK YOU TO ALL PARTICIPANTS IN THIS DISCUSSION.

 

After a flurry of emails, the President stepped in, voided the incorrect [YES option only] ballot,

and a new, correct one [YES and NO is going out ASAP.]

 

We still have time. The GMM is May 12.

 

How did it happen? The membership was blindsided by the COO, who concocted the biased ballot [he admitted in an email that he wanted to help

increase the YES vote. Nice]. Some members received the ballot envelope by snail mail  only today. Some have not received it yet. [And everybody lives in Southern California !

...]

COO also showed , in emails, that he is not entirely familiar with the concept and fine points of  abstention.

 

Thanks again, everybody,  for your quick, reasoned  and illuminating replies.

 

Yoram

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THANK YOU TO ALL PARTICIPANTS IN THIS DISCUSSION.

 

After a flurry of emails, the President stepped in, voided the incorrect [YES option only] ballot,

and a new, correct one [YES and NO is going out ASAP.]

 

We still have time. The GMM is May 12.

 

How did it happen? The membership was blindsided by the COO, who concocted the biased ballot [he admitted in an email that he wanted to help

increase the YES vote. Nice]. Some members received the ballot envelope by snail mail  only today. Some have not received it yet. [And everybody lives in Southern California !

...]

COO also showed , in emails, that he is not entirely familiar with the concept and fine points of  abstention.

 

Thanks again, everybody,  for your quick, reasoned  and illuminating replies.

 

Yoram

 

Under these circumstances, it is possible (even if it has never yet happened) that all seven applicants will receive a majority of votes in their favor, but only five can become members. Do you have some rule in place to take care of this sort of thing? For example, if all seven receive a majority of votes in their favor, will the two receiving the lowest number of "yes" votes be rejected?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hello-

 

possible, yes. probable, no.

 

in the last few years we admitted  just one or two applicants  a year, out of a group of some 5-10 approved candidates. [in 2013- a lone admittance, by a one vote margin]. The membership operate in a zero sum mode, blackballing candidates who they see as competition.

 

a scenario of seven [ or even five] passing the bar will take place when flocks of pigs are seen  flying south in the summer skies.

 

but, optimists that we are, we do have the provision that  only the five highest vote getters among the accepted shall be admitted.

 

Thanks again

 

Yoram

 

I am posting a related question about that voided ballot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hello-

 

possible, yes. probable, no.

 

in the last few years we admitted  just one or two applicants  a year, out of a group of some 5-10 approved candidates. [in 2013- a lone admittance, by a one vote margin]. The membership operate in a zero sum mode, blackballing candidates who they see as competition.

 

a scenario of seven [ or even five] passing the bar will take place when flocks of pigs are seen  flying south in the summer skies.

 

but, optimists that we are, we do have the provision that  only the five highest vote getters among the accepted shall be admitted.

 

Thanks again

 

Yoram

 

I am posting a related question about that voided ballot.

 

Well, if those pigs start flying south you had better take a close look at the exact wording of your rule that only the five "highest vote getters" among those receiving majority votes will be admitted. For example, if A gets 40 yes votes and 10 no votes, and B gets 32 yes votes and 1 no vote, I trust that it's clear that B is the highest vote getter of the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if those pigs start flying south you had better take a close look at the exact wording of your rule that only the five "highest vote getters" among those receiving majority votes will be admitted. For example, if A gets 40 yes votes and 10 no votes, and B gets 32 yes votes and 1 no vote, I trust that it's clear that B is the highest vote getter of the two.

 

Maybe I'm obtuse and I will feel foolish when you point it out, but it's not clear to me. Could you explain how B is the higher vote getter?

 

I'd thought you were getting at what the phrase "vote getter" could mean in regards to yes and/or no votes, but that would only make sense if A got the 1 no and B the 10 no votes. (41 vs 52).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm obtuse and I will feel foolish when you point it out, but it's not clear to me. Could you explain how B is the higher vote getter?

 

Apparently (?) you subtract the "No" votes from the "Yes" votes, leaving B with 31 (uncontested?) votes and A with 30 (uncontested?) votes. Or maybe you're not so much "subtracting" as tossing out the "Yes" and "No" votes that cancel out each other (i.e. the tie votes). But I'm not at all sure what principle is involved here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not at all sure that this organization's rule actually uses the phrase "highest vote getters", which is why I suggested a closer look at the exact wording. My hope is that, even if it does, it makes it clear that what is meant is the excess of yes votes over no votes (as described in post #18), and not just the number of yes votes.

 

I can't imagine that it would mean the total of yes and no votes added together. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...