Members Denied Their Vote

[Guest Paula]

At a recent meeting of our organization, the President asked the two people nominated for an office to leave the room. Neither were given a ballot prior to leaving and they did not get to vote. People voices objections to having them leave and he ignored it. We did not verify until after the meeting that they did not get to vote. When two other officers came up, he did not ask them to leave the room. Is there any justification for his actions and asking the people to leave the room? Any recourse now?

[David A Foulkes]

Is there any justification for his actions and asking the people to leave the room?

Given the facts provided so far, not according to the rules in RONR.

Any recourse now?

Were any of the election results so close that the results of the voting could have been different if those two candidates were allowed to vote?

[Guest Paula]

We do not know. They did not read the count in any office. Several members were trying to voice objections but they were ignored. Actually there was a motion to accept the slate of officers recommended by the Nominating Committee and a second on the motion and the President refused to let the members vote and tried to let the Nominating Committee run the elections but he did finally realize that it was not their job.

[David A Foulkes]

Well, the president surely didn't follow the election procedures set forth in RONR, and by denying the two nominees the opportunity to vote he has violated their member rights. You should take a look at FAQ #20 and possibly consider (if possible) disciplining if not replacing your president. This may require disciplinary procedures, including a trial, depending on what the bylaws say for term of office (as noted in FAQ 20) as well as what they may include for disciplinary procedures. It may not be as easy as getting enough members to vote him out. He certainly needs to become a lot more knowledgeable with the rules in RONR.

Were the ballots from the election retained securely (typically by the Secretary)? Could they be re-counted with 100% assurance they haven't been tampered with?

[Chris Harrison]

I don't know if this would be strictly within RONR but for fairness sake it seems to be the right course (but stay tuned for other thoughts). I would suggest that a member raise a Point of Order that the elections for those two officers are null and void based on RONR p. 251(e). Normally, that would only be applicable if their votes could have affected the results but since the tellers report wasn't read there is no way to demonstrate whether this is the case unless someone can produce the tellers report and/or ballots (which the assembly could order recounted) which to the member's satisfaction hasn't been tampered with in any way. Chances are that the President will either rule the Point Not Well Taken or ignore it. If he rules the Point Not Well Taken the ruling should be Appealed (see RONR pp. 255-260). If he ignores the Point you all have two options (or you could use both of them) 1) a member could put the question standing in his place (RONR pp. 650-651) and/or 2) Suspend the Rules and have someone else preside even though the President is there (see RONR pp. 651-653 and Official Interpretation 2006-2 *and this script* for details).

*Both OI 2006-2 and the script have citations from the 10th Edition and we are on the 11th now. Generally when there is a citation from the 10th you can find it in the 11th within 5 pages before or 5 pages after the page cited from the 10th.

[Guest Guest]

Thank you gentlemen.

[Josh Martin]

I don't know if this would be strictly within RONR but for fairness sake it seems to be the right course (but stay tuned for other thoughts). I would suggest that a member raise a Point of Order that the elections for those two officers are null and void based on RONR p. 251(e). Normally, that would only be applicable if their votes could have affected the results but since the tellers report wasn't read there is no way to demonstrate whether this is the case unless someone can produce the tellers report and/or ballots (which the assembly could order recounted) which to the member's satisfaction hasn't been tampered with in any way. Chances are that the President will either rule the Point Not Well Taken or ignore it. If he rules the Point Not Well Taken the ruling should be Appealed (see RONR pp. 255-260). If he ignores the Point you all have two options (or you could use both of them) 1) a member could put the question standing in his place (RONR pp. 650-651) and/or 2) Suspend the Rules and have someone else preside even though the President is there (see RONR pp. 651-653 and Official Interpretation 2006-2 *and this script* for details).

*Both OI 2006-2 and the script have citations from the 10th Edition and we are on the 11th now. Generally when there is a citation from the 10th you can find it in the 11th within 5 pages before or 5 pages after the page cited from the 10th.

I concur with Chris H., and I think his proposal is supported by the text, as RONR states that "if there is any possibility that the members' vote(s) could have affected the outcome, then the results of the vote must be declared invalid if the point of order is sustained" (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 252, lines 24-27). Since the vote counts were never announced, it seems there is certainly a possibility that the members' votes could have affected the outcome, and I believe the vote must be retaken unless the ballots have been securely preserved and a count shows that their votes could not have affected the outcome.

See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 252-253 for more information on this subject.

[Rev Ed]

Also as no results were announced, no one knows if the winning candidates even received a majoirty of votes cast. So yes I do believe that a Point of Order should be made and be prepared to appeal the President/Presiding Officer's decision as it sounds like the member may not want to accept the Point of Order.

Regardless, it does souns like the organization might want to consider some sort of discipline against the President. However, remember to rake into account how experienced he is at conducting meetings. It might just be inexperience. But slap on the wrist may be all that is required. Or the appointment of a certified Parliamentarian to advise the President which is actually a benefit to all.

[Trina]

I don't know if this would be strictly within RONR but for fairness sake it seems to be the right course (but stay tuned for other thoughts). I would suggest that a member raise a Point of Order that the elections for those two officers are null and void based on RONR p. 251(e). Normally, that would only be applicable if their votes could have affected the results but since the tellers report wasn't read there is no way to demonstrate whether this is the case unless someone can produce the tellers report and/or ballots (which the assembly could order recounted) which to the member's satisfaction hasn't been tampered with in any way. Chances are that the President will either rule the Point Not Well Taken or ignore it. If he rules the Point Not Well Taken the ruling should be Appealed (see RONR pp. 255-260). If he ignores the Point you all have two options (or you could use both of them) 1) a member could put the question standing in his place (RONR pp. 650-651) and/or 2) Suspend the Rules and have someone else preside even though the President is there (see RONR pp. 651-653 and Official Interpretation 2006-2 *and this script* for details).

...

I agree with the substance of this. Just a small clarification -- since Paula said:

the President asked the two people nominated for an office to leave the room

it seems that perhaps only the vote for that particular office may be in doubt, not several offices. Of course, if the two nominated members were not told to come back in to participate in the vote on the next office, then the vote results for multiple offices might have been affected by their improper exclusion.

At any rate, the election for each office is a discrete action and should be judged on its own merits (despite the mention of a 'slate' in post #4).

[David A Foulkes]

Is this analogous to the concept that a point of order relating to a lack of quorum is generally not permitted to affect prior actions, unless "clear and convincing proof" of the lack of quorum can be provided? That is, unless "clear and convincing proof" that the votes of the members who left the room could have affected the results, then the vote stands? And without an authorized record of the vote count (i.e. teller report, for instance), or of the ballots having been securely retained for a recount, the point of order should not be permitted?

[Dan Honemann]

Is this analogous to the concept that a point of order relating to a lack of quorum is generally not permitted to affect prior actions, unless "clear and convincing proof" of the lack of quorum can be provided? That is, unless "clear and convincing proof" that the votes of the members who left the room could have affected the results, then the vote stands? And without an authorized record of the vote count (i.e. teller report, for instance), or of the ballots having been securely retained for a recount, the point of order should not be permitted?

I think you've got it exactly backwards.

[David A Foulkes]

I think you've got it exactly backwards.

Had to ask.

[Gary Novosielski]

Had to ask.

The standard in this instance is not "clear and convincing proof" but rather "any possibility".