Ilegal Election?

[HotWheels]

I am a member of a Non-Profit Corp (not 501©3. Our meeting was opened, we had quorum of 49, plus some visitors. This was a meeting to elect new officers. Immediately the chairman asked the two candidates to make a statement, then asked them to leave the room, members did not get the opportunity to ask the canditates questions on their statements. Next was an announcement to discuss the candidates. No minutes to be taken and no questions asked, so that a frank discussion could be done. Meeting quickly developed into members talking over each other with their negative or positive experiences with the candidates (only one candidate was mentioned). Thankfully it came to an end and the candidates were called back in and ballots were handed out. Secretary then announced that 49 members where present and to be elected the candidate required 25 votes. The next day I am reviewing my notes on the meeting and the numbers are not adding up. I then asked the secretary for the final vote numbers. Candidate #1 -25, candidate #2 - 22, candidate #3 - 1. Hmmm did not add up to the 49 announced at the meeting, when asked about the numbers the secretary said, it was 48 adults and 1 infant and the infant was not considered when the number of votes neeeded to win was determined. Seems very reasonable except our by-laws say officers are elected by a simple majority of those members present by written ballot. Infant was a paid member in good standing. The BOD was questioned on this and a BOD meeting was convened, I was invited by one of the Directors to attend. Upon arriving the Chairman said I would not be admitted since it was a closed BOD meeting. Later I asked for BOD minutes, not available. Now I find out that the BOD meeting was not announced at all let alone being a executive session meeting. This whole mess stinks and it seems to me to be totally against the rules and common sense. I have been looking but what I end up with is, once the horse leaves the barn it's too late. By-Laws require meetings to follow RONR and not what ever the chairman got for advice on how to conduct an election, let alone a meeting. Is this election a done deal?

I should have added our By-Law on Elections, and yes it needs to be fixed.

The officers will be elected by a simple majority (50% +1) of those members present at the June meeting and it shall be by written ballot.

[jstackpo]

Done deal? Yes, unless you have really good proof that the saved (?) ballots have not been tampered with.

If so, move to have a recount - RONR, p. 404 - (NOT a "re-vote", but only a recounting of the ballots). which requires a majority to order, and raise your point of order about the bylaw requirements when the results are announced - otherwise too late.

But your point may not be well taken -- 25 is a majority of 49, and if someone - the babe in arms, I suppose - "chose" to abstain, he/she is within her rights to do so.

Good luck!

[Josh Martin]

Immediately the chairman asked the two candidates to make a statement, then asked them to leave the room,

This was highly improper. It won't affect the validity of the election at this point, but remember in the future that members have a right to be present.

members did not get the opportunity to ask the canditates questions on their statements.

Nothing in RONR requires this.

Meeting quickly developed into members talking over each other with their negative or positive experiences with the candidates (only one candidate was mentioned).

It's possible some of the comments violated decorum, but a Point of Order would have had to be timely.

Secretary then announced that 49 members where present and to be elected the candidate required 25 votes. The next day I am reviewing my notes on the meeting and the numbers are not adding up. I then asked the secretary for the final vote numbers. Candidate #1 -25, candidate #2 - 22, candidate #3 - 1. Hmmm did not add up to the 49 announced at the meeting, when asked about the numbers the secretary said, it was 48 adults and 1 infant and the infant was not considered when the number of votes neeeded to win was determined. Seems very reasonable except our by-laws say officers are elected by a simple majority of those members present by written ballot. Infant was a paid member in good standing.

I'm not sure what your complaint is. Although it seems the Secretary did err in not including the infant when making the determination of the number of votes needed to win, it comes out to 25 either way, so it didn't really make a difference in this case. A majority of either 48 or 49 is 25.

I was invited by one of the Directors to attend. Upon arriving the Chairman said I would not be admitted since it was a closed BOD meeting.

This is proper. A single director does not have the right to invite you to attend. The board (by majority vote) decides who attends.

