election process not followed

[Guest jason]

we recently held elections for office. Our bylaws state that roberts rule must be followed while conducting our AGM. now the two nominees had left the room while vote took place(by show of hands). We the took a count for each mominee and it was declared a tie now in our our bylaws there is nothing on tie breaking so roberts rule would apply for tie breakers in wich the chair would break the tie. now unfortanatly this was not followed the out going president who was no longer on the board asked if he could vote now. when he was told yes he then proceeded to say he didnt vote and would like to now vote so we then took a recount including his vote and we now had a winner now the person who lost is very familier with roberts rule and after he was informed on what took place he had aproched the newly elected president that he was filing an offical complaint about this position and how it was conducted for the elections. Now were it gets a little dicy is we are only aloud one vote per family now if the original vote stands the chair should break the tie but acording to our bylaws the chair wife had already cast a vote. now I am looking for a solution that is fair to both parties invoved.

[tctheatc]

I don't understand why the outgoing president abstained from voting, and asked permission to vote after the results of the election were announced. I'm also not clear if this was a vote of the general assembly or of a board. But it appears to me you had a vote and the result (tie) was announced. The outgoing guy abstained and should not have been allowed to vote after the result was announced.

Vote again, and tell everyone who's eligible to decide whether they want to vote or abstain, and do so during the vote.

edit:

(FWIW it sounds (after reading it again) that 'recount" may have actually been another election!)

[hmtcastle]

(FWIW it sounds (after reading it again) that 'recount" may have actually been another election!)

Well, another round of voting in the same election and I think I'm inclined to agree. Though it was such a mess that starting over might be the "fairest" thing to do.

The vote should be by ballot and everyone (including the chair and the nominees) votes at the same time. No tie-breaking votes. No one leaves the room. If there's a tie after the first round of voting, vote again.

[David A Foulkes]

we recently held elections for office. Our bylaws state that roberts rule must be followed while conducting our AGM. now the two nominees had left the room while vote took place(by show of hands). We the took a count for each mominee and it was declared a tie now in our our bylaws there is nothing on tie breaking so roberts rule would apply for tie breakers in wich the chair would break the tie. now unfortanatly this was not followed the out going president who was no longer on the board asked if he could vote now. when he was told yes he then proceeded to say he didnt vote and would like to now vote so we then took a recount including his vote and we now had a winner now the person who lost is very familier with roberts rule and after he was informed on what took place he had aproched the newly elected president that he was filing an offical complaint about this position and how it was conducted for the elections. Now were it gets a little dicy is we are only aloud one vote per family now if the original vote stands the chair should break the tie but acording to our bylaws the chair wife had already cast a vote. now I am looking for a solution that is fair to both parties invoved.

I don't understand why the outgoing president abstained from voting, and asked permission to vote after the results of the election were announced. I'm also not clear if this was a vote of the general assembly or of a board. But it appears to me you had a vote and the result (tie) was announced. The outgoing guy abstained and should not have been allowed to vote after the result was announced.

A careful re-read (perhaps tenth re-read) seems to clear up two points of yours. This was the AGM, not a board meeting. I'm guessing this is the standard confusion that board members are present as board members, which we know isn't accurate. But he was ostensibly still a member and able to vote.

Also, it seems that the outgoing president didn't just get to change his vote (from abstain to for a candidate), or add his vote after the results were announced, but they actually did hold a second round of voting and the outgoing president now voted. This would have been proper procedure, assuming the outgoing president was still a member, though (for whatever reason) not on the board anymore. They had a tie, so they had a second round of voting.

The whole situation is then confounded by the "one vote per family" and the "chair wife" entering the picture for the first time at the end. But then, e e cummings would be able to make sense out of this for us, I'm sure.

[Gary Novosielski]

we recently held elections for office. Our bylaws state that roberts rule must be followed while conducting our AGM. now the two nominees had left the room while vote took place(by show of hands). We the took a count for each mominee and it was declared a tie now in our our bylaws there is nothing on tie breaking so roberts rule would apply for tie breakers in wich the chair would break the tie. now unfortanatly this was not followed the out going president who was no longer on the board asked if he could vote now. when he was told yes he then proceeded to say he didnt vote and would like to now vote so we then took a recount including his vote and we now had a winner now the person who lost is very familier with roberts rule and after he was informed on what took place he had aproched the newly elected president that he was filing an offical complaint about this position and how it was conducted for the elections. Now were it gets a little dicy is we are only aloud one vote per family now if the original vote stands the chair should break the tie but acording to our bylaws the chair wife had already cast a vote. now I am looking for a solution that is fair to both parties invoved.

