CornelR

Thank you.

On 12/29/2023 at 1:33 PM, Josh Martin said:

If the ballots of the persons who were not eligible to vote can be identified, those ballots can be removed from the totals accordingly and the results corrected. Candidate A would still win, of course, but the number of votes for each candidate may be slightly different.

If the ballots cannot be identified, then I am inclined nothing can be done other than to be more careful in the future. It's not possible to adjust the totals in such a case, and there is no need to redo the election, because the number of votes cast by persons not eligible to vote were not sufficient to change the outcome.

No. Even supposing that both of those members voted for Candidate A, then Candidate A still would have won, by a vote of 13-9. So I see no reason to redo the election.

"If one or more ballots are identifiable as cast by persons not entitled to vote, these ballots are excluded in determining the number of votes cast for purposes of computing the majority. If there is evidence that any unidentifiable ballots were cast by persons not entitled to vote, and if there is any possibility that such ballots might affect the result, the entire ballot vote is null and void, and a new ballot vote must be taken." RONR (12th ed.) 45:35

What about a situation where a non-members vote created a 7-6 win for a candidate for chair. And, it is now 5 months since that happened. Can a motion be introduced to hold a new election since there would presumably have been a tie which would have necessitated further votes to determine a winner those 5 months ago?

Thank you all. We had this pegged correctly. Hopefully the committee can rectify the situation. Your clear answers will help immensely.

On 12/19/2023 at 12:18 PM, Bruce Lages said:

I would just point out, relative to your inclusion of your bylaws Section 9 as relevant, that at no time during what occurred was the office of county chairman actually vacant. The resigning chair gave notice of his resignation at a June meeting, to take effect on August 1, and therefore was still chair at the meeting in July when an election for a new chair was to take place. I don't see any reason why the vice chair should have provided notice of the election and called a meeting since the chair position was not vacant.

The other issues regarding previous notice requirements still need to addressed, though since it appears that those requirements may not have been followed.

Agreed. I pointed that out to them as well. It has just become focused only on the violation of the notice bylaw.

On 12/19/2023 at 7:02 AM, CornelR said:

I was asked about a bylaw violation that no one objected to. Is it true that if a bylaw is violated by someone suspending that bylaw (which cannot be done), and no one objects, then whatever transpires in the way of motions and other business proceeding from the violated bylaw stands?

Or worded differently, is any part of a meetings business invalidated by that business being completed as a result of suspending a bylaw. They did not give me a lot of detail and I can go back and get some more if necessary, but generally speaking their concern is, if business was conducted specifically resulting from suspending a bylaw, is that business valid? I understand that if no one objected to it then the results stand even though it violated a bylaw.

Earlier I mentioned a central committee violating their bylaws.  The situation proceeded as follows:

At the June regular meeting, the current chairman let the committee know that he would be resigning August 1 and that at the next regular meeting in July they would elect the new chair.  This satisfied the seven days notice referenced in section 9 below, although it does violate the requirement for the vice chair to assume the duties and give seven days notice within 30 days.

At that meeting, the chairman ran the meeting, this was objected to.  Upon electing a new chair, they then proceeded to suspend the rules for notice because the vice chair was elevated to chair and his office had to be replaced.  Section 11 requires notice to be given for that election.  They then proceeded to suspend the rules again because they had to elect a new State committeeman because he was elevated to a different position.

It would be those two offices that they elected that we believe violated the requirement to give notice.  And it was that notice requirement that was suspended.

Strictly speaking, of course the rule for the Vice Chairman to give notice to replace a resigned share was also violated.  The chair gave that notice and then ran the meeting.  He wasn't to resign for I believe another week after this meeting was held.  So there is the issue that he was still the chair for another week even after they elected a new chair that evening.  These are ancillary issues though.

I actually provided them an entire affidavit detailing all the numerous violations that occurred in that meeting but this seems to be the one that has become the focus of the situation.  So, the real question is, since we know the officers will legally elected, do they keep their positions or should another meeting be called for a proper election of officers?

