Recent Election

[Guest FED UP with current board]

We recently had an election and 2 weeks prior to the election, after the ballots were mailed out by the board, a neighbor and I decided to run. I spoke with an attorney and property management group regarding how we could get votes. They said that we could collect votes on a napkin from neighbors and turn them in on election day or to the secretary prior to.

Now the board is saying that our ballot forms we created are invalid (of course we won) and that we comprised the election because the our form at the top said proxy ballot. Totally our fault we should have just put write in ballot.

HELP!!! Our covenants and by laws are not specific enough to cover this.

[Josh Martin]

We recently had an election and 2 weeks prior to the election, after the ballots were mailed out by the board, a neighbor and I decided to run. I spoke with an attorney and property management group regarding how we could get votes. They said that we could collect votes on a napkin from neighbors and turn them in on election day or to the secretary prior to.

Now the board is saying that our ballot forms we created are invalid (of course we won) and that we comprised the election because the our form at the top said proxy ballot. Totally our fault we should have just put write in ballot.

HELP!!! Our covenants and by laws are not specific enough to cover this.

I'm very puzzled by the advice you received, since it would have been simpler to just tell your supporters to write-in your names on the ballots sent out by the board and have them send in the ballots themselves.

It's quite possible that the ballots are indeed invalid on the grounds that the members did not use the official ballot. So far as RONR is concerned, a ballot may simply be a blank piece of paper, but many assemblies which use preprinted ballots provide that votes must be submitted on the official ballot. I'm also a bit concerned about how you went about "collecting votes," as it seems quite possible that this may have compromised the secrecy of the ballots. I don't think the fact that you erroneously wrote "proxy ballot" on the forms has anything to do with it.

In the end, I expect this will come down to the society interpreting its own rules. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation.

[Gary c Tesser]

I've been floundering about this one for a few hours, myself. Thanks, Mr Martin; well done.

(I would be inclined to say that the canvassed people who signed the napkin had, intrinsically, willingly waived the secrecy of their votes. But who am I to argue with a lawyer about napkins.)

[Josh Martin]

(I would be inclined to say that the canvassed people who signed the napkin had, intrinsically, willingly waived the secrecy of their votes. But who am I to argue with a lawyer about napkins.)

Well, it apparently was the lawyer who said to use the napkin, so he may agree with you.

Personally, I don't think we have enough of the facts to conclude whether the secrecy of the ballots was compromised or if the members intended to waive the secrecy of their votes. I just noted it as a possible concern.

[Guest Fed up with Current Board]

Thanks for the information. Some of the people who chose to vote for us had already submitted their ballots, so upon advisement we created our own ballot so we could be written in, basically gave them a form to use. No one used a napkin or blank piece of paper, that was just an example I was given. When we distributed the ballots we gave everyone the option to turn it in themselves or we would deliver it to the meeting. The purpose of our ballot, since we decided last minute to run, was to supersede the previous ballot's vote if members wanted to vote for us.

We are going to have another election and they are going to include our names on the ballots. I am sure we will win especially since we received almost all of the votes from our efforts of actually talking to the members and letting them know our plans and platform.

This has been helpful though to see where we might have gone wrong.

[David A Foulkes]

The purpose of our ballot, since we decided last minute to run, was to supersede the previous ballot's vote if members wanted to vote for us.

So...... (some of) these members had already cast ballots as were distributed previously by the board, and then they cast secondary ballots after your campaigning efforts?

Oh oh.....

[Tim Wynn]

I spoke with an attorney and property management group . . .

I'm very puzzled by the advice you received, . . .

Consider the source.

[Trina]

Thanks for the information. Some of the people who chose to vote for us had already submitted their ballots, so upon advisement we created our own ballot so we could be written in, basically gave them a form to use. No one used a napkin or blank piece of paper, that was just an example I was given. When we distributed the ballots we gave everyone the option to turn it in themselves or we would deliver it to the meeting. The purpose of our ballot, since we decided last minute to run, was to supersede the previous ballot's vote if members wanted to vote for us.

We are going to have another election and they are going to include our names on the ballots. I am sure we will win especially since we received almost all of the votes from our efforts of actually talking to the members and letting them know our plans and platform.

This has been helpful though to see where we might have gone wrong.

I'm curious -- on what basis is a new election being held?

[Josh Martin]

Thanks for the information. Some of the people who chose to vote for us had already submitted their ballots, so upon advisement we created our own ballot so we could be written in, basically gave them a form to use. No one used a napkin or blank piece of paper, that was just an example I was given. When we distributed the ballots we gave everyone the option to turn it in themselves or we would deliver it to the meeting. The purpose of our ballot, since we decided last minute to run, was to supersede the previous ballot's vote if members wanted to vote for us.

This is very helpful. The situation makes much more sense now. For future reference (for you and the society), in a mail vote it is wise to provide some mechanism for members to obtain and send in a second ballot for situations like this. This helps to ensure the secrecy of the ballots while also permitting the tellers to find the original ballot and replace it (so that the member does not get two votes). There is a "double envelope" method described in RONR which helps to achieve these objectives.

We are going to have another election and they are going to include our names on the ballots. I am sure we will win especially since we received almost all of the votes from our efforts of actually talking to the members and letting them know our plans and platform.

I don't see any basis for taking another vote based on the facts presented thus far.

I'm curious -- on what basis is a new election being held?

Most likely, it was a compromise between the interests of the board and of the affected candidates.

If you are asking what basis in parliamentary law a new election is being held, I suspect there is none.

[Guest Fed Up with Board]

This information is all very helpful I am just not sure how to take action at this point. They have deemed our the election compromise and are unwilling to give us a count of the votes. They say they were not valid and therefore they have no way to count. What should we do, what actions can we take?

[Trina]

This information is all very helpful I am just not sure how to take action at this point. They have deemed our the election compromise and are unwilling to give us a count of the votes. They say they were not valid and therefore they have no way to count. What should we do, what actions can we take?

I thought you said another election would be held, with the new candidates included on the same ballot this time? Although the parliamentary basis for holding a new election seems murky at best, that sounds like a decent solution in practical terms (especially if there was no good mechanism in place for having a member's second vote 'supersede' his/her first vote).

If a new election is in the works, I don't see much point in stirring the pot on the previous election. It's not clear that the second round of ballots you sent out was actually valid. As Mr Martin pointed out in post #2, that uncertainty might be resolved by the society interpreting its own rules. However, any such interpretation would have to be done at a meeting of the general membership... from what you've posted, including the fact that your election takes place via mail, I'll bet that such general membership meetings are not easy to come by.

If a general membership meeting is feasible, then the general membership would (at least in most of the organization we hear about in this forum) be able to order its board to release information. The default situation under RONR is that a board is subordinate to the general membership (specific wording in the bylaws may change this relationship considerably).