Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Election Fraud?


Karen

Recommended Posts

Our City Council rules clearly require RONR adherence and roll call voting. In a recent election of Council Vice-President, despite my repeated attempts to clarify our rules through "Point of Order" questions and statements, our solicitor insisted that nominations from council members were in order and the only way to proceed. Since only the nominated candidates were voted upon individually, in the order they were nominated, in a yay/nay vote, members could not vote for any member they wished. As soon as one of the two nominated members clearly won or lost the majority, the election was closed. Also at this recent meeting, one member was allowed to "abstain" because the debate disturbed him and he wanted harmony.

This is not normal behavior at our usually orderly meetings, but our President is gearing up for a Mayoral run and is trying to "set the scene" for himself politically. He has expressed his desire for another term as Council President, another violation of our Council Rules (He has presided for two consecutive terms). In Council President elections in the past, the choice was pre-determined such that Council followed a written script, dictated by the President, stating who will nominate and who will second the pre-selected candidate.I can't tolerate this willful bending of our rules and backroom politics, and I don't understand the reach of power granted to solicitors under RONR. Any answers? How does one challenge a clear breach of the rules if the solicitor refuses to cite either RONR or Council rules in defending his opinion and the President repeatedly defers to the solicitor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our City Council rules clearly require RONR adherence and roll call voting. In a recent election of Council Vice-President, despite my repeated attempts to clarify our rules through "Point of Order" questions and statements, our solicitor insisted that nominations from council members were in order and the only way to proceed. Since only the nominated candidates were voted upon individually, in the order they were nominated, in a yay/nay vote, members could not vote for any member they wished. As soon as one of the two nominated members clearly won or lost the majority, the election was closed. Also at this recent meeting, one member was allowed to "abstain" because the debate disturbed him and he wanted harmony.

This is not normal behavior at our usually orderly meetings, but our President is gearing up for a Mayoral run and is trying to "set the scene" for himself politically. He has expressed his desire for another term as Council President, another violation of our Council Rules (He has presided for two consecutive terms). In Council President elections in the past, the choice was pre-determined such that Council followed a written script, dictated by the President, stating who will nominate and who will second the pre-selected candidate.I can't tolerate this willful bending of our rules and backroom politics, and I don't understand the reach of power granted to solicitors under RONR. Any answers? How does one challenge a clear breach of the rules if the solicitor refuses to cite either RONR or Council rules in defending his opinion and the President repeatedly defers to the solicitor?

RONR grants no reach of power to solicitors, whatsoever. RONR recognizes the power of the assembly which is meeting, which has the power to eject the solicitor from the room, should it choose to exercise it.

If your statutes require a roll-call vote, then that's what you have to put up with. Members could have voted for any member they wished, because they were permitted to nominate any member they wished. If your preferred candidate was not nominated, why didn't you nominate him? Even in a Yea/Nay vote, which RONR deprecates, but your statutes mandate, a democratic result certainly can be obtained. If each council member ensures that his first choice is nominated, and if on the first ballot each member votes Aye on his first choice, and No on all others, then no matter what order the vote is held, if a candidate has majority support, that candidate will be elected.

And yes, any member has the right to abstain, but also has a duty to vote when he does have an opinion. The decision, however, is entirely his.

The president, and not the solicitor, makes rulings during a meeting. If the solicitor is annoying you, you may safely ignore anything he says, and concentrate only on the words coming out of the mouth of the president. The solicitor, like a parliamentarian, does not vote, or speak in debate. He advises the chair on matters of law.

Only the chair rules on Points of Order, but rulings of the chair are subject to Appeal by any two members (mover/seconder). When a ruling is appealed, it is placed before the assembly (board, in this case) for a decision by a majority vote. A tie vote sustains the chair's decision.

So there are tools open to you, but any remedy is likely to require a majority agreement of the board. You should continue to raise points of order, and insist that they and the result of any appeals are included in the minutes, because in the event the board is eventually investigated for wrongdoing the minutes are the evidence of your "rightdoing".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your answer.

I thought there were guidelines for abstension: personal interest, financial interest, etc. If that's not the case, what is to present a majority of council members from abstaining and thereby killing any motion they wish? Please clarify the circumstances allowed for abstension. You state that any council member with an opinion is compelled to vote. Again, what is to stop a group of members from falsely claiming they have no opinion and thereby affecting the outcome of a vote without the political ramifications of actually stating their choice? Isn't silence a form of voting? How does RONR control that, or doesn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your answer.

I thought there were guidelines for abstension: personal interest, financial interest, etc. If that's not the case, what is to present a majority of council members from abstaining and thereby killing any motion they wish? Please clarify the circumstances allowed for abstension. You state that any council member with an opinion is compelled to vote. Again, what is to stop a group of members from falsely claiming they have no opinion and thereby affecting the outcome of a vote without the political ramifications of actually stating their choice? Isn't silence a form of voting? How does RONR control that, or doesn't it?

Karen, I think your questions are too general in nature to be dealt with effectively in this forum, as every answer will just lead you to another question.

Start out by reading the FAQs at

http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html

and then the rest of Robert's Rules of Order In Brief

( see http://www.robertsru...om/inbrief.html ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your statutes require a roll-call vote, then that's what you have to put up with. Members could have voted for any member they wished, because they were permitted to nominate any member they wished. If your preferred candidate was not nominated, why didn't you nominate him? Even in a Yea/Nay vote, which RONR deprecates, but your statutes mandate, a democratic result certainly can be obtained. If each council member ensures that his first choice is nominated, and if on the first ballot each member votes Aye on his first choice, and No on all others, then no matter what order the vote is held, if a candidate has majority support, that candidate will be elected.

