Losing Candidate Wants New Election

[Guest Matt Fuller]

Hello,

I just found this group and this is my first post so please forgive me if I don't do it quite right.

I am an officer  of the American Belgian Hare Club.  Our breed club is one of many under the American Rabbit Breeders Association.  We are a National breed club which recently incorporated as a 501 (a) not for profit organization in IL.  As a breed club we believed that whatever wasn't contained in our C & BL was covered by ARBA.  ARBA does not permit youth to vote.  We as a breed club have never had our youth vote since forming the club in 1972. 

The election for Vice-President was held.  We had 157 adult members who received a ballot.  The ballots were returned with a vote of 87 to 20.  The losing candidate is now demanding that we declare the election null and void as he interprets our by-laws as including "all members" to mean the youth as well.  We have 8 youth members.  

If we in fact should have included the youth in the election, the 8 votes would not affect the outcome for the losing candidate.  Are we obligated to nullify and redo the election?  If so would it be permissible to simply send out 8 ballots to the youth members?  We are a small club with limited resources and are just a week away from our national gathering where we will hold a meeting and be able to address the by-laws to make it officially state only adults vote.  Ideally we would like to call the election as 8 votes would not change the outcome.

The candidate who ran for office also mentions that he believes since we did not include youth in other elections that any elections we have held since we incorporated (Dec 2016) were not valid and that we are likely not even officers of our own club.

 

 

 

Here is his complaint (it cites our by-laws in regards to elections):

Hi J******,

 

I have verified based on the information you have provided about the youth members not being allowed to participate in the ABHC election, the ABHC election violated the ABHC Constitution and By-Laws and thus would be classified as a null and void. 

 

Moreover, if ABHC Youth members have never been allowed to vote, as you have stated, all elections that have been held since the current C&BLs were approved have been in violation of the ABHC Constitution and By-Laws will allows ALL members in good standing the right to vote in all ABHC elections as well as any other voting. 

 

The ARBA Constitution and By-Laws you have sited only governs ARBA members, in specific, ARBA youth members.  The context of the referenced section even refers to ARBA dues and ARBA related activities and has nothing to do with the ABHC voting procedure. 

 

The ABHC is governed by its own ABHC Constitution and By-Laws and according to the ABHC By-Laws,  Article 4 Voting Procedure, Section 5: 

The Secretary/Treasurer shall mail election ballots to all members in good standing. The ballots shall contain the names of all eligible candidates that meet the requirements in Article 5, Section 2.

 

Notice the ABHC By-Laws required ballots to be mailed to ALL members in good standing, not just the adult members.  

 

The election process that has just be

conducted was clearly in violation of the ABHC By-Laws as you can see from the above citation. Thus the election process was not carried out according to the ABHC Constitution and By-Laws which makes it null and void. 

 

The ARBA Constitution and By-Laws clearly states that, "all chartered clubs and associations are autonomous to the ARBA by virtue of being governed by their own constitution and by-laws (self-governing)."

 

Furthermore you can see below that the ABHC By-Laws regarding membership, as well as Dues, does not limit the rights or privileges of ABHC Youth members with respect to voting. 

 

Article 4 Membership:

Section 1: Any person of good character and reputation who is in accord with the objectives of this club may become a member by submitting an application together with the membership fee for at least one year to the Secretary-Treasurer.

Section 2: The term membership shall be one year from the first day of the month in which the application was received.

Section 3: The Executive Committee of this club shall have the right to reject any application for membership or renewal.

Section 4: Annual Membership shall have a monetary value of less than a cent.

 

Article 1 Dues:

Section 1: The annual membership dues shall be Adult (18 and over) $7.50 Youth under 18 years of age $5.00. Foreign Surcharge for outside the US of $5.00 in US funds.

Section 2: All members shall be notified by the Secretary-Treasurer thirty days prior to the expiration of their membership.

 

Because the Election Procedure was not carried out in accordance to the ABHC Constitution and By-Laws, I am officially requesting that the election that was just conducted be set aside, an acknowledgement of the failure to hold the election in accordance with the ABHC Constitution and By-Laws be made to the membership, and a new election in accordance with the ABHC C&BLs be conducted.  Since you have said that the previous election(s) did not allow the youth members to vote and would have been in violation of the ABHC Constitution and By-Laws, we may have a much bigger issue.  As a public, non-profit organization registered with the State of Illinois, the club is also required to operate in accordance with its constitution and by-laws.  If previous elections were held in violation of the club's constitution and by-laws, there may certainly be an issue as to whether there are any valid officers at the moment if they were elected via an election process that was also in violation of the club's constitution and by-laws. 

