Write in votes in elections and applicability of RONR

[kballou]

Our organization has just completed its annual election, and I have been elected president. The first executive board meeting will be held in a few days, and I am aware of an issue on which I will be asked to rule at this meeting. I'm trying to do my homework to prepare in advance.

The issue is that write-in votes for members of the board of directors will be challenged on the grounds that our bylaws do not make any provision for write-in votes. Normally, I would cite RONR (10th ed.), p. 526 l. 14-16: "Votes can be cast for any person eligible for election, even if he has not been nominated."

The complication is that section 10 of the organization's bylaws read:

Section 10. Rules of Order. The current edition of Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, shall be the rules of order at all meetings of the membership and Executive Board and its committees with the following addition: no actions taken by the Executive Board at one meeting and confirmed in the subsequent meeting may be subject to a motion to rescind until a new Executive Board takes office.

I know that the member who intends to challenge the validity of write-in votes believes the above text means that RONR does not apply to our annual election and that the above guidance is inapplicable. Another member has stated that when this objection is raised, he will ask the chair (me) for a ruling. If it is true that RONR does not apply to the election, then I'm not even sure I have the authority to rule on the issue.

(In case it helps, the bylaws may be found here. Section 7 is "Annual Election Procedures".)

I have several questions.

1. Does the text from section 10 of the bylaws really mean that RONR does not apply to the annual election?
   
2. If no, do I have the authority to rule on this issue?
   
3. If RONR does not apply to the election, does the absence of any mention of write-in votes preclude write-in votes?
   

(As an aside, our election procedure is something of a mess. We sometimes have fewer nominees for the board of directors than there are seats. Section 4.2 of the bylaws reads "The candidates receiving the most votes shall be elected." There is no requirement for a nominee to receive a majority of the votes cast. In essence, if write-in votes are not allowed, this means that all a member of the organization has to do to be a director is to nominate himself and then vote for himself in the election. As long as there are fewer nominees than seats, that member would be guaranteed of being elected. On the face of it, that seems illogical.)

Thank you!

[J. J.]

I have several questions.

1. Does the text from section 10 of the bylaws really mean that RONR does not apply to the annual election?
   
2. If no, do I have the authority to rule on this issue?
   
3. If RONR does not apply to the election, does the absence of any mention of write-in votes preclude write-in votes?
   

1. This deals with the motion to rescind, and you are being asked to rule on a point of order regarding write-in votes. I do not see anything that would even hint that RONR does not apply.

2. Unless there is more than is posted, yes.\

3. See number one.

[Tim Wynn]

Ken,

You seem to be over thinking all of this. A point of order concerning the validity of write-in votes would have to be made at the time of the election. I don't see a continuing breach here.

Also, see RONR(10th ed.), p. 400. l. 1-4. This explains the validity of write-in votes in an election.

[jstackpo]

Furthermore, RONR, p. 427 line 24 ff, notes that casting write-in votes is a right of the members.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

1. Does the text from section 10 of the bylaws really mean that RONR does not apply to the annual election?

2. If no, do I have the authority to rule on this issue?

3. If RONR does not apply to the election, does the absence of any mention of write-in votes preclude write-in votes?

Review:

Section 10. Rules of Order. The current edition of Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, shall be the rules of order at all meetings of the membership and Executive Board and its committees with the following addition: no actions taken by the Executive Board at one meeting and confirmed in the subsequent meeting may be subject to a motion to rescind until a new Executive Board takes office.

I think this is a question of logic and grammar, and not a question of parliamentary procedure.

You have a rule which says that "current edition" of Robert's Rules of Order (which is RONR tenth ed. 2000 by DaCapo Press) "shall be the rules of order" at three kinds of meetings:

1. "at all meetings of the membership"

2. "at all meetings of the Executive Board"

3. "at all meetings of the committees of the Executive Board".

Q. Is your member asserting that "the annual elections are held at meetings other than meetings of class (1.) or (2.) or (3.)"?

Q. If your "annual meeting" is not a #1 kind of meeting (viz., a meeting of the general membership), then WHAT IS THAT FOURTH CLASS OF MEETING, which is excluded in your list of meetings in your Section Rule 10?

• If the member is correct, i.e., that the elections are being held at a fourth kind of meeting not listed in the rule, then I agree with your member.

