Timeliness of point of order

[DrEntropy]

Bylaws provide:

"All elections shall be by secret ballot, unless a secret ballot is dispensed with by unanimous vote."

 

At Annual Meeting, only one nominee for each position. Chair asks for a single show of hands to elect the entire "slate". 

 

At the next meeting, is it too late to raise a point of order? pg. 251 e) seems pretty strict, but in this case the rules is 'squishy' and could have been suspended, according to the bylaws. So in my opinion, the rule was suspended by the implied unanimous consent of those present who did not object.  Thoughts? (Pointers to previous discussions also appreciated).

[Guest Edgar]

So in my opinion, the rule was suspended by the implied unanimous consent of those present who did not object.

That's not my opinion. Apparently no vote was ever taken, as required, to dispense with the required ballot vote.

In other words, what was required was not an unanimous vote to elect but rather an unanimous vote to dispense with a ballot vote. Only then you do get to vote to elect (unanimously or not).

[DrEntropy]

Just to clarify: The vote to elect the slate was not (necessarily) unanimous..

[Guest Edgar]

Just to clarify: The vote to elect the slate was not . . . unanimous

So now there are at least three things wrong with what was done.

And, while you're certainly free to assume "implied unanimous consent" all you want, it sounds too much like making the ends justifying the means to me.

It also seems like a case of bylaws interpretation which, as I'm sure you know, is beyond the scope of this humble forum.

[DrEntropy]

So now there are at least three things wrong with what was done.

 

Three? If bylaws did not require a ballot election at all, then how many things were wrong?

[J. J.]

 

Bylaws provide:

"All elections shall be by secret ballot, unless a secret ballot is dispensed with by unanimous vote."

 

At Annual Meeting, only one nominee for each position. Chair asks for a single show of hands to elect the entire "slate". 

 

At the next meeting, is it too late to raise a point of order? pg. 251 e) seems pretty strict, but in this case the rules is 'squishy' and could have been suspended, according to the bylaws. So in my opinion, the rule was suspended by the implied unanimous consent of those present who did not object.  Thoughts? (Pointers to previous discussions also appreciated).

 

 

If the words "...unless a secret ballot is dispensed with by unanimous vote," were not there, I would say that clearly a non timely POO could be raised.  This does permit suspension, which is what happened.  I would have preferred the chair to say, "If there is no objection, we will dispense with the ballot," but any member could have objected in any case.

[DrEntropy]

If the words "...unless a secret ballot is dispensed with by unanimous vote," were not there, I would say that clearly a non timely POO could be raised.  This does permit suspension, which is what happened.  I would have preferred the chair to say, "If there is no objection, we will dispense with the ballot," but any member could have objected in any case.

 

I am going to suggest just that for the next election. This is actually a real case for a toastmasters club to which i belong.  I was present at the election, but I didn't have the bylaws handy and was unsure.  Remembering RONR pg 250 l11-15 , I sat on my hands.  In retrospect a parliamentary inquiry would have been a good idea. (same page, previous line!)

 

Edit: BTW: no one intends to raise any point of order, or is even aware of this line in the bylaws as far as I know.

[George Mervosh]

Just to clarify: The vote to elect the slate was not (necessarily) unanimous..

 

It doesn't need to be.  Getting to the point where the vote was taken to elect the slate is where your question lies.  Since no one objected to proceeding to the vote, my view of it is the action would stand as a timely point of order would be required.

[Guest Edgar]

Getting to the point where the vote was taken to elect the slate is where your question lies.  Since no one objected to proceeding to the vote, my view of it is the action would stand as a timely point of order would be required.

The bylaws required a unanimous vote in order to dispense with a ballot vote. Not only wasn't there a unanimous vote to dispense with a ballot vote, there wasn't a vote to do so at all. And the subsequent vote (i.e. the election) wasn't unanimous either (in case that might have been used as some sort of justification).

So it's too late to raise a point of order that the bylaw requirement for a ballot vote was completely disregarded?

[J. J.]

The bylaws required a unanimous vote in order to dispense with a ballot vote. Not only wasn't there a unanimous vote to dispense with a ballot vote, there wasn't a vote to do so at all. And the subsequent vote (i.e. the election) wasn't unanimous either (in case that might have been used as some sort of justification).

So it's too late to raise a point of order that the bylaw requirement for a ballot vote was completely disregarded?

 

The bylaws required a unanimous vote in order to dispense with a ballot vote. Not only wasn't there a unanimous vote to dispense with a ballot vote, there wasn't a vote to do so at all. And the subsequent vote (i.e. the election) wasn't unanimous either (in case that might have been used as some sort of justification).

So it's too late to raise a point of order that the bylaw requirement for a ballot vote was completely disregarded?

 

 

You would have to raise a point of order that the question was not properly stated by the chair; it is too late to do so on that ground.

[Guest Edgar]

You would have to raise a point of order that the question was not properly stated by the chair; it is too late to do so on that ground.

But the relevant question (i.e. whether to dispense with a ballot vote) wasn't stated at all!

How can stating one question (to elect the "slate") possibly be construed as improperly stating another question (to dispense with a ballot vote)?

[George Mervosh]

But the relevant question (i.e. whether to dispense with a ballot vote) wasn't stated at all!

How can stating one question (to elect the "slate") possibly be construed as improperly stating another question (to dispense with a ballot vote)?

 

All it would take is either one member either voting no, had the question to dispense with the ballot been properly taken, or one member raising a point of order or objecting at any time during the process of voting on the slate, and a ballot vote would have been required.  That did not happen.  In my view that means the election is valid.

[Gary c Tesser]

O George, our first quarrel.