Gary, you seem to be conflating the procedures for viva voce elections and roll-call elections, when in fact they are quite different. When an election is taken by roll call, it is not done by the yeas and the nays, but rather by each member stating the name of his or her preferred candidate, whether nominated or not (much as in a ballot election, where the member writes in or otherwise indicates the name). See RONR 10th ed., p. 429.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what is to present a majority of council members from abstaining and thereby killing any motion they wish? Please clarify the circumstances allowed for abstension. You state that any council member with an opinion is compelled to vote. Again, what is to stop a group of members from falsely claiming they have no opinion and thereby affecting the outcome of a vote without the political ramifications of actually stating their choice? Isn't silence a form of voting? How does RONR control that, or doesn't it?

Voting can't be "controlled" and so there's nothing to prevent members from abstaining. Or from voting "no" when they really think "yes" or vice versa.

And yes, silence is a way of expressing the fact that one is satisfied with the status quo. That's no doubt the reason most members never attend meetings, let alone vote.

The moral of the story is that you need the votes on your side. The good news is that, the more members who are apathetic, the fewer votes you'll need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that's not the case, what is to present a majority of council members from abstaining and thereby killing any motion they wish?

Abstentions are not votes, and in the general, do not affect the result of the voting. Motions are adopted or lost on the count of votes cast. In a meeting of 100 members, if 99 members abstain, the vote goes according to the one member who votes. A vote of 1-0 adopts, a vote of 0-1 defeats.

Here are two examples of a voting threshold in which the abstentions do affect the result: a vote of members present, and a vote of the entire membership, in which case abstentions have the effect of a no vote, but are still not votes

Now, if the voting threshold is a majority of the members present, by my example, a motion requires 51 votes in the affirmative to adopt. So, if only 50 abstain, the best you can get is 50-0 in favor, and the motion is lost.

Now, if the voting threshold is a majority of the entire membership, by my example, if only 51 members are present, it only takes one abstention to kill the vote, since the best you can get is 50-0 in favor, and the motion is lost.

Just because some members, in large enough numbers, abstain does not mean the motion is defeated, and in general this is definitely not the case.

Your rules may vary, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought there were guidelines for abstension: personal interest, financial interest, etc.

Wrong.

There are no guidelines for prevention of abstaining.

(See The Book for when one ought to abstain.)

The Book clearly says that it is improper to "explain one's vote", and by extension, "to explain one's abstention", outside of the debate phrase of processing a motion.

If that's not the case, what is to present a majority of council members from abstaining and thereby killing any motion they wish?

Nothing.

There is no rule in Robert's Rules to prevent a potential voter from abstaining.

The Book clearly says that the assembly cannot compel anyone to vote.

Please clarify the circumstances allowed for abstention.

Impossible, as there are none. -- There are no "cirumstances for allowance," as all circumstances always allow for abstaning.

Put another way, "There are no circumstances under which you cannot abstain," under Robert's Rules of Order.

(Under other laws or ordinances or rules, the assembly might be under a constraint to vote. But that is no longer Robert's Rules of Order applying, then.)

Even on a ROLL CALL VOTE, one can abstain.

You state that any council member with an opinion is compelled to vote.

No.

That is not The Book.

The Book says, the assembly cannot compel an empowered voter to cast a vote.

Again, what is to stop a group of members from falsely claiming they have no opinion and thereby affecting the outcome of a vote without the political ramifications of actually stating their choice?

Absolutely nothing, if Robert's Rules of Order applies.

Isn't silence a form of voting?

How does RONR control that, or doesn't it?

"Yikes!"

No!

Silence is not a form of voting.

Silence does not count toward the affirmative side, nor the negative side.

See above for what The Book says about silence, about abstaining, about compelling one to vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your answer.

I thought there were guidelines for abstension: personal interest, financial interest, etc. If that's not the case, what is to present a majority of council members from abstaining and thereby killing any motion they wish? Please clarify the circumstances allowed for abstension. You state that any council member with an opinion is compelled to vote. Again, what is to stop a group of members from falsely claiming they have no opinion and thereby affecting the outcome of a vote without the political ramifications of actually stating their choice? Isn't silence a form of voting? How does RONR control that, or doesn't it?

No, I said a duty to vote, not "compelled". And there are guidelines but, as the saying goes, they are just guidelines.

Council members cannot kill anything by abstaining. Abstaining means not voting. So their abstention will not affect the outcome of the vote. If there are nine council members all present, and six of them abstain, a 2-1 vote is sufficient to pass a motion by a majority, or even by a 2/3 vote.

But bear in mind that a majority of council members CAN always kill anything they wish, by voting No. They don't need to abstain to kill things.

Silence is not a form of voting. Silence is a way of not voting. People who do not vote are deemed to acquiesce in the decisions made by those who do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary, you seem to be conflating the procedures for viva voce elections and roll-call elections, when in fact they are quite different. When an election is taken by roll call, it is not done by the yeas and the nays, but rather by each member stating the name of his or her preferred candidate, whether nominated or not (much as in a ballot election, where the member writes in or otherwise indicates the name). See RONR 10th ed., p. 429.

No, you're quite right.

But the OP seemed to say that the vote was taken candidate by candidate, in the order nominated, and that non-nominated (speak-in?) votes were not permitted. If they were, the question would not have come up; he said he was being denied the right to vote for the candidate of his choice. That sounds like only Yes/No responses were allowed during the roll call, as they would be in a voice vote.

Granted that's not proper, or perhaps is a local rule, but it would still be possible to achieve a majority in the way I indicated. Perhaps the OP will clarify the method that was used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...