Relevant bylaws:

Section 9: If the office of the County Chairman becomes vacant, by reason of resignation, death or otherwise, the Vice Chairman shall assume all duties of the Chairman and, within thirty (30) days after giving at least

seven (7) days notice, call a Central Committee meeting for the purpose of electing a new County Chairman. If the Vice Chairman does not call such meeting within thirty (30) days, the State Chairman shall call a county Central Committee meeting with seven (7) days notice, for the purpose of electing a new County Chairman

Section 10: If the office of State Committeeman, State Committeewoman or State Youth Committeeperson becomes vacant, by reason of death or otherwise, the County Chairman shall, within thirty (30) days after giving at least seven (7) days notice call a County Central Committee meeting for the purpose of filing such vacancy.

Section 11: If the office of Vice Chairman, secretary or treasurer becomes vacant because of resignation, death or otherwise, the county chairman shall, within thirty (30) days and after giving at least seven (7) days notice, call a County Central Committee meeting for the purpose of filling the vacancy.

I was asked about a bylaw violation that no one objected to. Is it true that if a bylaw is violated by someone suspending that bylaw (which cannot be done), and no one objects, then whatever transpires in the way of motions and other business proceeding from the violated bylaw stands?

Or worded differently, is any part of a meetings business invalidated by that business being completed as a result of suspending a bylaw. They did not give me a lot of detail and I can go back and get some more if necessary, but generally speaking their concern is, if business was conducted specifically resulting from suspending a bylaw, is that business valid? I understand that if no one objected to it then the results stand even though it violated a bylaw.

A group send out a special meeting notice appropriate to their bylaws.  Subsequent to that, they discovered that the room was not available for the meeting.  Another room has come available in another building next door 70 yards away.  Can they simply direct people to that room or do they need to abandon that meeting and send out notice for a new meeting using the appropriate language and time? In other words do they need to schedule a new special meeting a week out.  This meeting was scheduled a week out originally but the change of location only became evident yesterday.  The meeting is the day after tomorrow.  Can they have it with someone directing traffic? Or again, do they need to reschedule it for a week out.

On 5/17/2022 at 3:44 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Just an additional point.  The motion you're proposing is to Set the Time to Which to Adjourn, and this is one of the few motions that do not require a quorum to be present.  So only one or two members would be required to attend the first meeting, and set the date for the second one, with no need to worry about beating the bushes for a quorum.

However, amending an agenda does require a quorum so you'd have to leave that for the second meeting if there was not a quorum at the first one.

Got it! Thank you.

On 5/17/2022 at 12:33 PM, Richard Brown said:

The adjourned meeting, which by definition is a separate meeting, WILL be held within that three or four day window (it isn't clear from the wording of original post whether the period is actually three or four days).  22:1 and 22:9 (RONR 12th ed.).

No, we are trying to find a solution to CornelR's predicament.  So far, in the seven hours since he posted his question, I am the only one who has offered a solution. ☹️

Thank you for the help. I will forward this to the State party.

On 5/17/2022 at 7:27 AM, George Mervosh said:

Doesn't the motion to fix the time to which to adjourn need to be made at a regular or properly called meeting?  I'm gathering the meeting in question is not properly called.

The meetings were all properly called, they were just not in the required 3 day window.

Sorry I have been unavailable. the original meetings were properly called but were not in the permissible 3 day window.

Good morning all,

We have an interesting situation here in Idaho with the primary which is actually today. First a few details. In Idaho, as in many states, we have what are known as precinct committeemen or in some states precinct captains who are responsible to keep the people in their precinct informed about political issues and candidates. They are elected every two years in the primary by the electorate. Their term runs from eight days after the date of election through eight days after the succeeding election. So, for example, any precinct committeemen who are elected today in our primary will not take office for eight more days. This means that the current sitting precinct committeemen are still able to do the business of the party.

Every two years, each Central committee holds what is called a reorganization meeting primarily for the purpose of electing new officers, and every four years that reorganization meeting includes election of delegates to the state convention as well as election of new officers. That is the situation this year.

The incumbent chairman of the County Central committee, legislative district committee, and region committee is required to call a meeting for their respective reorganization meeting. When he/she calls for the meeting, they must specify a date, time, and place and not only apprise the members but they must place a press release in the paper of record for the county or counties as needed. The meeting has to happen based on several different requirements in the state rules but it basically must be done in a window of three days starting eight days after the primary and ending 11 days after the primary for all but the region committee.

This year, the state sent out their normal reminder but their instructions were not as specific as they should have been and many incumbent chairmen of the counties and legislative districts called their meetings for less than eight days after the election.