 

The ARBA By-Laws, Article II, Section (d) states, "It shall be the duty of the officers and directors of all ARBA-chartered clubs and associations to see that's its members abide by the constitution and by-laws of the club or association.  Failure to do so may be cause for probation or loss of charter. 

 

As required by the ARBA, it is the obligation of the ABHC officers and directors to hold an election that is conducted in accordance with the ABHC Constitution and By-Laws which would mean that ALL ABHC members in good standing would be mailed a ballot and allowed to cast their vote.  As both a director of the ABHC and a candidate in the most recent election, I am officially request the club begin the process of holding a new election that is in accordance with the ABHC Constitution and By-Laws. 

 

Please let me know the process, procedure, and timeframe that is going to be used for holding another ABHC election in accordance to the ABHC C&BLs. 

 

I am very concerned that yet again our club's constitution and by-laws is not being followed as required for the operation of the club. 

 

Thanks,

****

 

I can provide more information if it would be helpful.  This individual has threatened us on several occasions with personal lawsuits and we are such a tiny club we just want to do what is right and best for the club. Thank you so much.

 

[matt fuller]

Sorry- I am a new member of this group but I guess I wasn't signed in when I posted the question.

[Dan Honemann]

I gather this election was conducted by mail, hopefully pursuant to your bylaws. How and when are the results of the election announced to your members? Has this already been done?

[matt fuller]

The election was conducted by mail.  The secretary mailed 157 ballots (all adult members listed on the membership roster-youth did not receive ballots).  All officers have access to view the membership list.  Both candidates are directors.  An email to all directors was sent out announcing the number of ballots that were sent.  The ballots were returned to two members of the election committee and were tallied at the end of the six week election.  The committee sent an email and then followed with a certified letter including the ballots announcing the results a week ago.  The President sent an email to both candidates with the results one week ago.  The results were posted two days later on the Official Club Facebook page.  The losing candidate contacted us yesterday with his concerns and his demand that we nullify and void the election.

[Dan Honemann]

If the votes of members improperly prevented from voting could not have affected the result of the vote, which seems to be the case, there appears to be no basis upon which to void the election.

In any event, a point of order concerning the validity of the vote can only be raised at a regular or properly called meeting, unless your rules provide some other method of doing so.

[J. J.]

I think that you would need to have a parliamentarian read your constitution and bylaws any give you a formal opinion.  Expect to have to pay for it. 

[matt fuller]

Thank you Mr. Honemann.  We do not have special rules providing for raising a point of concern on the validity of a vote.   We have our annual meeting scheduled for next week while we are at National Convention.   This is all we actually have that covers our voting procedure:

 

Article 4 Voting Procedure

Section 1: Election of officers shall be held annually. The President and two Directors shall be elected on even years and the Vice President, and two Directors shall be elected on odd years.

 Section 2: The schedule for the annual elections, including the deadline for nominations, expressions of interest for nomination, ballot distribution dates and ballot receipt deadlines, shall be set by the President in consultation with the Executive Committee so that the results will be known prior to the annual membership meeting.

Section 3: The Secretary/Treasurer shall notify the membership of the annual election schedule by publication or mail, together with a call for nominations for open positions.

Section 4: Any member in good standing wishing to become a candidate shall notify the Secretary/Treasurer by mail or E- mail of this interest. If determined eligible by the Secretary/Treasurer, any member expressing interest must appear on the ballot.

Section 5: The Secretary/Treasurer shall mail election ballots to all members in good standing. The ballots shall contain the names of all eligible candidates that meet the requirements in Article 5, Section 2.

Section 6: The President shall appoint a committee of two members not appearing on the ballot to count and tabulate the results of the election. The committee shall report the results of the election to the Executive Committee. The ballots shall be sealed in an envelope and sent to the Secretary/Treasurer. All ballots shall be retained within the club records for a period of one year.

Section 7: The candidate receiving the most votes for each office shall be declared elected.  In case of a tie between two or more candidates, selection of the willing candidate shall be made by the Executive Committee.  Should any candidate for an elected office be unopposed, there shall be no election ballot issued for that position and the unopposed candidate shall be declared elected to said office by acclamation.

Section 8: If any office remains vacant because no nominations were made for the office or if no expressions of interest were received from eligible members, the President shall appoint a temporary officer from the eligible membership.  Such an appointment is subject to the approval of the Executive Committee.

 

So if he raises a point at the meeting, can we just say we aren't going to consider it because it wouldn't change the outcome of the election?  

