elections

[Guest 7PfES8]

Going back a step or two, who makes the initial declaration that the election is "Null and void" based on the defective balloting process, and to whom is it made. Can any member bring it to up to the President? the board? who? How does it get initiated?

[Guest Guest]

Responding to Bruce Lages, the two members who were given ballots at the balloting table were not on the membership list at all, although they claimed they had paid their dues and were current. The person checking people in and who was also acting as a Teller and as an Election Inspector (which itself is illegal), claimed that he knew them as past members and handed them ballots on the basis that he would follow up at a later date to get their cancelled checks proving that were current in their dues payments. He should have brought this discrepancy up to the membership for a vote, but did not. He unilaterally made a decision that they weremembers in good standing at the time of the vote, without proof of same. Those people who claimed they had paid, but had no proof that they did at the time of the vote, should not have been given ballots -- not without a vote of the assembly. It may turn out later that they were correct and are current in their dues, but at that time of the election this was (i) not proven, and (2) not brought up to the membership to vote on. The race was close by 1 vote. Those two votes could have changed the outcome.

[Sean Hunt]

If they were members, they were members. The fact that they did not have proof is not their problem---it is the responsibility of the organization to keep track of its members, and their rights are not lost because they didn't bring confirmation of membership, unless your bylaws specifically say otherwise. Their votes seem entirely legal.

[Josh Martin]

Going back a step or two, who makes the initial declaration that the election is "Null and void" based on the defective balloting process, and to whom is it made. Can any member bring it to up to the President? the board? who? How does it get initiated?

The President may make the ruling on his own initiative, or if he does not do so, any member may raise a Point of Order that the election is null and void and the President will rule on the point.

Responding to Bruce Lages, the two members who were given ballots at the balloting table were not on the membership list at all, although they claimed they had paid their dues and were current. The person checking people in and who was also acting as a Teller and as an Election Inspector (which itself is illegal), claimed that he knew them as past members and handed them ballots on the basis that he would follow up at a later date to get their cancelled checks proving that were current in their dues payments. He should have brought this discrepancy up to the membership for a vote, but did not. He unilaterally made a decision that they weremembers in good standing at the time of the vote, without proof of same. Those people who claimed they had paid, but had no proof that they did at the time of the vote, should not have been given ballots -- not without a vote of the assembly. It may turn out later that they were correct and are current in their dues, but at that time of the election this was (i) not proven, and (2) not brought up to the membership to vote on. The race was close by 1 vote. Those two votes could have changed the outcome.

If the members were eligible to vote, then the election is valid. Whether there was proof of this at the time is irrelevant at this point.

Unless you have specific rules to the contrary, their votes seem perfectly legal to me since they were current in their dues.

From the facts provided, it seems it is unclear whether this is the case.

[Guest Edgar]

Their votes seem entirely legal.

From the facts provided, it seems it is unclear whether this is the case.

I guess that's what points of order, rulings, and appeals are for.

[Guest Guest]

At the time of the vote, it was not known whether they had paid their 2012 dues and were in good standing because they were not on the Association's list as having paid. Mistake or not, the person who handed them a ballot should not have done so without bringing the discrepancy up for a vote of the assembly.

[Guest Edgar]

Mistake or not, the person who handed them a ballot should not have done so without bringing the discrepancy up for a vote of the assembly.

It's not always practical to conduct on-the-spot verification of membership (especially if it would require a vote by the assembly) during an election. This is why provision is often made for accepting "provisional" ballots. If it turns out they couldn't have made a difference in the outcome, it's a simple case of "no harm, no foul". If it turns out, as in this case, they could have made a difference, their legitimacy can be verified in a calm, deliberative process. Of course a price is paid in the time it takes to complete the election but that, it seems to me, is where you are. You can tighten up the process for the next election.

[Bruce Lages]

I disagree somewhat with Edgar's first sentence above, but I do agree with his last sentence - I think your organization is obligated to tighten up the process before any more elections. RONR (p. 459, ll.1-3) says that a duty of the secretary is to keep the organization's official membership roll and to call the roll where required. This means that the secretary should always have available an up-to-date membership list, especially in situations where the question of membership becomes an issue, such as your elections.

SInce your rules also impose a financial obligation for voting rights, the secretary will also need input from the treasurer, or other financial officer, in order to have available an up-to-date roll of members in good standing. And up-to-date in this case means current as of the day of the election. As Sean Hunt stated, this is absolutely an obligation of the organization, not of the members.

While RONR doesn't spell out these steps specifically, it does consider denying members their fundamental right to vote a serious breach. When an organization adopts rules about the qualifications necessary for voting, it is also obligated to adopt procedures both to ensure that these qualifications are met and to ensure that all members meeting these qualifications can be accurately identified.

[Josh Martin]

At the time of the vote, it was not known whether they had paid their 2012 dues and were in good standing because they were not on the Association's list as having paid. Mistake or not, the person who handed them a ballot should not have done so without bringing the discrepancy up for a vote of the assembly.

This is entirely possible, although it would depend on the organization's rules. I'm trying to focus on the original question, however - whether the vote is invalid and should be retaken - and for that purpose, these details are no longer relevant. The members were eligible to vote or they were not.

[Gary Novosielski]

At the time of the vote, it was not known whether they had paid their 2012 dues and were in good standing because they were not on the Association's list as having paid. Mistake or not, the person who handed them a ballot should not have done so without bringing the discrepancy up for a vote of the assembly.

Maybe not, but the question of what he should have done does not affect the election. It might or might not affect his deserving discipline.

The only relevant fact, as far as the validity of the election is concerned, is whether the two voters were actually eligible to vote, or not. The teller's beliefs at the time, mistaken or correct, are not relevant.