Later I asked for BOD minutes, not available.

You do not have a right to see the board's minutes. You can order them to be read at a meeting of the general membership, if you wish. This requires a 2/3 vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership, or a majority vote with previous notice.

Now I find out that the BOD meeting was not announced at all let alone being a executive session meeting.

Well, if the board members were not informed of the meeting, then any decisions it made are null and void, but that wouldn't affect the election. Nothing in RONR requires that the meeting be announced to the general membership nor is it required that it is determined in advance whether the meeting shall be held in executive session.

This whole mess stinks and it seems to me to be totally against the rules and common sense.

The only clear violation of the rules I see is having the candidates leave the room during debate. Some of the negative comments regarding the candidates violated decorum. It also seems that notice might not have been given of the board meeting, but that has nothing to do with an election by the general membership. Everything else seems fine.

Is this election a done deal?

Unless there's something you're not telling us, yes. The only violations I can see would not invalidate the election, and there aren't nearly as many violations as you seem to think there are.

[David A Foulkes]

It might just be me, or a problem with my monitor, but am I the only one who sees this post this way?

I am a member of a Non-Profit Corp (not 501©3. Our meeting was opened, we had quorum of 49, plus some visitors. This was a meeting to elect new officers. Immediately the chairman asked the two candidates to make a statement, then asked them to leave the room, members did not get the opportunity to ask the canditates questions on their statements. Next was an announcement to discuss the candidates. No minutes to be taken and no questions asked, so that a frank discussion could be done. Meeting quickly developed into members talking over each other with their negative or positive experiences with the candidates (only one candidate was mentioned). Thankfully it came to an end and the candidates were called back in and ballots were handed out. Secretary then announced that 49 members where present and to be elected the candidate required 25 votes. The next day I am reviewing my notes on the meeting and the numbers are not adding up. I then asked the secretary for the final vote numbers. Candidate #1 -25, candidate #2 - 22, candidate #3 - 1. Hmmm did not add up to the 49 announced at the meeting, when asked about the numbers the secretary said, it was 48 adults and 1 infant and the infant was not considered when the number of votes neeeded to win was determined. Seems very reasonable except our by-laws say officers are elected by a simple majority of those members present by written ballot. Infant was a paid member in good standing. The BOD was questioned on this and a BOD meeting was convened, I was invited by one of the Directors to attend. Upon arriving the Chairman said I would not be admitted since it was a closed BOD meeting. Later I asked for BOD minutes, not available. Now I find out that the BOD meeting was not announced at all let alone being a executive session meeting. This whole mess stinks and it seems to me to be totally against the rules and common sense. I have been looking but what I end up with is, once the horse leaves the barn it's too late. By-Laws require meetings to follow RONR and not what ever the chairman got for advice on how to conduct an election, let alone a meeting. Is this election a done deal?

<implied smiley face here>

[Josh Martin]

It might just be me, or a problem with my monitor, but am I the only one who sees this post this way?

Yes.

[HotWheels]

This was highly improper. It won't affect the validity of the election at this point, but remember in the future that members have a right to be present.

Nothing in RONR requires this.

It's possible some of the comments violated decorum, but a Point of Order would have had to be timely.

I'm not sure what your complaint is. Although it seems the Secretary did err in not including the infant when making the determination of the number of votes needed to win, it comes out to 25 either way, so it didn't really make a difference in this case. A majority of either 48 or 49 is 25.

This is proper. A single director does not have the right to invite you to attend. The board (by majority vote) decides who attends.

You do not have a right to see the board's minutes. You can order them to be read at a meeting of the general membership, if you wish. This requires a 2/3 vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership, or a majority vote with previous notice.

Well, if the board members were not informed of the meeting, then any decisions it made are null and void, but that wouldn't affect the election. Nothing in RONR requires that the meeting be announced to the general membership nor is it required that it is determined in advance whether the meeting shall be held in executive session.