[Dan Honemann]

I think that, if a point of order is raised at your meeting concerning the validity of the vote due to the fact that 8 members (out of a total of 165) did not receive ballots, if I was presiding I would rule that since, even if it is assumed that all 8 of them would have voted for the losing candidate, it will not change the result of the vote, and therefore the question is moot. There appears to be nothing in your rules which would invalidate the result of an election if 8 members who may have been entitled to vote were denied the right to vote when the winning candidate's margin of victory was 67 votes.

[matt fuller]

33 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I think that, if a point of order is raised at your meeting concerning the validity of the vote due to the fact that 8 members (out of a total of 165) did not receive ballots, if I was presiding I would rule that since, even if it is assumed that all 8 of them would have voted for the losing candidate, it will not change the result of the vote, and therefore the question is moot. There appears to be nothing in your rules which would invalidate the result of an election if 8 members who may have been entitled to vote were denied the right to vote when the winning candidate's margin of victory was 67 votes.

Thank you very much Mr. Honemann for taking the time to review this matter.

[Gary Novosielski]

I agree fully with Mr. Honemann (which most will agree is a no-brainer), but I would note for future reference that nothing in the bylaws you quoted seems to deny the vote to Youth Members.  Of course I haven't (nor do I wish to) read the entire bylaws, and there may be some language about obeying the rules of the parent organization, which raises the question of whether there are any that would apply.

So, though I agree that a point of order against certifying the election should be ruled not be well taken, I would strongly suggest that if your bylaws do not say what you want them to mean, that you look into what it would take to amend them well before the next election.  While you're at it, make sure that your parliamentary authority is adopted using the correct language.

[J. J.]

Agreeing with both DH and GN (no disrespect, just brevity), I would not rule, on this point, on if the youth members could vote.  I would rule that, that even if youth members can vote, 8 votes could not have changed the result.  It would be based on the bottom of p. 445 and top of p. 446.

[Gary Novosielski]

Yes, it's wise not to rule on more than is necessary.  You can't be overruled on something you didn't rule on.  

[Gary c Tesser]

On 9/27/2017 at 3:22 PM, Guest Matt Fuller said:

We as a breed club have never had our youth vote since forming the club in 1972. 

I agree with Gary Novosielski.  What in your documents -- your written rules -- says that young people do not have the right to vote?

 

On 9/27/2017 at 5:08 PM, matt fuller said:

So if he raises a point at the meeting, can we just say we aren't going to consider it because it wouldn't change the outcome of the election?  

Looks like yes. Just yes.  And while it may be embarrassing that we have been disenfranchising young people since 1972 by depriving them of the fundamental right of members to vote, if it really turns out that the young people have had the right to vote all along, well, let's fix what things are broken, and let us recognize that this recent election wasn't particularly one of them.

 

[Dan Honemann]

28 minutes ago, Gary c Tesser said:

I agree with Gary Novosielski.  What in your documents -- your written rules -- says that young people do not have the right to vote?

I think Mr. Fuller has indicated that his club is one of many under the American Rabbit Breeders Association, and that, as such, they believed that whatever wasn't contained in their rules was covered by the rules of ARBA, which he tells us do not permit youth to vote. He says that, as a consequence, they have not allowed their "Youth" members to vote since forming their club in 1972. 

This interpretation of the clubs governing documents may or may not be correct (I suppose it's possible to be consistently wrong about something such as this for 45 years), but this isn't anything we need to decide.  

[Dan Honemann]

Perhaps it should be made clear that all that we have been saying here is that a point of order challenging the result of the vote for the reason indicated will be moot. Such a ruling by the chair is not a ruling that these members are or are not entitled to vote. It is a ruling that it doesn't matter whether they are or are not entitled to vote.

It will, of course, be possible that a point of order will be raised which does not seek to invalidate the election, but seeks only a determination that such members should have been permitted to vote. This may not be quite so easy to deal with.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 9/27/2017 at 5:08 PM, matt fuller said:

So if he raises a point at the meeting, can we just say we aren't going to consider it because it wouldn't change the outcome of the election?  

No.

First, there's no "we" involved.  The chair rules on points of order.

Second, the chair does not refuse to consider the point of order.  The chair isn't allowed to ignore points of order.  The chair listens carefully to the point of order, because the exact nature of the point raised makes a difference, and then, having considered it, issues a ruling on whether the point is, or is not, "well taken", along with the reasons for ruling that way.

It's also advisable to read up on the section dealing with Appeals in case two members wish to raise an appeal from the chair's decision.