[George Mervosh]

O George, our first quarrel.

 

Gary, please expand.

The stated facts indicate to me:

1. The rule requiring a vote by ballot provides for its own suspension.
2. The effect of the stated rule is that one member may demand a vote by ballot.
3. No member in any way, shape or form attempted to make such a demand through the available procedures.

Therefore, in my opinion, the final results stand.  Was the procedure perfect getting there?  No.  What are your thoughts?

[Sean Hunt]

I think that rather than looking at the effect of the rule, we need only observe that the rule requiring a ballot vote is suspendable, and hence a point of order may be raised only in a timely fashion. Whether or not the rule for a ballot was suspended by implied consent is irrelevant.

[Randyl Kent Plampin]

Greetings:

 

It seems to me that once an election is final then that's it, it is final; RONR 11 p. 444 lines 17-27. The one exception to this rule is the case of the "continuing breach." (RONR 11 p. 251 lines 3-7)

 

It should be observed that in order to dispense with a bylaws ballot requirement then the vote to do so must also be by ballot, RONR 11 p. 413 lines 1-9. In the particular case cited, the presiding officer ignored the bylaws requirement and no one objected. No rule was suspended because no ballot vote was conducted to suspend it.

 

It is my opinion that this case is similar to that described in the thread http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/19439-ballot-election/ and accordingly, the breach is continuing and therefore the election is null and void. The presiding officer had no right to demand an open vote on this question, because to vote no would reveal the opinions of those members that disagreed, and this they cannot be forced to do; see same p. 413. It is this right which the bylaws are attempting to protect whether the victims cried out in pain or took it in silence. Remember, the rules must be observed no matter how inconvenient those rules are; RONR 11 p. 263 lines 1-7.

 

I would be more than happy to be corrected in this matter, however, I would require that you provide sufficient evidence that the breach in this case is not of a continuing nature, because if it is not then this election is in fact final and nothing can be done short of a trial or a motion to Rescind the election depending on what the bylaws say about the officer's terms of office.

 

Best regards,

Randyl Kent Plampin

[Dan Honemann]

If I understand the facts correctly, in this particular case the bylaws permit suspension of their requirement that elections be by secret ballot. The bylaws do not mandate that the vote on whether or not to suspend the ballot requirement also be by secret ballot.

 

As a consequence, it is too late to raise a point of order concerning the validity of the election based upon the fact that no ballot vote was taken.

[Josh Martin]

It is my opinion that this case is similar to that described in the thread http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/19439-ballot-election/ and accordingly, the breach is continuing and therefore the election is null and void. The presiding officer had no right to demand an open vote on this question, because to vote no would reveal the opinions of those members that disagreed, and this they cannot be forced to do; see same p. 413. It is this right which the bylaws are attempting to protect whether the victims cried out in pain or took it in silence. Remember, the rules must be observed no matter how inconvenient those rules are; RONR 11 p. 263 lines 1-7.

 

I would be more than happy to be corrected in this matter, however, I would require that you provide sufficient evidence that the breach in this case is not of a continuing nature, because if it is not then this election is in fact final and nothing can be done short of a trial or a motion to Rescind the election depending on what the bylaws say about the officer's terms of office

 

Although it deals with a much different situation, there's a phrase from OI 2006-18 which is key in interpreting cases like this one: "if a rule is suspendable, a point of order regarding its violation must be timely." If it was true that a ballot vote was required to suspend the rule in question, that might make things more interesting, but since the bylaws provide for the suspension and do not mention such a requirement, I don't believe this requirement exists.

 

This is not analogous to the situation in the thread you have cited, since in that case, the bylaws did not provide for the rule to be suspended (at least, not based on the facts provided).

[Randyl Kent Plampin]

Greetings:
 
I thank the gentlemen for the clarification.
 
From your interpretation and according to RONR 11 p. 250 l. 30 to p. 251 l. 2 for cases that are of a non-continuing nature:
 

Points of order regarding the conduct of a vote must be raised immediately following the announcement of the voting result (see pp. 408-9).

it appears that the election in question is a done deal.

What I dislike about this case is that if the bylaws of the organization had stopped short of allowing the requirement of a ballot vote to be suspended, then the actions taken would have constituted a breach of a continuing nature and the assembly would have had recourse no matter how much time had passed. With the addition of that small phrase, "unless a secret ballot is dispensed with by unanimous vote" they opened themselves up to mischief by a presiding officer with recourse only during the brief period after the announcement of the election result and the next item of business. In order to regain the protections that I believe the assembly deserves, they should either (1) amend the bylaws and eliminate everything after first "ballot" or (2) amend the "unless" phase by adding to its end "which must also be by ballot," or something to that effect.

 

Best regards,

Randyl Kent Plampin

[Dan Honemann]

While some may view this as an instance of "mischief by a presiding officer", others may view it as an instance of an assembly accomplishing exactly what it wanted to accomplish in a rather efficient manner, but this kind of speculation is beside the point.

 

What we are interested in is a proper understanding and application of the rules as they now exist.

[DrEntropy]

 

What I dislike about this case is that if the bylaws of the organization had stopped short of allowing the requirement of a ballot vote to be suspended, then the actions taken would have constituted a breach of a continuing nature and the assembly would have had recourse no matter how much time had passed.

 

Actually I have the opposite opinion. I recommend to most groups to provide (in the bylaws) a way to suspend the ballot requirement, to AVOID the specter of a continuing breach in an otherwise completely uncontentious and uncontested election.  In most of the groups I deal with, if the bylaws didn't allow for suspension of the ballot vote, then they would certainly forget about that requirement at some point and unintentionally foul things up