President? Posted March 4, 2012 at 11:42 PM Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 at 11:42 PM How do you handle the issue of someone saying after the meeting has adjourned that they were eligible to vote for officers but did not receive a ballot? The issue was not raised after all the ballots were passed out nor after the results were read, officers sworn in and meeting called to adjourn. All previous officers were present and watched/conducted election and no one oposed it during meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted March 4, 2012 at 11:48 PM Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 at 11:48 PM Would it have been possible for the one vote to influence the outcome? If not, it's a moot point. This would be the easy answer.If the one vote could have changed the outcome, and if the member was prevented from voting, then the election is null and void and can be challenged after the fact. However, it's not clear to me that you are describing a situation where the member was prevented from voting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted March 4, 2012 at 11:51 PM Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 at 11:51 PM Can we assume this member was present at the meeting, saw the ballots being handed, collected, counted and said nothing? And shall we further assume his not receiving a ballot was an oversight on the tellers' part and not an intentional act? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted March 5, 2012 at 12:25 AM Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 at 12:25 AM Unless the vote would have changed the outcome, nothing. However, the member should have raised the issue during the meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
President? Posted March 5, 2012 at 12:35 AM Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 at 12:35 AM Yes there were 3 people that are now claiming they should have been eligible and the vote was 5-6 so yes three votes could have changed the outcome of the vote but not one of them made an issue of eligibilty after the ballots were passed out and it was stated that only 11 people were eligible. The ballots were counted and the outcome announced and still no one said "hey why didn't I get a ballot". Now because they may not like the outcome, they are saying I should have had a vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted March 5, 2012 at 10:44 PM Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 at 10:44 PM Yes there were 3 people that are now claiming they should have been eligible and the vote was 5-6 so yes three votes could have changed the outcome of the vote but not one of them made an issue of eligibilty after the ballots were passed out and it was stated that only 11 people were eligible. The ballots were counted and the outcome announced and still no one said "hey why didn't I get a ballot". Now because they may not like the outcome, they are saying I should have had a vote.Why were the 3 people judged to be ineligible, and are they right when they say that they actually were eligible? 'Should have been eligible' sounds pretty uncertain -- were they or weren't they eligible to vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted March 5, 2012 at 11:05 PM Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 at 11:05 PM Yes there were 3 people that are now claiming they should have been eligible...Since you use the term "eligible", which is not how RONR describes someone with the right to vote, it suggests that there are some criteria that must be met first before being allowed to vote. Do your bylaws include some language to that effect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.