Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Ordered Special Election and Pending Appeal


Guest Touman

Recommended Posts

I will try to make this as short as possible. I am a part of a sorority that has the local chapter, a State Director, a Regional Director and the National President.  In April we held local chapter elections and after many attempts were unable to complete the election.  We adjourned and completed the election during the May meeting.  Our bylaws require a 2/3 majority to declare a winner. During the May meeting, members where insistent that you round down when calculating 2/3.  I was persistent in telling them they where incorrect but after they where all so certain they where correct, as presiding officer, I asked that members confirm their agreement via an official vote and unanimously they all agreed. After hearing the results, there where no objections or points of order made. 

In August a member came to the meeting with a three page list of things she was claiming were irregularities with the election. Yes, she was the losing party.  She was advised to submit the documents for review as it was just to much to look into without the benefit of the written concerns.  Instead, the concerns where submitted to the State Director in September who then asked for various documents for review.  Never was I contacted to discuss an official investigation. After hearing nothing for months, on December 8, the State Director sent a letter ordering a special election for our December 16. Her letter sighted: 
1. That the chapter deviated from standard practice by requiring a 2/3 vote to declare the winner rather than using simple majority; 
2. That the chapter should have completed the election in April because it was what we had written in our bylaws; and she later added 
3. That we didn’t follow our bylaws related to the 2/3 majority. 

Despite my raising my objections and request for an appeal and/or stay of moving forward with the election, she stated that we had to move forward with the election as she ordered because we didn’t follow our own bylaws and because she wanted us to be fair and because we are a democratic society. She sent correspondence to the members and spoke to the chapter via telephone during the meeting and ordered that I conduct this election. I raised a point of order sighting page 250 of RONR as none of these concerned where raised prior to August and because none of them seem to be of a  continuing nature.  I also sighted page 446 as it relates to her involvement in the chapter election at all as I am not aware of anything in writing giving her the authority to do so. Essentially, the election has been conducted and she is now silent.  I am working on an appeal to the next level and would like topoint out all of the reasons why this should be thrown out when I submit my appeal. Please list the problems you find with how this was handled to help me strengthen my appeal. 
    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post is really inextricably related to this earlier post by guest Youman. It needs to be read for a full understanding of this situation.  http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/31132-bylaws-language-and-the-completion-of-an-election/

I think we answered guest touman's questions in that thread.

Edited again to add: on second (and third) reading, I realize that guest touman did introduce some new issues in this new post, such as the bylaws issue re a two thirds vote and how to calculate such a vote. 

 

Edited by Richard Brown
Added last two paragraphs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Guest Touman said:

 

. . . . In August a member came to the meeting with a three page list of things she was claiming were irregularities with the election. Yes, she was the losing party.  She was advised to submit the documents for review as it was just to much to look into without the benefit of the written concerns.  Instead, the concerns where submitted to the State Director in September who then asked for various documents for review.  Never was I contacted to discuss an official investigation. After hearing nothing for months, on December 8, the State Director sent a letter ordering a special election for our December 16. Her letter sighted: 
1. That the chapter deviated from standard practice by requiring a 2/3 vote to declare the winner rather than using simple majority; 
2. That the chapter should have completed the election in April because it was what we had written in our bylaws; and she later added 
3. That we didn’t follow our bylaws related to the 2/3 majority.

4

Guest Touman, responding to your three questions:

1.  it doesn't matter what "standard practice" is if your bylaws require a two thirds vote in order to be elected.  That is a provision which absolutely can be included in the bylaws.... unless a superior document prohibits your organization from having such a provision. 

2. We have already addressed this issue at length.  You did the correct thing by completing the election at the May meeting.  I am not going to rehash all of that.

3. In what way is it claimed that you did not follow your bylaws?

btw, in a part of your post which I did not quote, you said there was an issue regarding whether to "round down" when calculating a two thirds vote.   Technically, you don't round up or down.    FAQ # 5 addresses that issue:  http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#5

 

Edited by Richard Brown
Miscellaneous corrections
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Guest Touman said:

Our bylaws require a 2/3 majority to declare a winner. During the May meeting, members where insistent that you round down when calculating 2/3.  I was persistent in telling them they where incorrect but after they where all so certain they where correct, as presiding officer, I asked that members confirm their agreement via an official vote and unanimously they all agreed. After hearing the results, there where no objections or points of order made. 

I am not entirely certain what you mean by this “rounding down.” How many votes were cast in this election, and how many did the leading candidate receive?