[Gary Novosielski]

13 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Perhaps it should be made clear that all that we have been saying here is that a point of order challenging the result of the vote for the reason indicated will be moot. Such a ruling by the chair is not a ruling that these members are or are not entitled to vote. It is a ruling that it doesn't matter whether they are or are not entitled to vote.

It will, of course, be possible that a point of order will be raised which does not seek to invalidate the election, but seeks only a determination that such members should have been permitted to vote. This may not be quite so easy to deal with.

I think I would rule that since this election is complete, a point of order questioning eligibility is no longer timely as it pertains to a past election, and not yet timely as it pertains to future elections.  It might work.

[J. J.]

14 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

 

It will, of course, be possible that a point of order will be raised which does not seek to invalidate the election, but seeks only a determination that such members should have been permitted to vote. This may not be quite so easy to deal with.

It might be advisable to refer the matter to a committee, in that case. 

Looking at it, I'm not sure it could be referred without suspending the rules. 

[J. J.]

1 minute ago, Gary Novosielski said:

I think I would rule that since this election is complete, a point of order questioning eligibility is no longer timely as it pertains to a past election, and not yet timely as it pertains to future elections.  It might work.

A good thought, but I thing a point of order would be timely based on p. 252, ll. 19-30.

I say it is a good thought, because I was looking at that possibility as well. 

[Gary Novosielski]

4 minutes ago, J. J. said:

It might be advisable to refer the matter to a committee, in that case. 

i think that would be highly advisable, but I don't think that's an option for a chair in the process of dealing with a point of order.

[Gary Novosielski]

21 minutes ago, J. J. said:

A good thought, but I thing a point of order would be timely based on p. 252, ll. 19-30.

I say it is a good thought, because I was looking at that possibility as well. 

I've read that language, but while it does appear to guarantee timeliness of a point of order, it is only with respect to the action taken as a result of the vote, and not to the disembodied notion of eligibility itself.  The question is, were members rights violated and if so, what shall be the remedy?

It says that in the event the outcome was not affected, no remedy is appropriate, but those affected have options to make other motions.  Still, Reconsideration is out of the question, and I've never heard of a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted being applied to an election.  Even so, that would take place after the ruling on a remedy, and I'd be surprised if anyone tried it.  The argument that those denied their rights might have persuaded others in debate presumes that the Youth Members were denied the right to debate, when we don't even know that there was debate.

Also, that section says that it is never too late to raise such a point of order, but does not say that is never too early.  And I think a point of order with respect to what might happen next year is too early.  Of course someone could raise a similar point on the very next motion, but at least it doesn't require repeating the election.

[J. J.]

56 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

I've read that language, but while it does appear to guarantee timeliness of a point of order, it is only with respect to the action taken as a result of the vote, and not to the disembodied notion of eligibility itself.  The question is, were members rights violated and if so, what shall be the remedy?

 

On that point, I disagree.  If a member or members were disenfranchised, even if it does not effect the result of any vote, it still creates a breach of a continuing nature.  The remedy is usually a statement that the members were improperly deprived of the right to vote, and possibly disciplinary action against the party or parties that caused the disenfranchisement.

In regard to the committee, the chair could make a ruling, make sure his ruling is appealed, and refer the appeal to a committee.  He could also submit the question to the assembly where it could be referred to a committee.

 

[Dan Honemann]

I think we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the voting in these elections is conducted by mail, which very often gives rise to problems not encountered when voting takes place during a meeting, and makes application of a number of rules in RONR quite difficult if not impossible. 

It appears that the tellers report the results of the election to the Executive Committee, and it is apparently the Executive Committee that declares the result of the election. The bylaws do seem to be crafted to ensure that there will be no need to conduct more than one such vote under any circumstances, and I find this common sense approach instructive in this particular instance. 

 

[Gary Novosielski]

12 hours ago, J. J. said:

On that point, I disagree.  If a member or members were disenfranchised, even if it does not effect the result of any vote, it still creates a breach of a continuing nature.  The remedy is usually a statement that the members were improperly deprived of the right to vote, and possibly disciplinary action against the party or parties that caused the disenfranchisement.

In regard to the committee, the chair could make a ruling, make sure his ruling is appealed, and refer the appeal to a committee.  He could also submit the question to the assembly where it could be referred to a committee.

 

That's as may be, but none of it is mentioned on P. 252

[J. J.]

41 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

That's as may be, but none of it is mentioned on P. 252

It does on pp. 248, ll. 24-33, and p. 256, #1 if you are referring to a motion to Commit.

I do think p. 252 specifically says that a point of order regarding the denial of the right to vote can be raised at any time.