illegal election?

[bluessoul82]

Our association had our election the recent saturday at the biennial conference.  There was few members that expressed concerns about the election process. Several flaws were cited- 

 

1)  Can the Nominating Chair be also the person who also counts the ballot?  

 

2)  The Nominating Chair also refused to share the voting result.  He just announced the name of winner even though several members raised Point of Order- requesting the numbers be shared.  The Chair denied the request. The President ignored follow up Point of Orders from members, hastily moving through the election process. Is this process legal?

 

3) The Nominating Chair also utilized Plurality vote rather than majority for the presidential election when there were only two candidate.  He also did not give the option of  write in vote.  Everyone was told to choose between two candidates. Is this even the proper procedure? I thought Roberts rule made it clear write in vote should be an option otherwise the election would be nulled?

 

4) The treasurer position only had one candidate, and the nominating chair asked the assembly for a motion to approve the candidate by acclimation.  One person moved to approve that candidate by acclimation which was passed by count hands raised rather than ballot which our by-law requires.   There was no motion suspending the by-laws prior to this action.  Does this void the election? 

 

Thanks 

 

 

 

[Josh Martin]

1)  Can the Nominating Chair be also the person who also counts the ballot?  

 

No rule in RONR prohibits the chair of the nominating committee from serving as a member of the tellers' committee. Generally speaking, the tellers' committee has more than one member, although this is not strictly required.

 

2)  The Nominating Chair also refused to share the voting result.  He just announced the name of winner even though several members raised Point of Order- requesting the numbers be shared.  The Chair denied the request. The President ignored follow up Point of Orders from members, hastily moving through the election process. Is this process legal?

 

It is not proper. RONR requires that the tellers' report be read and recorded in the minutes in its entirety.

 

3) The Nominating Chair also utilized Plurality vote rather than majority for the presidential election when there were only two candidate.  He also did not give the option of  write in vote.  Everyone was told to choose between two candidates. Is this even the proper procedure? I thought Roberts rule made it clear write in vote should be an option otherwise the election would be nulled?

 

None of this is proper. A majority vote is required unless the bylaws provide otherwise and write-in votes are permitted unless the bylaws provide otherwise, but this wouldn't necessarily invalidate the election. If members actually cast write-in votes and those write-in votes were thrown out, the election would be null and void if those votes could have affected the outcome.

 

4) The treasurer position only had one candidate, and the nominating chair asked the assembly for a motion to approve the candidate by acclimation.  One person moved to approve that candidate by acclimation which was passed by count hands raised rather than ballot which our by-law requires.   There was no motion suspending the by-laws prior to this action.  Does this void the election? 

 

If your bylaws require a ballot vote, that rule cannot be suspended unless your bylaws so provide. So unless there's something else in your bylaws on this subject, yes, that election is null and void.

[jstackpo]

And in conclusion, it may be time to find a new president.

[bluessoul82]

Thanks for answering the above questions...  Next question would be can the Board of Director call a special  meeting to discuss whether the  entire election is still valid or void/null.  Can the Board of Directors request a meeting and conduct a meeting without president present?  Most of the BOD felt the election process did not go smoothly but did not know what we could do to remedy this... any advice? 

[George Mervosh]

Thanks for answering the above questions...  Next question would be can the Board of Director call a special  meeting to discuss whether the  entire election is still valid or void/null.  Can the Board of Directors request a meeting and conduct a meeting without president present?  Most of the BOD felt the election process did not go smoothly but did not know what we could do to remedy this... any advice? 

 

Only the membership can raise a point of order regarding any breach of the rules that might be continuing in nature.  The Board has no authority to do anything in this regard.

 

"Because the voting body itself is the ultimate judge of election disputes, only that body has the authority to resolve them in the absence of a bylaw or special rule of order that specifically grants another body that authority. Thus, for example, when an election has been conducted at a membership meeting or in a convention of delegates, an executive board, even one that is given full power and authority over the society's affairs between meetings of the body that conducted the election, may not entertain a point of order challenging, or direct a recount concerning, the announced election result."  RONR (11th ed.), p. 446

[Chris Harrison]

Next question would be can the Board of Director call a special  meeting to discuss whether the  entire election is still valid or void/null.

 

Maybe.  Do the bylaws specifically provide for Special Meetings of the Board?  If they don't you can't call them.  Even if the bylaws do provide for Special Meetings the Board wouldn't have the power to invalidate the election unless it was the Board holding the elections (or the bylaws grant the Board exceptional powers which would permit this).  If the General Membership was the body which held the election it would be up to them to handle any challenges to it.

 

Can the Board of Directors request a meeting and conduct a meeting without president present?