The only clear violation of the rules I see is having the candidates leave the room during debate. Some of the negative comments regarding the candidates violated decorum. It also seems that notice might not have been given of the board meeting, but that has nothing to do with an election by the general membership. Everything else seems fine.

Unless there's something you're not telling us, yes. The only violations I can see would not invalidate the election, and there aren't nearly as many violations as you seem to think there are.

Thank you. This meeting was, well unusual. I've been attending for 30 years and I had never attened a club meeting that went this way. We usally had a Q & A for the candidates and did not get the chance. I'm going to have to bone up on how to participate in a meeting. The only thing I did not mention was the actual quote for our by-law, which is badly written........ The officers will be elected by a simple majority (50% +1 ) of those members present at the June meeting and it shall be by written ballot.

[HotWheels]

Done deal? Yes, unless you have really good proof that the saved (?) ballots have not been tampered with.

If so, move to have a recount - RONR, p. 404 - (NOT a "re-vote", but only a recounting of the ballots). which requires a majority to order, and raise your point of order about the bylaw requirements when the results are announced - otherwise too late.

But your point may not be well taken -- 25 is a majority of 49, and if someone - the babe in arms, I suppose - "chose" to abstain, he/she is within her rights to do so.

Good luck!

Thank you. But is not 25 a plurality and not a majority according to our by-laws that require a majority of the members present, not a majority of votes cast?

[J. J.]

Thank you. But is not 25 a plurality and not a majority according to our by-laws that require a majority of the members present, not a majority of votes cast?

A "majority" as defined by RONR is more that half of the votes of the votes cast (p. 387). The "50%+1" in your bylaws creates an ambiguity, which only your society can interpret; it conflicts with the term "majority." The society, by not raising a pointing of order at the time the chair announced the result has effectively interpreted your bylaws to say that this was a majority. The election should stand.

[Sean Hunt]

A "majority" as defined by RONR is more that half of the votes of the votes cast (p. 387). The "50%+1" in your bylaws creates an ambiguity, which only your society can interpret; it conflicts with the term "majority." The society, by not raising a pointing of order at the time the chair announced the result has effectively interpreted your bylaws to say that this was a majority. The election should stand.

I would have to disagree here; the requirement is quite clear and, unfortunately, the requirement is such that if 49 members are present, 26 votes are required to elect.

That said, it might not ultimately worth belaboring the point. If this were brought up at a future meeting, the officer would almost certainly be re-elected, between the majority who originally voted and the additional people who believe that he won fair and a technical detail shouldn't get in the way.

Do change your bylaws to 'majority of those present and voting' or just drop that bit entirely (since it's the default).

[Larry Cisar]

I should have added our By-Law on Elections, and yes it needs to be fixed.

The officers will be elected by a simple majority (50% +1) of those members present at the June meeting and it shall be by written ballot.

According to what you quoted as in your bylaws, your majority is 26, not 25. 50% of 49 is 24.5 which become 25. The plus 1 makes it 26.

[David A Foulkes]

Thank you. This meeting was, well unusual. I've been attending for 30 years and I had never attened a club meeting that went this way. We usally had a Q & A for the candidates and did not get the chance. I'm going to have to bone up on how to participate in a meeting. The only thing I did not mention was the actual quote for our by-law, which is badly written........ The officers will be elected by a simple majority (50% +1 ) of those members present at the June meeting and it shall be by written ballot.

A simple majority is not 50%+1 when applied to odd numbers. And I would be inclined to think the words take precedence over the parenthetical arithmetic formula. But that's just me, I suppose.

I guess this might create an ambiguity that would need to be initially resolved at the membership level as to what this bylaw means, pending corrective amendment of the section (preferably by removal of that phraseology altogether, imo).

