Ilegal Election?

[Guest luvtofly]

I was one of the candidates at that meeting. There were other violations along with what hotwheels has stated. One was that our bylaws state that the President will not vote at General, Board or Special meetings unless to break a tie. The infant, of course, did not vote. The tally was 49 members present and 48 votes cast. If the president was counted as a member present, there should have only been 47 votes cast. He must have improperly cast a ballot. If he did not, then he was improperly not counted as a member present.

Also, doesn't Robert's require that if the organization is using members present as the determining factor, that the chair is supposed to count the members immediately after the balloting is complete? This was not done, just a tally by the Secretary before the meeting started.

How would someone present this to the membership to have another election?

[Sean Hunt]

I was one of the candidates at that meeting. There were other violations along with what hotwheels has stated. One was that our bylaws state that the President will not vote at General, Board or Special meetings unless to break a tie. The infant, of course, did not vote. The tally was 49 members present and 48 votes cast. If the president was counted as a member present, there should have only been 47 votes cast. He must have improperly cast a ballot. If he did not, then he was improperly not counted as a member present.

It's quite possible that he assumed he could vote normally in a ballot vote, as is the usual for an assembly under RONR. I would recommend removing the language about ties from the bylaws, since it causes other issues (what if the President leaves the chair to debate? He still can't cast his ballot to break a tie!).

Also, doesn't Robert's require that if the organization is using members present as the determining factor, that the chair is supposed to count the members immediately after the balloting is complete? This was not done, just a tally by the Secretary before the meeting started.

I'll let a more experienced member answer this one

How would someone present this to the membership to have another election?

The election stands despite the irregularities, since no Point of Order was raised in a timely manner. Running a new election would have to be done through whatever your normal procedure for doing so is.

[Gary c Tesser]

It's quite possible that he assumed he could vote normally in a ballot vote, as is the usual for an assembly under RONR. I would recommend removing the language about ties from the bylaws, since it causes other issues (what if the President leaves the chair to debate? He still can't cast his ballot to break a tie!).

I'll let a more experienced member answer this one

The election stands despite the irregularities, since no Point of Order was raised in a timely manner. Running a new election would have to be done through whatever your normal procedure for doing so is.

Under the usual rules, what we count are the votes cast. There may be members in the room ("present") who wish to abstain, and they have that right, unless your organization's rules say otherwise. In the regular case, then, counting the members present serves no useful point.

As far as those votes cast is concerned. I'm trying to balance OI 2006-11 and 18, and p. 402 - 403. I would lean towards the principle that would throw out the election if it seems the president improperly voted, except, with the given vote totals, his vote made no difference in the result (see the other Official Interpretation). So if the president did improperly vote, he should be chastised; but the election will stand.

[David A Foulkes]

Also, doesn't Robert's require that if the organization is using members present as the determining factor, that the chair is supposed to count the members immediately after the balloting is complete? This was not done, just a tally by the Secretary before the meeting started.

Regarding "[V]oting requirements based on the number of members present --..... When such a vote is required, however, the chair must count those present immediately after the affirmative vote is taken, before any change can take place in attendance." (RONR 10th Ed., p. 390 l. 13-24)

Now, this does not seem to apply to ballot voting, does it? Still, if that is in fact a voting requirement (members present, not present and voting), at some point during the vote a head count would seem necessary, and the best time to get that (imo) would be just before ballots are handed out. Count the members, make sure the tellers have only that number of ballots between them to hand out, make sure everyone present has a ballot before voting begins, and Bob's your uncle.

[Josh Martin]

One was that our bylaws state that the President will not vote at General, Board or Special meetings unless to break a tie... The tally was 49 members present and 48 votes cast. If the president was counted as a member present, there should have only been 47 votes cast. He must have improperly cast a ballot. If he did not, then he was improperly not counted as a member present.

Ugh. First of all, this is a terrible rule and it should be removed from your Bylaws ASAP. It is a vast oversimplification of the rules in RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 292-293, and thus prohibits the chair from voting in other cases where his vote would make a difference and deprives him of the right to secrecy in a ballot vote. It also elevates the rule to the point that it actually deprives the chair of the right to vote except in specific circumstances, which effectively makes him the equivalent of a member whose rights are under disciplinary suspension.