16 hours ago, Guest Touman said:

Instead, the concerns where submitted to the State Director in September who then asked for various documents for review.  Never was I contacted to discuss an official investigation. After hearing nothing for months, on December 8, the State Director sent a letter ordering a special election for our December 16. Her letter sighted: 
1. That the chapter deviated from standard practice by requiring a 2/3 vote to declare the winner rather than using simple majority; 
2. That the chapter should have completed the election in April because it was what we had written in our bylaws; and she later added 
3. That we didn’t follow our bylaws related to the 2/3 majority

1.) This point doesn’t make any sense. It is correct that the assembly deviated from “standard practice” by requiring a 2/3 vote for election, but the assembly did so because that is what the bylaws require, and the bylaws take precedence over “standard practice.” The State Director appears to acknowledge as much in her third point.

2.) Yes, the chapter should have completed the election in April, but when it failed to do so, it was entirely appropriate to complete the election at the next regular meeting.

3.) I’m a little fuzzy on the facts here, but let’s assume for the sake of argument that the candidate did not receive a 2/3 vote. It is too late to invalidate the election on that basis at this time. This is not a “continuing breach.” A member would have had to raise a Point of Order at the time.

Additionally, even if the State Director was correct (and based upon the facts provided, it does not seem to me that she is), the State Director does not have the power to order the chapter to conduct a new election, unless the state organization’s bylaws grant her that authority. So far as RONR is concerned, only the chapter may make that decision.

16 hours ago, Guest Touman said:

I am working on an appeal to the next level and would like topoint out all of the reasons why this should be thrown out when I submit my appeal. Please list the problems you find with how this was handled to help me strengthen my appeal. 

It looks to me like you already understand the situation and the applicable rules quite well.

Edited by Josh Martin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

3.) I’m a little fuzzy on the facts here, but let’s assume for the sake of argument that the candidate did not receive a 2/3 vote. It is too late to invalidate the election on that basis at this time. This is not a “continuing breach.” A member would have had to raise a Point of Order at the time

Yes. there where 11 votes cast and the vote count was 7 to 4. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

3. In what way is it claimed that you did not follow your bylaws?

The claim about not following the bylaws was because the election was not completed in April and because the winner was declared without have the correct number of votes based on the 2/3 vote requirements. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, a vote of 7 to 4 is not a two thirds vote, as the answer to FAQ # 5 clearly explains. A two thirds vote means AT LEAST two thirds, not "almost two thirds". The easy way to know if you have a two thirds vote is that there must be a two to one margin: there must be at least twice as many yes votes (or votes for one candidate) as no votes. I'm at a loss as to how someone can think that a vote of 7 to 4 is a two thirds vote.

BUT, as Josh Martin explained, that mistake does not constitute a continuing breach that would invalidate the election.  That mistake would have required that someone make.a timely (immediate) point of order at the time of the election. Once the chair declares the person elected, unless there is an immediate point of order raised, the mistake is waived and it is too late to do anything about it after the fact. That is because there must be finality in decisions in all except for a few specific exceptions, such as ineligible people casting votes or eligible voters being denied the right to vote ... AND those votes could have affected the result. This is not one of those exceptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Guest Touman said:

Despite my raising my objections and request for an appeal and/or stay of moving forward with the election, she stated that we had to move forward with the election as she ordered because we didn’t follow our own bylaws and because she wanted us to be fair and because we are a democratic society.

To repeat my question from the other thread:  what the heck does she think the point of that is?  If her issue is that elections need to be held in April, how does holding one now help?

To repeat a question others have asked here: are there any bylaw provisions giving this "state director" the ability to issue such an order?  If not, forget about appealing - just ignore her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

To repeat my question from the other thread:  what the heck does she think the point of that is?  If her issue is that elections need to be held in April, how does holding one now help?

To repeat a question others have asked here: are there any bylaw provisions giving this "state director" the ability to issue such an order?  If not, forget about appealing - just ignore her.

I agree with Joshua's post . . . And especially with his last sentence! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

To repeat my question from the other thread:  what the heck does she think the point of that is?  If her issue is that elections need to be held in April, how does holding one now help?

To repeat a question others have asked here: are there any bylaw provisions giving this "state director" the ability to issue such an order?  If not, forget about appealing - just ignore her.

I am not sure what her point is about the failure to complete the election by April.  She kept telling me that she wanted to have this resolved before the new year. I am sure the fact that she sent the letter directing me to complete the election just over a week prior to the chapter meeting was not a coincidence.   As for bylaw provisions given the state director authority to issue such an order, there are none.  I have asked that she provided me with written documentation if she has something that proves otherwise. 

The issue I have with ignoring her is that because she has made these statements to the members, they now act if though they have a right to force me to comply with the orders given which is how they ended up getting her on the phone during the meeting which resulting in my being forced to hold this ambush special election. The meeting was chaotic because of her interference.  An hour before the meeting she sent an email to to body telling them that they can suspend the 2/3 vote requirement for this special election and during her phone conversation to the chapter she told a member that any motion made by the body had to be voted on essentially that I could not rule a motion was not in order.  Because of her, members felt that I had not authority and keep stating that I was just a presiding over the meeting and couldn't tell them basic things like to come to order when they wanted to be disruptive. Thanks the the State Director, we have a big mess. 