• If the election is held at an annual meeting of the general membership (see #1) (which I think it is), then I disagree with your member.

So, you tell me: Elections are held in what class of meeting, if not one of the three classes already listed in your Rule of Section 10?

I mean, who else is there, authorized to even hold "annual elections", if not the general membership?

(Does your Executive Board do the electing? If so, do they do this OUTSIDE of a meeting of the Executive Board (see #2)?)

[Kim Goldsworthy]

KB,

Your hot link goes to your organization's rules.

I found this rule.

2.5 Membership Meetings.

There shall be an Annual Meeting of the voting members, at a time and place to be determined by the Executive Board.

Q. Does your member assert that the "annual meeting of the voting members" (see your rule 2.5) is not a meeting of the membership (see your rule 10, referring to class #1 of the three classes of meetings listed in Rule 10)?

If not, then what body is meeting at the "annual meeting", if not the membership?

With this new information, I think your member's argument is horse feathers.

[Trina]

...

If not, then what body is meeting at the "annual meeting", if not the membership?

With this new information, I think your member's argument is horse feathers.

I also couldn't resist following the link offered by Mr. Ballou. The election is not conducted at a meeting, hence the uncertainty within the organization as to whether RONR applies to the election itself:

> The Elections Commission shall conduct the annual mail ballot election of executive officers and directors. <

> The Elections Commission shall announce the election results at the annual meeting. <

This is a matter of bylaws interpretation, which the organization must decide for itself (see RONR pp. 570-573 for some principles of interpretation).

I think the more salient point, raised by Tim Wynn, is that a point of order challenging the election process would have had to be raised no later than the time the election result was announced at the annual meeting. Such a point of order is no longer timely (even if the bylaws were violated, there is no continuing breach -- see RONR p. 244).

I know that the member who intends to challenge the validity of write-in votes believes the above text means that RONR does not apply to our annual election and that the above guidance is inapplicable. Another member has stated that when this objection is raised, he will ask the chair (me) for a ruling. If it is true that RONR does not apply to the election, then I'm not even sure I have the authority to rule on the issue.

...

I have several questions.

1. Does the text from section 10 of the bylaws really mean that RONR does not apply to the annual election?

2. If no, do I have the authority to rule on this issue?

3. If RONR does not apply to the election, does the absence of any mention of write-in votes preclude write-in votes?

First of all, I assume the member who intends to challenge the write-in votes, and the member planning to ask for the ruling, are members of the executive board, since you say these activities are expected to occur at an executive board meeting.

Regarding your questions 1) and 3), those are matters of bylaws interpretation (see pp. 570-573, as mentioned above).

Regarding question 2), ruling on points of order (presumably raised at a meeting, when no one doubts RONR applies) is part of the job of the presiding officer. The assembly can appeal the ruling.

I think you won't get around to ruling on the bylaws issue, since the point of order isn't timely.

The organization might want to consider clarifying its rules about election procedure (amend the bylaws, so this confusion won't plague you again at a future election).

[alanh49]

IMO it doesn't matter if RONR applies to the election or not it clearly applies to the board and that is were you will be ruling on the matter.

[kballou]

Thank you to everyone who has responded. I realize I did leave out important information (sorry!).

The election was indeed the annual election, conducted by mail ballot in accordance with bylaws section 7.1. The ballots were opened and votes counted this past weekend, before the annual membership meeting (also held this past weekend). However, the meeting was inquorate. (The annual membership meeting has been inquorate for many years. The organization is the Massachusetts Chess Association, and the annual meeting is scheduled in conjunction with the state championship tournament. For some odd reason, chess players are more interested in playing chess than in attending the meeting.)

I believe that since the membership meeting was inquorate, this issue will now come up at the first executive board meeting of the new term, which is scheduled for this coming weekend. So, while I could have "dodged the bullet" by the point of order not having been raised in a timely manner at the membership meeting, it looks like my luck runs out. (In fact, since the annual membership meeting was inquorate, the election results were not even announced.)

Answering Trina's question: yes, the member who intends to challenge the write-in votes is on the executive board, as is the member who intends to raise the point of order at the executive board meeting.

In my opinion, the bylaws are enough of a disaster with respect to the annual election that a rewrite is certainly advisable.

