Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Recall of Officer Voting


President?

Recommended Posts

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

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

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

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

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

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...