Guest Lou Montanaro Posted February 22, 2012 at 12:47 AM Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 at 12:47 AM At a recent election the chair misread the bylaws in reagad to who was eligible to vote. Because the chair misread the rules 3 people did not vote because they believed they were ineligible. The outcome of the vote was 23-13. Does this constitute a "corrupt" election/vote, even though the 3 votes would not have mattered if they were counted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Britton Posted February 22, 2012 at 01:04 AM Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 at 01:04 AM At a recent election the chair misread the bylaws in reagad to who was eligible to vote. Because the chair misread the rules 3 people did not vote because they believed they were ineligible. The outcome of the vote was 23-13. Does this constitute a "corrupt" election/vote, even though the 3 votes would not have mattered if they were counted?No; Somehow, the discrepency would've needed to have a direct effect upon the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lou Posted February 22, 2012 at 01:08 AM Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 at 01:08 AM Thats exactly what I thought but some (the folks who voted for the loser in the election) are yelling foul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted February 22, 2012 at 01:41 AM Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 at 01:41 AM Well, after the meeting it is too late to yell "foul" (or anything else!).A point of order (the proper way to yell "foul") must be made right away - p. 252 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted February 22, 2012 at 01:43 AM Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 at 01:43 AM Thats exactly what I thought but some (the folks who voted for the loser in the election) are yelling foul.You can refer them to RONR p. 252 ll. 20-30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted February 22, 2012 at 01:49 AM Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 at 01:49 AM At a recent election the chair misread the bylaws in reagad to who was eligible to vote. Because the chair misread the rules 3 people did not vote because they believed they were ineligible. The outcome of the vote was 23-13. Does this constitute a "corrupt" election/vote, even though the 3 votes would not have mattered if they were counted?If the members were not actually prevented from voting, that is, if they simply chose to not exercise their right to vote, no rule would have been broken, regardless of whether or not their votes could have affected the outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted February 22, 2012 at 02:10 AM Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 at 02:10 AM If the members were not actually prevented from voting, that is, if they simply chose to not exercise their right to vote, no rule would have been broken, regardless of whether or not their votes could have affected the outcome.I seem to recall a recent discussion regarding just what constitutes being prevented from voting. Some, I believe, argued that it wasn't enough just to be told by someone in authority (e.g. the president) that you can't vote. You actually have to have tried to cast a ballot and were (physically?) prevented from doing so. I'm not sure I subscribe to that theory.In any event, the members share (with the chair) the responsibility of understanding the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lou Posted February 22, 2012 at 02:34 AM Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 at 02:34 AM What exactly happened was: I the President of the E Board was out of town for the vote. The chair for the election misread the bylaws by not including a line that explains that coaches in the league without children are eligible to vote in elections. 3 people that were present without children in the league did not vote becasue of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted February 22, 2012 at 02:42 AM Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 at 02:42 AM What exactly happened was: I the President of the E Board was out of town for the vote… So, you don't know what happened… got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted February 22, 2012 at 02:49 AM Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 at 02:49 AM I seem to recall a recent discussion regarding just what constitutes being prevented from voting. Some, I believe, argued that it wasn't enough just to be told by someone in authority (e.g. the president) that you can't vote. You actually have to have tried to cast a ballot and were (physically?) prevented from doing so. I'm not sure I subscribe to that theory.In any event, the members share (with the chair) the responsibility of understanding the rules.I don't think "physical" prevention is necessary. A ruling by the chair would be subject to appeal, of course. A statement or response to a parliamentary inquiry would not be enough to constitute a violation of the rules or to constitute an example of denying a member of a right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lou Posted February 22, 2012 at 02:52 AM Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 at 02:52 AM I spoke to each and every board member in the room, and each of them had the same recolection of the nights events. I confirmed the results with the vote counters as well as the chair within minutes of the close of the election. FWIW the chair shared with me he voted for the loser in the election.PS - the folks crying foul are all friends and neigbors of the person who lost.Thank you all for your quick responses, I needed to put this to bed asap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.