My fear is that even through appeal, they will be side with her not because she is right but because often they want to focus on being "sisterly" and being a peacemaker.  My focus is insuring that business is conducted and that we follow the rules as written. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Guest Touman said:

The issue I have with ignoring her is that because she has made these statements to the members, they now act if though they have a right to force me to comply with the orders given which is how they ended up getting her on the phone during the meeting which resulting in my being forced to hold this ambush special election. The meeting was chaotic because of her interference.  An hour before the meeting she sent an email to to body telling them that they can suspend the 2/3 vote requirement for this special election and during her phone conversation to the chapter she told a member that any motion made by the body had to be voted on essentially that I could not rule a motion was not in order.  Because of her, members felt that I had not authority and keep stating that I was just a presiding over the meeting and couldn't tell them basic things like to come to order when they wanted to be disruptive. Thanks the the State Director, we have a big mess. 

 

Well, they're wrong too.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Touman, a few questions.

1.  have you forwarded your two threads on this forum to her?  Perhaps it will help her to understand what the rules really are.  You are free to share these posts with anyone you want to.

2.  Have you considered suggesting that she start her own thread on this forum, asking her questions and making her points in the way she wants to?

3.  Do you know if she has a copy of RONR?  Not a knockoff version, but the "real book".  The current 11th edition is preferable, but I think the information on your issues is pretty much the same in the last few editions.  Maybe you should buy her a copy.  Right now it's less than $12 on Amazon.  While you are at it, make sure you have one for yourself.  It's 716 numbered pages.  http://www.robertsrules.com/book.html

4.  Have you considered consulting with a professional parliamentarian?  You can get referrals from both NAP and AIP.  You also might be able to find one in your area who is not officially credentialed by either organization but who is nonetheless very knowledgeable.  Such a person might also be able to assist with obtaining an opinion or help at low cost or no cost from a credentialed parliamentarian.  The NAP website, in particular, lists info on state associations and local units on its website in the section "NAP in My Area".  Contact your district director and state association president and a local unit near you if there is one.  They are always anxious to help.  If the info you need isn't listed on the website, call the NAP headquarters.  They will provide you with the pertinent contact info.  I'll provide info on both organizations below.  The NAP is the larger of the two organizations.  They are the two national organizations which credential parliamentarians.

NAP and AIP contact info


National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP)
213 South Main St.
Independence, MO  64050-3850
Phone: 888-627-2929
e-mail: hq@NAP2.org  
www.parliamentarians.org



American Institute of Parliamentarians (AIP)
618 Church Street, Ste 220
Nashville, TN 37219
Phone: 888-664-0428
e-mail: aip@aipparl.org
www.aipparl.org

Edited by Richard Brown
corrected typo and added link to RONR
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Guest Touman said:

The issue I have with ignoring her is that because she has made these statements to the members, they now act if though they have a right to force me to comply with the orders given which is how they ended up getting her on the phone during the meeting which resulting in my being forced to hold this ambush special election. The meeting was chaotic because of her interference.  An hour before the meeting she sent an email to to body telling them that they can suspend the 2/3 vote requirement for this special election and during her phone conversation to the chapter she told a member that any motion made by the body had to be voted on essentially that I could not rule a motion was not in order.  Because of her, members felt that I had not authority and keep stating that I was just a presiding over the meeting and couldn't tell them basic things like to come to order when they wanted to be disruptive. Thanks the the State Director, we have a big mess. 

My fear is that even through appeal, they will be side with her not because she is right but because often they want to focus on being "sisterly" and being a peacemaker.  My focus is insuring that business is conducted and that we follow the rules as written. 

It is correct that the membership can force you to conduct the election. A member may raise a Point of Order that the election is null and void. You would presumably rule the point not well taken on the basis that it is not timely. A member may Appeal from this ruling. Assuming the appeal is seconded, the decision is in the hands of the membership. If the membership determines, upon appeal, that the election is null and void, a new election must be held.

The State Director is also correct that the rules may be suspended to permit election by a majority vote. This rule is in the nature of a rule of order, and may therefore be suspended even though it is in the bylaws. Ironically, this is exactly why there should be no need to redo the election. If a rule may be suspended by a 2/3 vote, then the rule does not protect individual members or absentees, and as a result, a Point of Order must be timely.

The State Director is not correct that the presiding officer may not rule a motion out of order, but as noted above, the chair’s rulings are subject to appeal. The assembly is the ultimate judge of its rules.

It is unfortunate that the members have taken this so far as to believe that the chair is powerless. The members elect a chair for a reason - because it is not practical for the assembly to make a determination every time a motion is out of order or when a member is being disruptive. As a result, many of these powers are delegated to the presiding officer, but the assembly reserves the right to overturn the chair’s ruling in a particular case.