Again, thank you for your advice!

[J. J.]

Thank you to everyone who has responded. I realize I did leave out important information (sorry!).

The election was indeed the annual election, conducted by mail ballot in accordance with bylaws section 7.1. The ballots were opened and votes counted this past weekend, before the annual membership meeting (also held this past weekend). However, the meeting was inquorate. (The annual membership meeting has been inquorate for many years. The organization is the Massachusetts Chess Association, and the annual meeting is scheduled in conjunction with the state championship tournament. For some odd reason, chess players are more interested in playing chess than in attending the meeting.)

I believe that since the membership meeting was inquorate, this issue will now come up at the first executive board meeting of the new term, which is scheduled for this coming weekend.

The question isn't really on write-in votes but if the results could be declared at an inquorate meeting. Without reference to they bylaws, it could not under RONR. Again, without referring to the bylaws, only the meeting of the members could determine if the meeting lacked a quorum (p. 338).

[alanh49]

The question isn't really on write-in votes but if the results could be declared at an inquorate meeting. Without reference to they bylaws, it could not under RONR. Again, without referring to the bylaws, only the meeting of the members could determine if the meeting lacked a quorum (p. 338).

Section 7.1 of the bylaws say that the Elections Commission is to announce the results

7.1. Elections Commission. The Elections Commission shall conduct the annual mail ballot election of executive officers and directors.

a. Composition. A three member Elections Commission and its chairperson shall be named by the Executive Board by the first day of November. Members of the Elections Commission shall not be candidates for any of the executive offices.

b. Duties. Duties of the Elections Commission shall include the solicitation and/or receipt of nominations and candidate statements, the obtaining of an official roll of voting members from the membership secretary, the design and preparation of the ballot and instructions, the security and mailing of the ballots, the specification of the mail ballot return date, the receipt, custody and counting of completed ballots, and the announcement of results.

I now think that it's the job the election commission to make the initial determination on counting write-in votes

and well RONR may not apply [commissions aren't on the list of covered bodies] unless members were told that write-in votes would not be counted they should be counted since you have no rule that forbids them.

[kballou]

The question isn't really on write-in votes but if the results could be declared at an inquorate meeting. Without reference to they bylaws, it could not under RONR. Again, without referring to the bylaws, only the meeting of the members could determine if the meeting lacked a quorum (p. 338).

Section 2.7 of the bylaws provides that "[a]t any Annual or Special Meeting of the voting members, thirty (30) voting members present in person shall constitue a quorum." There were 16 voting members present, so the meeting was definitely inquorate. Because the bylaws do clearly state in section 10 that RONR applies at the membership meeting, I concluded that no business could be transacted at the meeting (other than attempts to raise a quorum or to adjourn).

[kballou]

I now think that it's the job the election commission to make the initial determination on counting write-in votes and well RONR may not apply [commissions aren't on the list of covered bodies] unless members were told that write-in votes would not be counted they should be counted since you have no rule that forbids them.

In fact, the ballot was designed with instructions to "vote for no more than twelve" and had enough blank spaces for the voter to write in twelve names.

[Trina]

Section 2.7 of the bylaws provides that "[a]t any Annual or Special Meeting of the voting members, thirty (30) voting members present in person shall constitue a quorum." There were 16 voting members present, so the meeting was definitely inquorate. Because the bylaws do clearly state in section 10 that RONR applies at the membership meeting, I concluded that no business could be transacted at the meeting (other than attempts to raise a quorum or to adjourn).

Since election results have not been announced, I can't help wondering how/why the newly elected board members are even assumed to be in office at this point... yet, that seems to be the assumption in the organization, as you are planning for an executive board meeting, with the new officers in place ??

[kballou]

Since election results have not been announced, I can't help wondering how/why the newly elected board members are even assumed to be in office at this point... yet, that seems to be the assumption in the organization, as you are planning for an executive board meeting, with the new officers in place ??

Well, as it turns out, the election would have produced no new members of the executive board. Two executive board members did not run for reelection and will not attend the coming executive board meeting. So, the meeting will be properly constituted whether it falls under the old term or the new term.