[Gary c Tesser]

[snip]

scshunt, I demur here on two points. The bylaw is ambiguous -- unambiguously -- because it states two different, conflicting thresholds. "Simple majority" is just as clear as "50% + 1." (So it seems I am unhappily disagreeing with Dr Cisar again, which I do when I don't know what's good for me.)

Then ... as J.J. says, the election stands. See OI 2006-18, available elsewhere on this website for maybe 50 cents or so.

[Edited to give Dr Cisar some well-deserved egoboo, and probably overlooked somebody. -- Oh, yeah: David, of course it's not you. Again.]

[Sean Hunt]

scshunt, I demur here on two points. The bylaw is ambiguous -- unambiguously -- because it states two different, conflicting thresholds. "Simple majority" is just as clear as "50% + 1." (So it seems I am unhappily disagreeing with Dr Cisar again, which I do when I don't know what's good for me.)

Ah, you're quite right, I missed that.

Then ... as J.J. says, the election stands. See OI 2006-18, available elsewhere on this website for maybe 50 cents or so.

0/2 on that post; right again. For some reason I thought the election was invalid but everything else that would have been by the board afterward would remain valid... I half-forgot the rule that once the assembly moves on, the decision is final even if procedurally incorrect.

[Josh Martin]

The only thing I did not mention was the actual quote for our by-law, which is badly written........ The officers will be elected by a simple majority (50% +1 ) of those members present at the June meeting and it shall be by written ballot.

Yes, it is badly written, since the drafters of the Bylaws apparently do not understand the meaning of the term "majority." A majority is simply "more than half." Since your Bylaws are ambiguous in that they contain two conflicting requirements, it will be up to your organization to interpret the ambiguity. See RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 570-573 for some Principles of Interpretation.

Even if the candidate was a vote short, however, this would not cause a continuing breach. A Point of Order would have had to be raised at the time.

Thank you. But is not 25 a plurality and not a majority according to our by-laws that require a majority of the members present, not a majority of votes cast?

25 is a majority of 49, but it is less than (50% of 49) + 1.

I half-forgot the rule that once the assembly moves on, the decision is final even if procedurally incorrect.

Well, usually.

[jstackpo]

. I half-forgot the rule that once the assembly moves on, the decision is final even if procedurally incorrect.

Well, maybe not. That is where a recount (p. 404) can come in, provided a majority want to hold a recount. And the ballots have been kept, &c...

RONR is not super clear on this (perhaps RONR/11 will be -- we live in hope) but what would otherwise be the point of a recount if it couldn't overturn (or change) a "final" decision?

[Josh Martin]

Well, maybe not. That is where a recount (p. 404) can come in, provided a majority want to hold a recount. And the ballots have been kept, &c...

RONR is not super clear on this (perhaps RONR/11 will be -- we live in hope) but what would otherwise be the point of a recount if it couldn't overturn (or change) a "final" decision?

While I believe a recount can overturn a "final decision," it has always been my understanding that a recount is used when there is a question about the accuracy of the count. As I understand the facts, there is not a question regarding the accuracy of the count, but regarding the declaration of the vote based upon that count. It seems to me Official Interpretation 2006-18 is controlling in this instance.

[HotWheels]

scshunt, I demur here on two points. The bylaw is ambiguous -- unambiguously -- because it states two different, conflicting thresholds. "Simple majority" is just as clear as "50% + 1." (So it seems I am unhappily disagreeing with Dr Cisar again, which I do when I don't know what's good for me.)

Then ... as J.J. says, the election stands. See OI 2006-18, available elsewhere on this website for maybe 50 cents or so.

[Edited to give Dr Cisar some well-deserved egoboo, and probably overlooked somebody. -- Oh, yeah: David, of course it's not you. Again.]