There is some concern that this was done intentionally for reasons which I will not go into here. My concern is advising the chairman of the respective committees of a bulletproof method for fixing this. Here is what I have come up with and I would like your parliamentary opinion as to its suitability.

I encouraged the chairman to go ahead and have the meeting on the date assigned and then assuming they have a quorum, amend the agenda and set a new date within the three-day window, or simply recess to the three-day window. I believe this will solve the problem and prevent the counties and legislative districts from having their corrected meeting invalidated for not following state rules. This procedure would I believe, satisfy the state rules and parliamentary procedure for correcting the problem.

One concern that came up was what if a quorum was not achieved at the noticed meeting? Based on Roberts Rules section 40:7, could not the assembly recess to the three-day window or set the time to adjourn at an hour late in one of the days within the three-day window?

Which would be the best method for setting a correct date given the strange parameters?

Thank you for your help on this.

Thank you for all the help on this issue.

On 3/28/2022 at 6:02 PM, Rob Elsman said:

Someone can draft a letter ordering the president to call the special meeting when and where to handle such and such business.  One third of the members need to sign the letter.  The letter is then sent to the president with a copy sent to the secretary for the correspondence file.  The president then gives the secretary a call of the meeting, which the secretary copies and sends to all the members at the expense of the society.  That's it.

That's the rub. This has been done and the chair will not call the meeting.

On 3/28/2022 at 5:50 PM, Rob Elsman said:

The chair is derelict in her duty to call the special meeting, as the bylaws apparently require.  A disciplinary procedure can be initiated by means of a main motion.

Understood. What they are asking is how to call the special meeting in the first place.

The bylaws require 1/3 of the membership to request a special meeting which the chair is then required to call. They have exceeded the requirement but she will not call the meeting. The bylaws do not address multiple officers missing in action.

A group is struggling with a derelict chair. They have followed their bylaws requiring one third of the members to petition the chair for a special meeting. The chair will not call the meeting. There is no Vice Chairman and the secretary is gone. Can the treasurer as the next in line officer call this meeting?

Thanks. Our state legislature does indeed use Mason's but the GOP Legislative Districts are bound by State GOP rules to use Robert's. thus the dichotomy.

The state statutes do not address procedure in the meeting. I am aware the chair of a small committee can participate. This is a bit different as the chair of the committee which is tasked with vetting and choosing a list of three candidates to forward to the governor is also running for the office. She will likely be one of the three on the list to send to the governor. I thought it appropriate for her to turn the meeting over to the vice-chair in this case.

A state legislator has resigned. The Legislative District Committee tasked with providing 3 names to the Governor for appointment to the vacant seat is meeting tonight to vet and create the list of three candidates. The Legislative District Chair intends to run for the vacant legislative office. I believe she should step down from the chair and have the Vice-chair run the meeting. Would that be the correct procedure and where can I find it in Robert's Rules?

A committee in our state legislature wishes to hear two different legislative proposals. One may cancel out the other. The first would repeal the sales tax on groceries. The second would increase the grocery sales tax exemption. The chair of the committee is wondering how to allow both a fair hearing and what to do if both survive committee?

Just now, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I'm not at all certain about this.

In any event, I suppose these questions will need to be resolved by use of the point of order and appeal process described in Sections 23 and 24 of RONR, unless your Committee has some other rules indicating otherwise.

Thank you for your effort. It is a quandry.

3 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

The first thing I should do is refer you to FAQ #10. Nothing else that I say on this subject has any real significance.

Having said that, I must say that I find the facts as stated a bit confusing. I assume that when you refer to "we" (your organization) you are referring to your state's Republican State Central Committee, and that this Committee is a "regional level" entity, as referred to in your initial post, so that proxy voting is allowed at its meetings, although there seems to be some doubt as to whether or not proxies can be used in an election to fill a vacancy in the office of Chairman.

You tell us that:

"The question that is lately come to light is the issue of people who want to send their proxy specifying who to vote for as chair. This would be something akin to a write in vote which is not allowed by our rules. With that information can you help me with this question? Can members send their proxies with someone who was able to attend the meeting but specify who that proxy vote is to be for? It is likely we will have two possibly three people running for chair."