In the meantime, however, the rule must be obeyed. I'm not quite sure I agree that in this instance the President should be considered to be a member present for the purposes of whether a majority of the members present is achieved, considering that he did not have the right to vote at the time, and in RONR, members have the right to vote. This is ultimately, however, a customized rule of the assembly and the assembly will need to interpret its effect. The assembly will also need to determine what happened. If the President did not vote and was not counted as a member present, as I mentioned earlier, it's too late to complain about the Secretary's counting errors. On the other hand, if the President did vote, and for some reason the assembly feels a member who cannot vote is still a member present for the purposes of the rule, then the President's vote could have affected the result and the election is null and void.

Also, doesn't Robert's require that if the organization is using members present as the determining factor, that the chair is supposed to count the members immediately after the balloting is complete? This was not done, just a tally by the Secretary before the meeting started.

Yes, it is required, but again, it's too late to complain about this. I think this also shows, however, another reason a vote requirement based on the number of members present is not a very good idea. Since a ballot vote takes a considerable amount of time, it's entirely possible that the number of members present will fluctuate throughout the vote, and this may cause some odd side effects in determining if the vote is adopted.

How would someone present this to the membership to have another election?

A member could raise a Point of Order based on the following points:

• That the President cast a ballot.
• That the President did not have the right to vote in the election under the Bylaws (due to the vote count) and that his vote should therefore be treated as an illegal vote by an illegal voter.
• That the President should be counted as a member present for the purposes of applying the rule in the Bylaws requiring a majority of the members present for a candidate to be elected, notwithstanding that he did not have the right to vote in the election (per the Bylaws).
• That, since an illegal vote was cast by an illegal voter and it could have affected the result, the election is null and void and must be redone.

As you can see, this is a complex issue involving the interpretation of one crucial fact and several interpretations of the assembly's customized rules. The chair will rule on the Point of Order, and his ruling may be appealed. A majority vote is sufficient to overturn the chair's ruling, and thus it is ultimately the assembly which interprets its own rules. Personally, if I were a member of the assembly, the third bullet point in particular would be a pretty tough sell, but it's not my call.

The election stands despite the irregularities, since no Point of Order was raised in a timely manner. Running a new election would have to be done through whatever your normal procedure for doing so is.

Well, I don't know. Based on the new information, there might be a continuing breach, depending on some facts and the assembly's interpretation of its rules.

As far as those votes cast is concerned. I'm trying to balance OI 2006-11 and 18, and p. 402 - 403. I would lean towards the principle that would throw out the election if it seems the president improperly voted, except, with the given vote totals, his vote made no difference in the result (see the other Official Interpretation). So if the president did improperly vote, he should be chastised; but the election will stand.

But the organization's rules require that a majority of the members present must vote in the affirmative for a candidate to be elected. If the assembly determines, for whatever reason, that the President should be considered a member present despite the fact that he did not have the right to vote in the election (due to the vote count and the assembly's customized rule), the President's vote could have affected the result, in that 24 is not a majority of 48.

Regarding "[V]oting requirements based on the number of members present --..... When such a vote is required, however, the chair must count those present immediately after the affirmative vote is taken, before any change can take place in attendance." (RONR 10th Ed., p. 390 l. 13-24)

Now, this does not seem to apply to ballot voting, does it? Still, if that is in fact a voting requirement (members present, not present and voting), at some point during the vote a head count would seem necessary, and the best time to get that (imo) would be just before ballots are handed out. Count the members, make sure the tellers have only that number of ballots between them to hand out, make sure everyone present has a ballot before voting begins, and Bob's your uncle.

I see no reason to disenfranchise voters who arrive after balloting has begun but before the polls are closed. I think these problems simply illustrate that a voting requirement based on members present doesn't mix well with a ballot vote.

I suppose one way to do it would be to have everyone cast a ballot, and those members who wish to abstain may cast a blank ballot (or the tellers toss in a blank ballot for them). In this way, it will determine the number of members who were present at any time during the vote.