Thank You, as you can tell by now I and almost half the club would like to get a new election. We all felt the election was nothing more than a Kangaroo Court, only one of three candidates were vetted, there were 7 first time members and some non-members in attendance. It may have been OK to rake someone over the coals within the membership, but not with outsiders present. We do have open meetings but somthing like this needs to be in a closed meeting. It is to bad that the sixth amendment only applies to the criminally accused. The meeting was opened to vote for the candidates then turned into an uncontrolled session castigating one member. Seems from the postings the only way to get the new election would be to have a recount of the votes. It seems the BOD might vote to have the election voided and let the members make the final decision. But that may be in violation of RONR, which would take someone to bring it up, it is a mess. Easy to see now on how important it is to be aware of what your rights are and how to exercise them. It may end up on whether or not it is 25 or 26 votes needed. Since the Secretary made the decision on his own not to include the infant because of thinking he had to count votes instead of members, and not let us know until the next day we are in a spot. Seems that the infant had a right to be counted and comes close to satisfying the requirements of 2006-6 so that a point of order could be made. I picked up a copy of RONR tonight to get a badly needed education. Please excuse any posting that where out in left field, it's a learning process.

[Gary c Tesser]

Actually I did sorta notice the unruliness and the chair's failure to maintain order, in the first post, but I was distracted by the on-the-ground parliamentarily pertinent facts (what were the votes, and what was their threshold) and my perception that the apparent disenfranchisement of the infant is the only surreal element in a scenario that, as OP Hotwheels says, otherwise reeks of unfairness, but is completely down-to-earth. I think it was an oversimplification when Mr Martin called the proceedings "fine" beyond the exceptions he cited.

Later on I was distracted by the opportunity to point out a couple of mistakes by scshunt, which I shamefully jumped on (the mistakes, not scshunt -- I will cavil, but I am not a ruffian, because being one would require me to neglect my favorite exercise, which is sitting) 'cause I see them so rarely. Kinda like what Mr Honemann said about Dr Stackpole (somewhere else), though on a less rarefied stratum, given my lowbrow if genteel demeanor and scshunt's fairly recent first appearances on these pages (notwithstanding that they are nonexistent pages).

No, OI 2006-6 will not help, unless the infant did try to vote and was actually prevented. Don't bother with the argument that he was unambiguously reaching to get a ballot from a teller, rather than maybe reaching for his rattle or a drink from his itta bottie. Even a surrealism-sucker like me won't come close to buying that. Face it: he abstained from voting. And he's gonna abstain from voting for at least another couple of months now -- so you might heed Mr Foulkes' caution and amend your bylaws to say nobody who can't function as a sentient entity -- like, say, an infant, or the rhododendron on the windowsill -- can be a member. Of the Official INterpretations, OI-18 covers this case.

No, I don't think the board has any say on it at this point, and probably not at any point, since the elections are a concern of the membership, to whom the board is subservient, unless your bylaws say otherwise.

The failure to "vet" some candidates might or might not be pertinent. Unless the election can be challenged on other grounds, or if the winners are unqualified to serve right now, you had better let that go.

And just forget about thinking there might be an issue about new members. They are fully qualified and enfranchised, maybe almost as much as the pathetic squalling infant, unless your bylaw say otherwise, which they would shouldn't.

Dirty laundry in public problem: politely ask the nonmembers to leave. End of story, except recognize that it is a request that the nonmembers can't refuse. And Kangaroo Court, and coal-raking? Everyone opposed to the coal-raking had a right to speak in rebuttal, even if it was only the target, which I hope not, because then how could he be elected? -- and in that case, if he was the only one on his side, why would his opponents bother pilloring him, since he seems to have nobody else on his side anyway?

How would the sixth amendment (I assume to the US Constitution) matter any here?

No, a recount will not help get a re-election, or even a re-vote. See what Dr Stackpole and Mr Martin have said.

Yes, the secretary **should** have counted the legitimate voting member, the infant. But that is too late to bring up now, regardless of which voting threshold for election your society decides your bylaws mean. (So no, you are not in a spot. That spot has left the station.)