If a valid proxy directs that it is to be used to vote for the election of someone who is nominated, I don't see why this would be akin to a write-in vote.
 

My apologies for not being clear. I am referring to the State GOP Central Committee. It exists in several parts. The State executive committee which consists of the chair, two vice-chairs, secretary, treasurer and various others.

Then the (rather large) state is divided into regions with a Region committee consisting of a chair, vice-chair, and a secretary. Then there are 35 Legislative Districts each with a central committee of a chair, vice-chait and secretary. Last there are 44 counties with a chair, vice-chair, secretary, treasurer, state committee-woman, state committeeman, and a state youth committeeman. This is similar to most states.

 

This concern is about the state chair. It has been a 3 month discussion starting with the general proxy issue. I am one of the folks the state consults about these issues. Back in May I sent an analysis of the issue to the state GOP after reading their attorney’s (the Jason referred to) analysis. I included the sections in Robert’s that speak to voting and proxies as well as a reference to FAQ#10. This was my initial analysis:

 

“While I understand Jason’s analysis and even see the procedure by which he came to his conclusion I must say that absent the requirement that the ID GOP follow Roberts Rules where no rule exists, his conclusion would be the only conclusion to be drawn. It may be so anyway but below I’ve presented all the information from Roberts. Be it known that Roberts rules discourages proxy voting in all its forms noting that proxy voting should only be allowed if an organizations bylaws permit it. Where there is no clear direction is always been our procedure to default to Robert’s Rules. If we were to do that in this case, and with the clear and compelling provision that the chair cannot be voted by proxy at a convention, I believe we should at least consider the idea that no proxies be allowed to replace the chairman. The one man one vote concept that our nation enjoys is turned on its head by allowing proxies in elections. Second, there is no way for anyone who sends a proxy vote to be able to be swayed by the nomination speeches and/or the seconding speeches. I will yield to Jason’s analysis, but I just spent over an hour on the forum at Roberts rules online where I searched this question out and the general consensus was that absent a specific authorization of proxy voting in a specific area, if an organization has adopted Robert’s as their parliamentary authority, they should not use a proxy in such an unspecified area.

Below I have included the relevant sections for Roberts rules.” (Here I inserted those sections which would be superfluous on this forum)

 

It appeared that the state was going with the attorney’s analysis when the secondary issue of designated proxies came up. My take was that if proxies were to be allowed, then certainly they could be so designated. That is, a proxy could be sent with a properly authorized carrier that specified a specific candidate for him to cast his vote for. I allowed that one negative aspect of this plan would be that it would also not give the proxy sender the benefit of hearing the debate and speeches which might influence their vote. But if they were ignoring that aspect by allowing proxy election in the first place at least it would be consistent.

 

At that point, I submitted my question to this forum where there are far wiser folk than I

 

 

 

3

Here are the relevant sections of our rules:

Section 2: The first meeting of the Republican State Central Committee shall take place immediately upon adjournment of the State Convention, at which time said committee may fill vacancies on the statewide ticket. The Committee shall thereafter be called to fill any vacancy on the statewide ticket which may occur before the General Election. Meetings of the Committee may be called by the State Chairman or, in the case of a vacancy in the Chairmanship, by the First Vice Chairman, and in the case of absence in the office of First Vice Chairman, by the Second Vice Chairman. Such call shall be issued at least thirty (30) days in advance of the date of the proposed semi-annual regular meeting and thirty (30) days in advance for special meetings and within fifteen (15) days for emergency meetings or as otherwise provided by Idaho Code and shall state the business to be transacted at the meeting and such other business as may properly come before it. Regular meetings shall be held at least twice annually.

Section 6: If the office of the Chairman becomes vacant, by reason of resignation, death or otherwise, the First Vice-Chairman shall assume all duties and responsibilities of the State Chairman until the next regularly scheduled Republican State Central Committee meeting elects a new State Chairman to serve until a successor is duly elected by the next Republican State Convention. If no regular Republican State Central Committee meeting is before the next Republican State Convention, then the First Vice-Chairman shall assume all duties and responsibilities of the State Chairman until a successor is duly elected by the next Republican State Convention. There shall be no automatic succession to the office of State Chairman.

10 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Do you not have a vice chairman who would automatically succeed to the chairmanship?

Yes and that happened but we now must by our rules, elect a chairman to fill out the remainder of the term.