In any event, the people you need to convince are the members of your own chapter, not the State Director or whoever else you are appealing to. If the members will not listen, you’re out of luck.

Edited by Josh Martin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

It is correct that the membership can force you to conduct the election. A member may raise a Point of Order that the election is null and void. You would presumably rule the point not well taken on the basis that it is not timely. A member may Appeal from this ruling. Assuming the appeal is seconded, the decision is in the hands of the membership. If the membership determines, upon appeal, that the election is null and void, a new election must be held.

This never happened. A point of order was never raised by the members. This unknown member went straight to the State Director months later. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Who's Coming to Dinner

Then there is nothing you need do until someone raises one. Retain control over the meeting and don't allow members to blurt out complaints or questions. If you are feeling particularly noble, you can ask one of the pot-stirrers if they wish to raise a Point of Order. But it is really up to them to know the rules of order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/19/2017 at 9:34 AM, Guest Touman said:

Yes the votes where cast by ballot. The bylaws require votes be taken by secret ballot. 

 

I am going to disagree with most of my colleagues on this.  Secrecy in voting is a "basic right of an individual member" when a ballot is required and may be subject to a nontimely point of order (p. 251, e.).   See also p. 263, ll. 7-11.

The rule in the bylaws is not only that the vote be taken by ballot, but that a 2/3 vote is required; this is from your description.  If this were not a ballot vote, it would have been possible to suspend the rules and require something less than a 2/3 vote (see the footnotes on pp. 251, 263).  However, someone moving to suspend the rule would tend to reveal how the person voted. 

I would note that, if the vote had not been required to be taken by ballot, I would agree that it is too late to raise a point of order.   The problem is created by the ballot. 

 

The chair may take the initiative at a meeting to correct this error , or a member may raise a point of order to that effect. 

Edited by J. J.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, J. J. said:

 

I am going to disagree with most of my colleagues on this.  Secrecy in voting is a "basic right of an individual member" when a ballot is required and may be subject to a nontimely point of order (p. 251, e.).   See also p. 263, ll. 7-11.

The rule in the bylaws is not only that the vote be taken by ballot, but that a 2/3 vote is required; this is from your description.  If this were not a ballot vote, it would have been possible to suspend the rules and require something less than a 2/3 vote (see the footnotes on pp. 251, 263).  However, someone moving to suspend the rule would tend to reveal how the person voted. 

I would note that, if the vote had not been required to be taken by ballot, I would agree that it is too late to raise a point of order.   The problem is created by the ballot. 

 

The chair may take the initiative at a meeting to correct this error , or a member may raise a point of order to that effect. 

I disagree with much of what JJ said in the post above, or at least with his conclusions, but will have to wait until later to elaborate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Guest Touman said:

This never happened. A point of order was never raised by the members. This unknown member went straight to the State Director months later. 

Yes, I understand that. I'm talking about the members raising a Point of Order at a future meeting.

1 hour ago, J. J. said:

I am going to disagree with most of my colleagues on this.  Secrecy in voting is a "basic right of an individual member" when a ballot is required and may be subject to a nontimely point of order (p. 251, e.).   See also p. 263, ll. 7-11.

The rule in the bylaws is not only that the vote be taken by ballot, but that a 2/3 vote is required; this is from your description.  If this were not a ballot vote, it would have been possible to suspend the rules and require something less than a 2/3 vote (see the footnotes on pp. 251, 263).  However, someone moving to suspend the rule would tend to reveal how the person voted. 

I would note that, if the vote had not been required to be taken by ballot, I would agree that it is too late to raise a point of order.   The problem is created by the ballot. 

The chair may take the initiative at a meeting to correct this error , or a member may raise a point of order to that effect. 

I disagre. Pointing out that 7 is not 2/3 of 11 merely demonstrates that a member understands parliamentary procedure and/or basic math. It does not reveal how the member voted.

As to the suspension of the rules, similarly, a member may simply propose such a motion because he wants the election to be over.

Edited by Josh Martin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

Yes, I understand that. I'm talking about the members raising a Point of Order at a future meeting.

I disagre. Pointing out that 7 is not 2/3 of 11 merely demonstrates that a member understands parliamentary procedure and/or basic math. It does not reveal how the member voted.

As to the suspension of the rules, similarly, a member may simply propose such a motion because he wants the election to be over.

Then you would say that when the bylaws were silent, a ballot vote for officers could be by a plurality if no one objects?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

I disagree with much of what JJ said in the post above, or at least with his conclusions, but will have to wait until later to elaborate.

This can tend to "force the disclosure" of how someone voted by ballot (p. 413 ll. 1-9).

 

It is out of order to make a ballot vote unanimous when it is not.  Likewise, it is out of order to make a ballot vote be a 2/3 vote when it is not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...