Continuation of vote

[PDM]

Elections for office were held in an exectuive board meeting in which local chapter officers voted. There were multiple candidates. In the first ballot, one candidate gained a plurality, but not a majority. The candidate with the second most votes inquired whether a majority was required. The meeting chair stated that it was not. The organization follows Roberts Rules in its election process. It was not discovered that an error had been made until after the meeting adjourned. While discussions on the matter were taking place, the terms for all officers who participated in the first ballot expired and new chapter officers started their terms. The person with the second most votes, was the incumbant officer. My questions are: 1) Which set of officers vote in a second ballot? Would it be required that the same group who voted in the first ballot vote in the second, or does the end/start of the term of office take precedence? 2) Is the office for which we were voting become vacant, with no one is entitled to that vote in the second ballot, or does the incumbant officer continue in office until someone gains a majority and is still allowed to vote? Or is there another option? Note that none of this is covered in our organization's constitution except for the date of the start of the new term of office (with no exceptions noted).

[hmtcastle]

Or is there another option?

Any member who is present when the voting takes place can vote, regardless of whether he was present or voted at any previous meeting.

Whether the incumbent remains in office until his successor is elected or whether the office becomes vacant until the election is complete depends on what your bylaws say about the term of office.

Those (voting and term of office) are two unrelated considerations.

[PDM]

Any member who is present when the voting takes place can vote, regardless of whether he was present or voted at any previous meeting.

Whether the incumbent remains in office until his successor is elected or whether the office becomes vacant until the election is complete depends on what your bylaws say about the term of office.

Those (voting and term of office) are two unrelated considerations.

Thank you for the response. None of this is covered in our bylaws, so we fall back on Roberts Rules. So, there is no provision, that you know about, that requires (or encourages) the same people to vote in a second ballot when there was an error as I described. In other words, we would not have to invite officers who have been replaced on the board to complete the election before their official duties end. Correct? As for the second part, there is a relation between the two parts in that if the incumbant's term extends, he gets to vote for his own re-election. If his term is not extended due to the dispute, the office is vacant and he cannot vote. I am assuming your answer means that there is nothing in Roberts Rules that addresses this. Correct?

[hmtcastle]

So, there is no provision, that you know about, that requires (or encourages) the same people to vote in a second ballot when there was an error as I described. In other words, we would not have to invite officers who have been replaced on the board to complete the election before their official duties end. Correct?

You don't "invite" people to vote. If they're members, they can vote; if they're not, they can't. The fact that they did (or didn't) vote the last time has no bearing on whether they can (or should) vote the next time. Membership is a moment-by-moment status. You can be a member at 11:15 and not be a member at 11:16.

As for the second part, there is a relation between the two parts in that if the incumbant's term extends, he gets to vote for his own re-election. If his term is not extended due to the dispute, the office is vacant and he cannot vote. I am assuming your answer means that there is nothing in Roberts Rules that addresses this. Correct?

Well, yes, if no longer being an officer means you're no longer a member of the body that is meeting, then you can't vote. But that's because you're not a member, not because you're not an officer. But, typically, one can continue to be a member (of the body that is meeting) even if one ceases to be an officer in that body. Your rules may vary.

[PDM]

You don't "invite" people to vote. If they're members, they can vote; if they're not, they can't. The fact that they did (or didn't) vote the last time has no bearing on whether they can (or should) vote the next time. Membership is a moment-by-moment status. You can be a member at 11:15 and not be a member at 11:16.

Well, yes, if no longer being an officer means you're no longer a member of the body that is meeting, then you can't vote. But that's because you're not a member, not because you're not an officer. But, typically, one can continue to be a member (of the body that is meeting) even if one ceases to be an officer in that body. Your rules may vary.

Thanks again. To clarify, the body in this case is an executive board comprised of local chapter officers and statewide officers (who do not necessarily have to be currently serving chapter officers), so to be part of the body you have to be a chapter officer and/or a statewide officer. The election was for a statewide office, with the voters being the executive board. If there are no exceptions noted to this rule, then that answers my question.

[Josh Martin]

1) Which set of officers vote in a second ballot? Would it be required that the same group who voted in the first ballot vote in the second, or does the end/start of the term of office take precedence? 2) Is the office for which we were voting become vacant, with no one is entitled to that vote in the second ballot, or does the incumbant officer continue in office until someone gains a majority and is still allowed to vote? Or is there another option? Note that none of this is covered in our organization's constitution except for the date of the start of the new term of office (with no exceptions noted).

There is no second ballot. The declaration of the chair stands, since no Point of Order was raised at the time (or a Point of Order was raised but no Appeal was raised, either way). See Official Interpretation 2006-18.

[Gary Novosielski]

The election was for a statewide office, with the voters being the executive board. If there are no exceptions noted to this rule, then that answers my question.

Well, the rule was correctly explained by those who responded, but Mr. Martin's response is more to the point, because the rule on voting will not come into play.

The election, as stated by the chair, is complete. The person he announced as elected is elected.

