Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Need some feedback on hairy situation regarding votes and annual meeting.

donrull

By donrull
in General Discussion

Recommended Posts

donrull

donrull

Posted
Posted

I have edited the text below. For some reason my computer with Windows * and using Internet Explorer 10 would not allow me create paragraphs. I thought this was a limitation of the forum, but after finding out differently and logging in with firefox, I can create paragraphs. I hope this makes it easier to read and answer! I left the numbers and letter the same so the very generous answer by JDStackpole could easily be referenced back! Thanks JDStackpole!

I know this post is long and detailed, but would really appreciate your patience and assistance.

We recently had an annual meeting in which both officers and committee members were elected. The individuals counting the ballots were given additional instructions from an unauthorized member and these instructions were incorrect. Regardless, we have been reviewing the ballots and trying to figure out what we must do to correct the issue and I could really use some feedback on the following items.

Our ballots consisted of a sheet of paper where both the candidates for our Pastoral Search Committee and candidates for the Board of Directors were on the same sheet in 2 different sections. Next to each name a "yes" or "no" was printed and people were instructed to circle their choices. There were 4 Pastoral Search candidates and people were instructed to vote for only 3. There were 7 Board candidates and people could vote for each. People voted all at one time for all items on the ballot.

1. My first questions have to do with legal/illegal ballots, corrections, and how these things affect the ballots.

A) If someone voted yes for all 4 Pastoral Search candidates, although they were to only vote for 3, my understanding is that these votes would be considered illegal. However, would these votes be illegal for only the Pastoral Search candidate section of the ballot or the entire ballot?

B) Is it an issue that people voted "yes" for 3 people and also voted "no" for one person? To clarify, the instructions were to vote for only 3 and so it appears that most people voted yes for 3 and no for 1. This makes sense, but in our discussion the questions was asked that by selecting yes or no for each candidate, were people actually voting on all 4?

C) Corrections: If someone voted yes and then clearly crossed out the yes and circled no, is this reason for any concern? If we can tell what the intention was, is this vote considered legal? In the same light, do corrections on a ballot affect any other section of the ballot?

D) We had 8 ballots that were turned in prior to the question being called and the individuals left the meeting not to return. Our Clerk allowed this because she did not know any better and did not seek guidance. Because our bylaws do not allow absentee voting, and voting prior to the question being called is considered absentee voting, we have adjusted the count to exclude the illegal ballots. This resulted in a change that affected one person in the Pastoral Search candidate section of the ballots. According to Roberts Rules, as we are reading it, if the illegal ballots cause a change on the ballot the entire ballot must be voted on again. Since our ballots were on one page for both Pastoral Search and Board candidates, and the question was called at the same time, does this mean that we have to vote again on the entire ballot, or just the section (Pastoral Search candidates) that was affected by the illegal votes?

2. The next questions have to do with having another meeting to vote again.

A) When we call another meeting to vote again, do we have to keep the candidates exactly as they were previously or can we solicit additional candidates or remove candidates no longer interested in these positions?

B) Our bylaws state, "The Pastoral Search Committee shall consist of the following individuals: the elected or appointed members of the Board and three (3) additional members in good standing elected by the congregation from the pool of applicants submitted to the Clerk by the deadline established in the Board’s call for applications. In the event of a vacancy of any of the three additional members, the Board shall appoint a qualified member in good standing to fill the vacancy." If we have 4 candidates and the membership will only affirm 2 of them by the 50% plus 1 vote required, would the non-elected 3rd position be considered one that the Board would appoint since the membership could not choose 3 from the interested candidates?

C) Along with this, if the membership affirms 2 of the candidates, do we have a run off for the remaining 2? If the membership does not affirm either of the remaining 2 by the 50% plus 1 vote required, what must be done?

Thank you in advance!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jstackpo

jstackpo

Posted
Posted

Picking out the explicit questions...

1.A Yes, illegal, but NOT spoiling the other part of the ballot.

1.B Issue? You betcha. "Yes"/"No" options on elections are not proper (p. 430). RONR has no guidance as to what to do if you misbehave. So you (collectively) will have to sort out 1.B and 1.C.

1.D Technically these were absentee ballots... however one could argue that the polls were opened "early" to accommodate those folks - ask your assembly if that was the (implicit) intention. Did the people there at voting time know the early folks were leaving? From what you say only the pastoral search portion was effected.

2.A No, Yes, Yes to the sub-questions.

2.B No, you have an incomplete election, not a vacancy. Vote again, but the winning candidates do not have to run again and should not be on the ballot. They won already. But since your bylaws say "elected or appointed" the whole question is all murky. Who decides between "elected" or "appointed"?

2.C Yes; vote again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
donrull

donrull

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I sincerely appreciate your response. I know I was asking many questions. Can you tell me how the voting should have been handled if not yes/no?

Picking out the explicit questions...

1.A Yes, illegal, but NOT spoiling the other part of the ballot.

1.B Issue? You betcha. "Yes"/"No" options on elections are not proper (p. 430). RONR has no guidance as to what to do if you misbehave. So you (collectively) will have to sort out 1.B and 1.C.

1.D Technically these were absentee ballots... however one could argue that the polls were opened "early" to accommodate those folks - ask your assembly if that was the (implicit) intention. Did the people there at voting time know the early folks were leaving? From what you say only the pastoral search portion was effected.

2.A No, Yes, Yes to the sub-questions.

2.B No, you have an incomplete election, not a vacancy. Vote again, but the winning candidates do not have to run again and should not be on the ballot. They won already. But since your bylaws say "elected or appointed" the whole question is all murky. Who decides between "elected" or "appointed"?

2.C Yes; vote again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jstackpo

jstackpo

Posted
Posted

I sincerely appreciate your response. I know I was asking many questions. Can you tell me how the voting should have been handled if not yes/no?

Start on p. 430 of RONR and read on. Or better, start on p. 400.

Paragraphs were something I tried to do but hitting return did not work. How do I insert paragraphs?

What (strange?) variety of computer are you using?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Nancy N.

Guest Nancy N.

Posted
Posted

A few thoughts. (enumeration different by necessity, and not diverging, from mr. rull's)

1. don, why are you posting a picture of Gregory Peck?

2. Do you think any of your questions, at least any ongoing important ones, are still unanswered?

2a. don, Do you agree with me that the foregoing has established that it would be meet, if not condign (I can't remember which is which) for you to drop in here, to this website, the world's premiere Internet parliamentary forum, and to go ahead and begin to answer other people's questions, since you are now familiar with your copy of RONR - IB, having read it during the first hour and a half after you bought it as I have been advising you to do since 1956 when it was first released in my imaginary edition (with the bilious green cover), so that maybe guys like Tim and Dr. Stackpole and that strange Guest Foulkes and I might maybe take a weekend off in a couple years and maybe go fishing in West Virginia, secure in the confidence that you were holding down the fort?

captcha trial 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...