It's very good that you picked up your copy of RONR. Let me suggest that you do nothing else before putting it aside and getting, and reading, your RONR - In Brief. You can read it completely, twice, before you would have got halfway through RONR 10th's introduction, and get your overview in less time. And you can't make any more left-field mistakes than regulars here do. Yes it's a learning process. Continue asking.

(I think I have covered all points raised, though probably out of order.)

[Josh Martin]

The meeting was opened to vote for the candidates then turned into an uncontrolled session castigating one member.

In the future, members should raise a Point of Order if the rules of decorum are violated.

Seems from the postings the only way to get the new election would be to have a recount of the votes.

No, from the facts provided, there is no way to get a new election, as there is no continuing breach (even if it is determined that the chair's declaration of the vote was in error). All a recount will mean is that the votes will be recounted. There is no new vote.

It seems the BOD might vote to have the election voided and let the members make the final decision.

No. The Board of Directors does not have the authority to declare null and void an election conducted by the general membership - only the general membership has that authority. Additionally, there is no reason for the election to be declared null and void.

It may end up on whether or not it is 25 or 26 votes needed.

No, it doesn't matter at this point. Even if it is determined that the member required 26 votes for election, at this point, the election stands.

Since the Secretary made the decision on his own not to include the infant because of thinking he had to count votes instead of members, and not let us know until the next day we are in a spot.

Well, it may or may not make a difference depending on whether a majority of the members present or 50% of the members present + 1 is the proper interpretation of the organization's Bylaws, but in either event, it is too late to raise a Point of Order about it now.

Seems that the infant had a right to be counted and comes close to satisfying the requirements of 2006-6 so that a point of order could be made.

Official Interpretation 2006-6 only applies if a member is denied the right to vote, and I see no evidence of this happening. I suspect the infant did not vote since, being an infant, he likely had not formed an opinion on the election. The fact that he was not counted is an error on the Secretary's part in interpreting the rules of the assembly, but it certainly does not rise to the level of violating the fundamental rights of a member.

How would the sixth amendment (I assume to the US Constitution) matter any here?

The sixth amendment pertains to "a fair trial," so my suspicion is that the poster believes there were highly indecorous accusations made against the candidates without the member receiving due process. While the sixth amendment does not apply, the rules of decorum and Ch. XX do, which afford similar protections.

[HotWheels]

In the future, members should raise a Point of Order if the rules of decorum are violated.

No, from the facts provided, there is no way to get a new election, as there is no continuing breach (even if it is determined that the chair's declaration of the vote was in error). All a recount will mean is that the votes will be recounted. There is no new vote.

No. The Board of Directors does not have the authority to declare null and void an election conducted by the general membership - only the general membership has that authority. Additionally, there is no reason for the election to be declared null and void.

No, it doesn't matter at this point. Even if it is determined that the member required 26 votes for election, at this point, the election stands.

Well, it may or may not make a difference depending on whether a majority of the members present or 50% of the members present + 1 is the proper interpretation of the organization's Bylaws, but in either event, it is too late to raise a Point of Order about it now.

Official Interpretation 2006-6 only applies if a member is denied the right to vote, and I see no evidence of this happening. I suspect the infant did not vote since, being an infant, he likely had not formed an opinion on the election. The fact that he was not counted is an error on the Secretary's part in interpreting the rules of the assembly, but it certainly does not rise to the level of violating the fundamental rights of a member.

The sixth amendment pertains to "a fair trial," so my suspicion is that the poster believes there were highly indecorous accusations made against the candidates without the member receiving due process. While the sixth amendment does not apply, the rules of decorum and Ch. XX do, which afford similar protections.