 

The Board can't exclude or fail to provide notice to any Board members of an upcoming meeting and if they do that in of itself might be enough to invalidate anything the Board does at that meeting.  Now that being said, if a Board member has been properly noticed of the meeting and can't attend the meeting can still go on provided there is a quorum.  Unless the bylaws say otherwise no one is so important that their absence would be sufficient to put the brakes on the process.

 

While the President can't be excluded from the meeting there are measures that the members can take if the President stays too big for his britches:

 

1) If the President refuses to acknowledge a Point of Order, Appeal, or any other motion (without supplying a legitimate reason as to why it is out of order)  a member can temporarily take over the presiding.  See RONR pp. 650-651.

2) The members can Suspend the Rules and allow someone else to preside over part or the rest of the meeting even though the President is still in the room.  This takes a 2/3 vote.  See Official Interpretation 2006-2  and RONR pp. 651-653 for details.

3) The President can be removed from office.  See FAQ #20.

[Josh Martin]

Thanks for answering the above questions...  Next question would be can the Board of Director call a special  meeting to discuss whether the  entire election is still valid or void/null.  Can the Board of Directors request a meeting and conduct a meeting without president present?  Most of the BOD felt the election process did not go smoothly but did not know what we could do to remedy this... any advice? 

 

I concur with the previous responses, and I'd also note that no facts have been provided yet which would make the entire election null and void. It seems to me that the only elections in question are the election for Treasurer and maybe the election for President.

[bluessoul82]

So essentially speaking any member of assembly can challenge the election result? If a person indeed actually challenge (I've got plenty of people who would volunteer to challenge) the election result with the nominating chair and demand re-count.  The basis for the challenge would be the refusal of the nominating chair to reveal the tally of the results, which deprives the losing candidate the right to challenge the election right there if the election was too close to be called with a recount.  Nobody knows where the ballots are located, whether the nominating chair still has it although it is clear stated in the RONR that the ballots is to be secured and given to the association secretary (which would be me), which have never happened.  Because the ballots is now compromised, would it give the member of assembly justification to call for special meeting to re-do the election process? 

[Josh Martin]

So essentially speaking any member of assembly can challenge the election result?

 

Any member may raise a Point of Order at a meeting. The chair will rule on the point, and the chair's ruling is subject to appeal. A majority vote is required to overturn the chair's ruling.

 

If a person indeed actually challenge (I've got plenty of people who would volunteer to challenge) the election result with the nominating chair and demand re-count.  The basis for the challenge would be the refusal of the nominating chair to reveal the tally of the results, which deprives the losing candidate the right to challenge the election right there if the election was too close to be called with a recount.  Nobody knows where the ballots are located, whether the nominating chair still has it although it is clear stated in the RONR that the ballots is to be secured and given to the association secretary (which would be me), which have never happened.  Because the ballots is now compromised, would it give the member of assembly justification to call for special meeting to re-do the election process? 

 

You're conflating two different things. A recount can be ordered for any reason. Any member can make the motion at a meeting and it requires a majority vote. There's some strict time limits on the motion, however, and more importantly, it appears that the ballots have not been securely preserved. Therefore, a recount is not in order.

 

At this point, raising a Point of Order that the election is invalid requires not only that a violation occured, but that the violation is so egregious that it constitutes a continuing breach. Most violations must be challenged at the time. The fact that the tally was not revealed is highly improper, but it does not constitute a continuing breach. So as I said earlier, there do not appear to be grounds to invalidate the entire election. The fact that a ballot vote was not held as required by the bylaws for the Treasurer election does constitute a continuing breach. If members cast write-in votes in the President election and those votes were tossed out and the votes could have affected the result, that would also constitute a continuing breach.

[George Mervosh]

Our association had our election the recent saturday at the biennial conference. 

 

As a practical matter, is there even a way for the association to get together again since your biennial conference is over? 

 

(Josh gets the July 2FP perseverance award....he wins every month, but not usually on the first day   )

[bluessoul82]

Since our community is small, it is possible for our association to get together again-  We host Round Table Conference three times between conference which is similar to the biennial conference.   

 

I have filed the formal complaint with the nominating chair-  His response was as follow: According to Article XIV, Section 14.02 of the xxx's Bylaws, "A plurality vote of the members present at the Biennial Conference shall be required to elect an officer."  Because the elections were done during the general meeting with a plurality vote as described in the Association's Bylaws, a referral to Robert's Rules of Order is not needed.

 

I believe that the nominating chair is wrong-  in our bylaws, it does not define exactly what Plurality vote means- which means RONR's definition of Plurality vote stands which means if there is only two candidates, Majority needs to be attained. 