Although the chair was incorrect about the threshold required for election, a point of order regarding such matters must be timely. Since you said the error was not discovered until the meeting was over, the announcement of the chair stands.

Therefore, there is no need to worry about who can vote on the second ballot, because there would be no second ballot.

[Guest F.R.Pond]

Well, the rule was correctly explained by those who responded, but Mr. Martin's response is more to the point, because the rule on voting will not come into play.

The election, as stated by the chair, is complete. The person he announced as elected is elected.

Although the chair was incorrect about the threshold required for election, a point of order regarding such matters must be timely. Since you said the error was not discovered until the meeting was over, the announcement of the chair stands.

Therefore, there is no need to worry about who can vote on the second ballot, because there would be no second ballot.

If the membership were of a mind to "get the election right", could they rescind the previous vote and revote or does the motion to rescind something previously adopted not extend to elections? Is there any action that can properly be taken when an election was improperly taken to rectify an improper election?

[Gary Novosielski]

If the membership were of a mind to "get the election right", could they rescind the previous vote and revote or does the motion to rescind something previously adopted not extend to elections? Is there any action that can properly be taken when an election was improperly taken to rectify an improper election?

It depends.

An election can be rescinded under the conditions mentioned in FAQ #20.

[Josh Martin]

If the membership were of a mind to "get the election right", could they rescind the previous vote and revote

No.

or does the motion to rescind something previously adopted not extend to elections?

Well, it's more complicated than that, but the motion to Rescind does not apply in this circumstance.

Is there any action that can properly be taken when an election was improperly taken to rectify an improper election?

It depends on what was done improperly. In this case, no. It is too late to do anything about the error.

It depends.

An election can be rescinded under the conditions mentioned in FAQ #20.

Even if the Bylaws of the organization include the language in FAQ #20, this situation will not satisfy the conditions. If the Bylaws include the "or until their successors are elected" clause, then an election to office may be rescinded due to misconduct or neglect of duty in office, not due to an error in the election procedure.

[PDM]

There is a little more that I didn't mention. The question of whether a majority was required was asked, and the chair answered incorrectly. That answer was not appealed. Also, there have been no meetings, nor any official business conducted by the board since the election, so the new officer has not actually performed any duties, although he was declared the winner at the time. And there is one more thing that might be considered if it can apply to this situation. I read the following statement in Roberts Rules "No motion is in order that conflicts with the laws of the nation, or state, or with the assembly's constitution or by-laws, and if such a motion is adopted, even by a unanimous vote, it is null and void." Could this also apply to an election? It seems to supercede other arguments that the election is over. Would this apply?

[Josh Martin]

The question of whether a majority was required was asked, and the chair answered incorrectly. That answer was not appealed.

Well, there was nothing to Appeal. If someone simply asked the chair a question, that's a Parliamentary Inquiry, not a Point of Order.

Also, there have been no meetings, nor any official business conducted by the board since the election, so the new officer has not actually performed any duties, although he was declared the winner at the time.

This has no bearing on the validity of the election.

I read the following statement in Roberts Rules "No motion is in order that conflicts with the laws of the nation, or state, or with the assembly's constitution or by-laws, and if such a motion is adopted, even by a unanimous vote, it is null and void." Could this also apply to an election? It seems to supercede other arguments that the election is over. Would this apply?

The statement you are referring to can apply to an election, but it does not apply in this case, since the election (motion) itself does not conflict with the Constitution or Bylaws. There was simply an error in the declaration of the vote, which does not constitute a continuing breach. A situation in which the citation you refer to would apply would be if, for instance, the society had rules for eligibility in its Bylaws and an ineligible person was elected.

[Gary Novosielski]

I read the following statement in Roberts Rules "No motion is in order that conflicts with the laws of the nation, or state, or with the assembly's constitution or by-laws, and if such a motion is adopted, even by a unanimous vote, it is null and void." Could this also apply to an election? It seems to supercede other arguments that the election is over. Would this apply?

It would only apply if elections were prohibited by the bylaws, and you tried to have one anyway. This was just an error in the threshold required. Yes, the chair made a mistake, and if a point of order had been raised, and potentially appealed, it could have stopped the election from being completed, but only if done then and there.

The rules do not enforce themselves, and there is no substitute for a timely point of order. The general parliamentary rule (except for the exceptions listed on page 244) is: "If you snooze, you lose", or, in this case, win.

Also, asking a question is not a point of order, and answering a question is not a ruling. Rulings can be appealed; answers cannot.

[Josh Martin]

It would only apply if elections were prohibited by the bylaws, and you tried to have one anyway.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. There are other circumstances in which a motion in the form of an election could conflict with the Bylaws, but I agree that this situation is not one of them.

[Gary Novosielski]

It would only apply if elections were prohibited by the bylaws, and you tried to have one anyway.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. There are other circumstances in which a motion in the form of an election could conflict with the Bylaws....

Well, then under those circumstances elections would be "prohibited".