Reporting Election Results

[Guest Lisa]

Do the results of an election have to be disclosed - rather than just the outcome? ie the board was questioned why the individual vote totals were not released and the answer was 1) that it was irrelevant and 2) that they wanted to protect the feelings of the unsuccessful candidates.

Further, RONR is the governing authority if something is not specifically addressed in the organization's bylaws, correct? Handling election results is not specifically addressed in the bylaws and our president believes "The hierarchy is Constitution & By Laws, Standing Rules, Organizational Precedent, then Standard Parliamentary procedure." Because the only other contested election (2 years ago) did not release individual vote totals, he beleives that precedent was set and they never need to be released.

[Guest Edgar]

Do the results of an election have to be disclosed?

Yes. And the fact that this wasn't done in the past does not set a precedent.

[David A Foulkes]

And the reason cited (in "2)" above) is improper as well, and is actually addressed in RONR (11th Ed.) on page 418, lines 28-31.

[Josh Martin]

Do the results of an election have to be disclosed - rather than just the outcome?

Yes, and recorded in the minutes.

ie the board was questioned why the individual vote totals were not released and the answer was 1) that it was irrelevant and 2) that they wanted to protect the feelings of the unsuccessful candidates.

1.) They're not irrelevant. Dr. Stackpole has a whole list of reasons somewhere, but the first that comes to mind for me is that if the election is very close, the assembly might wish to order a recount to ensure that the results are accurate.

2.) The needs of the assembly are more important than a few members' hurt feelings.

Further, RONR is the governing authority if something is not specifically addressed in the organization's bylaws, correct?

In the ordinary case, it is the governing authority unless it is addressed in your Constitution, Bylaws or special rules of order. It would appear your rules provide otherwise. I can only assume that the organization uses the term "standing rules" to refer to both special rules of order and standing rules (as some organizations do). It seems your organization doesn't understand the purpose of precedents.

Handling election results is not specifically addressed in the bylaws and our president believes "The hierarchy is Constitution & By Laws, Standing Rules, Organizational Precedent, then Standard Parliamentary procedure." Because the only other contested election (2 years ago) did not release individual vote totals, he beleives that precedent was set and they never need to be released.

The President is incorrect. Something which has just "always been done that way" is a custom. A precedent is set by a ruling of the chair on a Point of Order and by the assembly's decision on any subsequent Appeal.

[Guest Edgar]

Dr. Stackpole has a whole list of reasons somewhere . . .

Such as here.

And, speaking of the good doctor, I've got this rash that won't go away . . .

[Guest Lisa]

Thank You.

Our bylaws specifically say

Article IX, Section 3. Robert’s Rules of Order shall prevail in all matters not specifically covered by the Constitution and By-Laws.

Quite frankly the current board thinks whatever they want to do is simply OK, because they want it to be so . . . and very few people question them on it. Like when I asked about the election results, I was dismissed out of hand because "they were irrelevant and unimportant" - and everyone simply let it go.

[Josh Martin]

Our bylaws specifically say

Article IX, Section 3. Robert’s Rules of Order shall prevail in all matters not specifically covered by the Constitution and By-Laws.

Ah, I misread your original question. So your President is just mistaken. Special rules of order also trump RONR, but standing rules and precedents do not (and neither do customs, which your President seems to have confused with precedents).