 

Second issue I had was with him not recognizing the PO, his response was: "It is my understanding that a member, not several members, inquired that the tally results should be announced for each office.  I stated that "Out of respect for each candidate that the tally results are not to be announced."  This member accepted my explanation and the members were given an opportunity to request that the tally results be recorded in the minutes."  

 

Few member has expressed disagreement to that statement-  as there were SEVERAL members who inquired and was not recognized therefore the members were not given an opportunity to oppose the explanation and request that it be recorded in the minutes. 

 

Lastly, I was the candidate that lost the presidential race-  the nominating chair was a close friend of the current president and the president elect.  SInce the by-laws says that the president appoints the nominating chair, the members cannot oppose the selection of the nominating chair when there is a clear conflict of interest.   

 

Immediately after the election, we took the oath of office (I had been elected secretary after losing the presidential race),  The nominating chair said because I took the oath of office for the secretary, I have officially conceded the presidential race which technically I have not. He thinks because I took the oath, I have waived my right to appeal.  The assembly members says that the oath of office is "ceremonial" in nature and is not binding, therefore I do have grounds to try appeal. 

 

Your thoughts? 

[DrEntropy]

 

I believe that the nominating chair is wrong-  in our bylaws, it does not define exactly what Plurality vote means- which means RONR's definition of Plurality vote stands which means if there is only two candidates, Majority needs to be attained. 

 

 

Well, a plurality vote is won by the candidate receiving the largest number of votes. There is no exception for just two candidates, however if there are only two candidates, and no write-ins, then the candidate receiving the plurality also has the majority. (RONR page 404-405). If this is what you mean, then fine, just wanted to clarify.

 

I would note that RONR doesn't recommend using this as the method of voting. It also doesn't recommend that the bylaws allow the president have anything at all to do with the nominating committee. 

 

Finally, i will let others try to help with the rest.

[bluessoul82]

Well, a plurality vote is won by the candidate receiving the largest number of votes. There is no exception for just two candidates, however if there are only two candidates, and no write-ins, then the candidate receiving the plurality also has the majority. (RONR page 404-405). If this is what you mean, then fine, just wanted to clarify.

 

I would note that RONR doesn't recommend using this as the method of voting. It also doesn't recommend that the bylaws allow the president have anything at all to do with the nominating committee. 

 

Finally, i will let others try to help with the rest.

The cruel irony is that the nominating chair was also the person who somehow fooled the members by having them agree to strike out majority and insert plurality vote in the by-laws which was adopted just before the election. Because once adopted, the new by-laws becomes effective immediately, which impacted the change in election counting process.  The whole thing seemed fishy not just to me but also to the members of assembly.   The nominating chair also had this authoritative approach which  includes tones  that is kinda scary which scares off the members from even thinking about challenging him which makes it an advantage for the other side. 

 

This whole experience is frustrating for me. Thanks to everyone for your inputs... 

[sMargaret]

Perhaps I'm slow this morning, but I'm not sure what the practical difference is between a plurality and majority vote in the case where only two people are running. 

 

A question - was the Nominating Chair the person who chaired the nominating committee, (and?)/or the person who chaired the election meeting?

[bluessoul82]

Perhaps I'm slow this morning, but I'm not sure what the practical difference is between a plurality and majority vote in the case where only two people are running. 

 

A question - was the Nominating Chair the person who chaired the nominating committee, (and?)/or the person who chaired the election meeting?

 

My concerns was about how the person conducted the election-  in the RRNO it clearly states the responsibility of the person who ran the election meeting is to explain to the assembly what their options were, and that includes stating that write in candidates  or abstaining are allowed, but rather that he told the assembly everyone has to pick one or other.  

 

 If the election was very close which I believe it was even without them announcing the tally result.. Simply because of the length of time it took them to count the votes as compared to the other officers position that were also up for election. If there was 76 people voting,  he could have received 39 votes and I received 37 votes which means he was the winner because he has attained both majority and plurality.    However, if the people were given an option to write in candidate or abstain from voting,  He could have received 37 votes,  and I received 36 votes,  with three blank ballot or write in candidates, which means he would have not met the majority needed.  If he didn't attain the majority needed, I would have been given an opportunity to vouch for myself (I have far much more experience than the other person)...

 

I hope i was clear with my arguments. 

[Dan Honemann]

My concerns was about how the person conducted the election-  in the RRNO it clearly states the responsibility of the person who ran the election meeting is to explain to the assembly what their options were, and that includes stating that write in candidates  or abstaining are allowed, but rather that he told the assembly everyone has to pick one or other.  