Thank You and well said. Even though our By-Laws specify RONR to be followed, no one knows enough about them to do so (yet). For the past 48 years the club has functioned well under the generally accepted agreement to let the majority control the direction of the club, without trampling the rights of the few. You are correct in your suspicion and I should have used the word slander to really pin it down. It was very obvious that the speakers intent was to prevent one candidate from being supported, to the point of speaking over someone supporting that candidate. More than a few members believe the election should be re-done. But evidently going against the rules of decorum and Ch. XX does not give sufficient grounds for doing it. (Please clarify for me Ch. XX) I would also like to state that I am not friends with the two candidates and only know them as members. In examining their conduct as board members I can find no reasons for such behaviour, just the opposite. I do know that if the candidates would have been present no mudslinging would have occurred. Politics, don't like it at all.

[Sean Hunt]

Thank You and well said. Even though our By-Laws specify RONR to be followed, no one knows enough about them to do so (yet). For the past 48 years the club has functioned well under the generally accepted agreement to let the majority control the direction of the club, without trampling the rights of the few. You are correct in your suspicion and I should have used the word slander to really pin it down. It was very obvious that the speakers intent was to prevent one candidate from being supported, to the point of speaking over someone supporting that candidate. More than a few members believe the election should be re-done. But evidently going against the rules of decorum and Ch. XX does not give sufficient grounds for doing it. (Please clarify for me Ch. XX) I would also like to state that I am not friends with the two candidates and only know them as members. In examining their conduct as board members I can find no reasons for such behaviour, just the opposite. I do know that if the candidates would have been present no mudslinging would have occurred. Politics, don't like it at all.

It sounds like you generally have no problem with these people being on the board. Depending on the setup of the bylaws and the character of those elected, it might be possible to convince the board member to resign and stand again for election, but other than that, no election can be conducted.

However, you should also consider the possibility of disciplinary proceeding against the member who was violating the rules of decorum. See Chapter XX of RONR 10th edition for information about disciplinary proceedings.

[Josh Martin]

But evidently going against the rules of decorum and Ch. XX does not give sufficient grounds for doing it.

It does not, although it may provide grounds for disciplinary action against those responsible. See Ch. XX if there is interest in such a course of action.

(Please clarify for me Ch. XX)

Ch. XX is the final chapter of RONR, and it deals with disciplinary procedures and due process. Serious accusations against a member's character are a violation not only of the rules of decorum, but of the member's right to due process, and the chair should not tolerate such behavior. See RONR, 10th ed., pg. 380, lines 10-14; pg. 631, lines 18-20; pg. 633, lines 5-13.

[Gary c Tesser]

Oh, chopped liver. I hadn't realized.

[HotWheels]

It's very good that you picked up your copy of RONR. Let me suggest that you do nothing else before putting it aside and getting, and reading, your RONR - In Brief. You can read it completely, twice, before you would have got halfway through RONR 10th's introduction, and get your overview in less time. And you can't make any more left-field mistakes than regulars here do. Yes it's a learning process. Continue asking.

Thank You, excellent suggestion as I find myself going back and forth in RONR getting more confused as I go. Our meetings use to be a rather simple affair starting with a sign in sheet. It would seem that without that the Secretary is just using the votes collected to make his determination of a winner. The VP, three BOD members and about 18 regular members have all expressed concern on how this election was done and would like to see it re-done. Other members felt the meeting was out of control but were unwilling to enter the fray without any order. Our By-Laws say that the parliamentary procedures used are as outlined in RONR. But there not and that is our fault, lesson learned.

[Sean Hunt]

Thank You, excellent suggestion as I find myself going back and forth in RONR getting more confused as I go. Our meetings use to be a rather simple affair starting with a sign in sheet. It would seem that without that the Secretary is just using the votes collected to make his determination of a winner. The VP, three BOD members and about 18 regular members have all expressed concern on how this election was done and would like to see it re-done. Other members felt the meeting was out of control but were unwilling to enter the fray without any order. Our By-Laws say that the parliamentary procedures used are as outlined in RONR. But there not and that is our fault, lesson learned.

If the member elected feels that it was inappropriately conducted, he may be able to simply resign and allow for another election in which he would run, depending on how your bylaws handle resignations.