A LITTLE dicey!? Jeez!

First if this guy was actually familiar with Robert's Rules he never would have left the room to begin with. That's not a rule in RONR

There's also nothing in RONR that says the chair only votes to "break" a tie. In fact the chair may vote any time his single vote would make a difference in the outcome, or whenever the vote is by ballot, so he never loses any voting power under any circumstances.

If you have a rule that only one per family votes, that's not in RONR either, but apparently you didn't see fit to enforce it. Does the rule about the chair trump the rule about families? I have no idea. Why do your bylaws contain conflicting rules? Only you (the assembly) can decide what your rules mean and only your chair can rule on whether they were violated, and any two members can Appeal that decision, and only page 244 can tell you if the breach of the rules was "continuing" and our friend can still raise a point of order next meeting, or if he's out of luck, and only your assembly can decide whether the ruling is correct if it is Appealed. (then and there, not "later").

It seems to me that for a group that was supposed to be following RONR, you didn't, very much.

What should you do now? I have no idea. It will be up to your society to decide. Wasn't he there? Didn't he raise a point of order immediately? Oh, yeah, he was out of the room. <sigh>

[Rev Ed]

I just read page 392-393 of RONR, and it does not state how the Chairman can use his vote, assuming he has not voted with everyone else. As in, when would the Chairman use his vote? Would he not have to mention that there is a tie, and that he/she is breaking it with his vote? For example, if both candidtes received 20 votes, then the Chairman could state that each candidate received 20 votes and that he/she is voting for candidate X who would then be elected.

[Gary Novosielski]

I just read page 392-393 of RONR, and it does not state how the Chairman can use his vote, assuming he has not voted with everyone else. As in, when would the Chairman use his vote? Would he not have to mention that there is a tie, and that he/she is breaking it with his vote? For example, if both candidtes received 20 votes, then the Chairman could state that each candidate received 20 votes and that he/she is voting for candidate X who would then be elected.

Considering this is a counted show of hands, something like:

"There are 15 votes for Smith and 15 votes for Jones. The chair casts his vote for Jones, making 15 votes for Smith and 16 votes for Jones. so that there is a majority for Jones. Mrs. Jones is elected."

Look on page 48 for more info.

[David A Foulkes]

Considering this is a counted show of hands...

I didn't realize there was such a thing. Am I missing that page?

[Josh Martin]

now I am looking for a solution that is fair to both parties invoved.

So far as I can tell, the results of the second vote stand. The only violation which might have given rise to a continuing breach was the whole one vote per family debacle, but that doesn't matter anymore, since that happened on the first vote. It's too late to complain about any of the other violations.

But since I've got time, keep the following in mind for future elections:

• The chair may vote any time his vote would affect the result (it isn't limited to ties). Furthermore, the chair is not required to vote to break a tie. If an election ends in a tie, you have a second round of balloting (and a third, and so on, until one candidate receives a majority).
• Nominees are not required to leave the room, and so long as they are members of the assembly, they cannot be forced to leave as they have a right to be present.
• A member who has not yet voted may simply jump in and vote until the results are announced. After the results are announced, he may vote only if the assembly grants permission by unanimous consent. In either case, there is no need to have everyone vote again. Just add the late vote to the totals.

I didn't realize there was such a thing. Am I missing that page?

See RONR, 10th ed., pg. 397, lines 20-23. A counted show of hands is sometimes used in small assemblies. It is, admittedly, not a standard form of taking the vote for an election, but that seems to be the least of this assembly's problems.

[Rev Ed]

Considering this is a counted show of hands, something like:

"There are 15 votes for Smith and 15 votes for Jones. The chair casts his vote for Jones, making 15 votes for Smith and 16 votes for Jones. so that there is a majority for Jones. Mrs. Jones is elected."

Look on page 48 for more info.

So, if that is what the Chairman did at the meeting in question, then the one candidate is elected and no further voting is required.

[David A Foulkes]

See RONR, 10th ed., pg. 397, lines 20-23. A counted show of hands is sometimes used in small assemblies. It is, admittedly, not a standard form of taking the vote for an election, but that seems to be the least of this assembly's problems.

Indeed. Just wasn't looking for this reference to be tucked in the bottom of a section on Counted Rising votes. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Josh Martin]

So, if that is what the Chairman did at the meeting in question, then the one candidate is elected and no further voting is required.

Well, that's what should have happened.