 

 If the election was very close which I believe it was even without them announcing the tally result.. Simply because of the length of time it took them to count the votes as compared to the other officers position that were also up for election. If there was 76 people voting,  he could have received 39 votes and I received 37 votes which means he was the winner because he has attained both majority and plurality.    However, if the people were given an option to write in candidate or abstain from voting,  He could have received 37 votes,  and I received 36 votes,  with three blank ballot or write in candidates, which means he would have not met the majority needed.  If he didn't attain the majority needed, I would have been given an opportunity to vouch for myself (I have far much more experience than the other person)...

 

I hope i was clear with my arguments. 

 

According to what you have stated, your bylaws provide that a plurality vote (not a majority) is all that that is required for election.

[Josh Martin]

I believe that the nominating chair is wrong-  in our bylaws, it does not define exactly what Plurality vote means- which means RONR's definition of Plurality vote stands which means if there is only two candidates, Majority needs to be attained. 

 

That's not what RONR says. What RONR says is that a plurality is only used when more than two candidates or choices are possible. In this case, they were, since members could have cast write-in votes (despite the chair's erroneous advice to the contrary). If only two choices are possible, then there is no meaningful distinction between a plurality and a majority. I'm afraid that the nominating committee chair seems to have it right on this one.

 

Why does the nominating committee chair have such a large role in this process anyway? The nominating committee's job is to make nominations, and since the nominating committee chair was apparently appointed as the entire tellers' committee, it's also his job to count the votes. But it's not his job to preside over the elections or to make rulings on points of order - that's the responsibility of the President.

 

Second issue I had was with him not recognizing the PO, his response was: "It is my understanding that a member, not several members, inquired that the tally results should be announced for each office.  I stated that "Out of respect for each candidate that the tally results are not to be announced."  This member accepted my explanation and the members were given an opportunity to request that the tally results be recorded in the minutes."  

 

Few member has expressed disagreement to that statement-  as there were SEVERAL members who inquired and was not recognized therefore the members were not given an opportunity to oppose the explanation and request that it be recorded in the minutes. 

 

The nominating chair is wrong on this one and it is irrelevant how many members requested the information. The results must be announced and included in the minutes, period. It's too late to complain about this now, though. Just get it right next time.

 

Lastly, I was the candidate that lost the presidential race-  the nominating chair was a close friend of the current president and the president elect.  SInce the by-laws says that the president appoints the nominating chair, the members cannot oppose the selection of the nominating chair when there is a clear conflict of interest.   

 

Yeah, you should probably amend your bylaws to fix that problem.

 

Immediately after the election, we took the oath of office (I had been elected secretary after losing the presidential race),  The nominating chair said because I took the oath of office for the secretary, I have officially conceded the presidential race which technically I have not. He thinks because I took the oath, I have waived my right to appeal.  The assembly members says that the oath of office is "ceremonial" in nature and is not binding, therefore I do have grounds to try appeal. 

 

Your thoughts? 

 

The oath of office is ceremonial and is not binding. I don't know whether it means you have "conceded" the race, but that's irrelevant. It has no impact on whether it is appropriate to raise a Point of Order regarding the election. As noted, however, it must be in the nature of a continuing breach in order to raise a Point of Order at this time. The only violations I see that meet that criteria are the fact that a ballot vote wasn't held for Treasurer and the write-in issue for President - if members actually cast write-in votes, if those write-in votes were excluded, and if those votes could have affected the result.

 

If your organization has its own rules regarding appealing the results of an election, which is a possibility you seem to be hinting at, you'll have to follow those rules.

 

My concerns was about how the person conducted the election-  in the RRNO it clearly states the responsibility of the person who ran the election meeting is to explain to the assembly what their options were, and that includes stating that write in candidates  or abstaining are allowed, but rather that he told the assembly everyone has to pick one or other.  

 

 If the election was very close which I believe it was even without them announcing the tally result.. Simply because of the length of time it took them to count the votes as compared to the other officers position that were also up for election. If there was 76 people voting,  he could have received 39 votes and I received 37 votes which means he was the winner because he has attained both majority and plurality.    However, if the people were given an option to write in candidate or abstain from voting,  He could have received 37 votes,  and I received 36 votes,  with three blank ballot or write in candidates, which means he would have not met the majority needed.  If he didn't attain the majority needed, I would have been given an opportunity to vouch for myself (I have far much more experience than the other person)...

 

First of all, you've already stated that your bylaws specify a plurality vote, so a majority isn't needed. Secondly, blank ballots don't make a difference even in the case of a majority vote under RONR. Lastly, I quite agree that they did a lot of things wrong with the election, but only a few of them potentially constitute a continuing breach.