However, as I've puzzled over the bylaws, I think I've determined that the meeting falls under the "old term". Section 4.3 states:

4.3. Tenure. Each Executive Board member shall hold office until the next annual meeting of the members and until the member's successor is elected and qualified, or until the member sooner dies, resigns, is removed, or becomes disqualified.

(Emphasis on "and" is mine.) The successors have certainly not been elected yet, since the Election Commission has not yet been able to report the results to any quorate meeting. But I also conclude that I will not be president for the upcoming meeting, since we have the following text in section 5.3:

5.3. Tenure. The executive officers shall each hold office until the end of a meeting at which the officer's successor is chosen and qualified, and each appointed officer shall hold office until the first meeting of the Executive Board following the next annual meeting of the members unless a shorter period shall have been specified by the terms of the appointed officer's election or appointment, or in each case until the officer sooner dies, resigns, is removed, or becomes disqualified.

My interpretation is that the current president is not yet out of office and has the duty to preside over the upcoming executive board meeting.

So, one more question: Are the organization's bylaws as much of a mess as I think they are?

Thanks again.

[Josh Martin]

So, one more question: Are the organization's bylaws as much of a mess as I think they are?

Yes. I'd certainly look to change that statement on the parliamentary authority so you can avoid the silly argument of when RONR applies. See How to Adopt Robert's Rules of Order.

I'd also point out that under RONR, only the general membership has the authority to hear the announcement of the election or to make rulings on the legitimacy of the election. The board does not have the authority to formally hear the results or to make rulings on the election. Whether this is the case under your Bylaws is a question for the organization to interpret.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Well, as it turns out, the election would have produced no new members of the executive board.

Then what on earth is all the fuss about?

[kballou]

Then what on earth is all the fuss about?

There were members of the outgoing executive board who did not stand for reelection but who received write-in votes. The question was whether these members were in fact (re-)elected.

[J. J.]

Section 7.1 of the bylaws say that the Elections Commission is to announce the results

I now think that it's the job the election commission to make the initial determination on counting write-in votes

and well RONR may not apply [commissions aren't on the list of covered bodies] unless members were told that write-in votes would not be counted they should be counted since you have no rule that forbids them.

Of course RONR covers this. A subordinate body can no more violate the basic right of an individual member than the assembly can.

[Josh Martin]

Of course RONR covers this. A subordinate body can no more violate the basic right of an individual member than the assembly can.

J. J., I believe Alan was musing over whether RONR would apply because of the assembly's oddly-worded Bylaw, not because of anything in RONR itself. Certainly if RONR does apply, which is a question that the assembly must determine by interpreting the odd Bylaw (RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 570-573), then RONR indeed covers the right of members to cast votes for any eligible candidate. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 425, lines 14-16; pg. 426, lines 23-25)

[alanh49]

J. J., I believe Alan was musing over whether RONR would apply because of the assembly's oddly-worded Bylaw, not because of anything in RONR itself. Certainly if RONR does apply, which is a question that the assembly must determine by interpreting the odd Bylaw (RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 570-573), then RONR indeed covers the right of members to cast votes for any eligible candidate. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 425, lines 14-16; pg. 426, lines 23-25)

Yes, that's what I meant see below and note that commissions aren't listed. A case of exclusion by enumeration!

On the other hand I do think the write-in votes should be counted because even if Robert's doesn't apply. General parliamentary law would and I can't think of any parliamentary authority that say write-in votes are not to be counted.

Section 10. Rules of Order. The current edition of Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, shall be the rules of order at all meetings of the membership and Executive Board and its committees with the following addition: no actions taken by the Executive Board at one meeting and confirmed in the subsequent meeting may be subject to a motion to rescind until a new Executive Board takes office.

[J. J.]

Yes, that's what I meant see below and note that commissions aren't listed. A case of exclusion by enumeration!

On the other hand I do think the write-in votes should be counted because even if Robert's doesn't apply. General parliamentary law would and I can't think of any parliamentary authority that say write-in votes are not to be counted.

Section 10. Rules of Order. The current edition of Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, shall be the rules of order at all meetings of the membership and Executive Board and its committees with the following addition: no actions taken by the Executive Board at one meeting and confirmed in the subsequent meeting may be subject to a motion to rescind until a new Executive Board takes office.

The "commission" in this case would be a form of a committee, unless the bylaws define it otherwise.