Discovery of Overlooked Ballots

[Guest Julie Hellman]

Our neighborhood election allowed advanced voting by sealed ballot (delivered to the  2 election coordinators' mailboxes), as well as in-person voting by secret ballot at the meeting today.  After the results had been tabulated and published to the neighborhood (an hour after the election meeting), one of the election coordinators found nine ballots that had been delivered to his mailbox on time, but had been brought in to the house by one of his kids, and buried under some magazines on his kitchen counter.  These were obviously valid ballots, which had been mistakenly overlooked.  So, they were added to the election totals, and it changed the outcome of the election.  Now some of the people who were negatively impacted by the new votes are stating that Robert's Rules say that the overlooked ballots were invalid and should not have been counted.  I have tried to find an answer in my copy of Robert's Rules, but have not had any success.  Please help!  Our neighbors are all angry with each other over this and we just want to have a peaceful and fair solution.  Thank you!

[Josh Martin]

Our neighborhood election allowed advanced voting by sealed ballot (delivered to the  2 election coordinators' mailboxes), as well as in-person voting by secret ballot at the meeting today.

 

Do your bylaws support this method of voting? Voting by mail is not permitted unless authorized by your bylaws. Neither is combining votes by mail with votes at a meeting (which RONR strongly advises against).

 

Now some of the people who were negatively impacted by the new votes are stating that Robert's Rules say that the overlooked ballots were invalid and should not have been counted.  I have tried to find an answer in my copy of Robert's Rules, but have not had any success.

 

Well, your "election coordinators" really messed this up. After the results had been announced, it was highly inappropriate for them to take matters into their own hands and add new ballots in, regardless of the circumstances. The assembly would need to order something like that. They should have reported this to the assembly at the next meeting, preferably without opening the new ballots so no one would know how they would impact the election.

 

On the other hand, I don't know where people are getting the idea that RONR says that the ballots were invalid and shouldn't have been counted. If the assembly had ordered a recount, those ballots appear to be valid and should have been counted.

 

At this point, I suppose the assembly will need to determine whether to accept whether the unauthorized recount should be accepted as valid and, if not, whether to order a new recount. While I'm sure the election coordinators had the best of intentions, that discussion will be a lot more complicated now that people already know how the recount will affect them. This all assumes that the next meeting is within a quarterly interval - otherwise, it's too late for a recount. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 444-446 for more information.

[J. J.]

Was the election of any candidate decided by 9 votes or less?

[Guest Guest]

Was the election of any candidate decided by 9 votes or less?

The bylaws state that we can have between 3 and 11 people on our board.  A majority of the votes cast elects each person.  Originally there were 73 votes cast, and a majority was 37.  Of the 10 candidates running, 8 received 37 or more votes, so were on the board.  When the 9 additional votes were discovered that meant 82 votes were cast, so majority was 42, and at the recount only 5 people received 42 or more votes.  So 3 of the originally elected board members lost their positions as a result of the 9 original ballots.

[Guest Julie Hellman]

Do your bylaws support this method of voting? Voting by mail is not permitted unless authorized by your bylaws. Neither is combining votes by mail with votes at a meeting (which RONR strongly advises against).

 

Yes, advance voting by mail is permitted in the bylaws.

 

 

Well, your "election coordinators" really messed this up. After the results had been announced, it was highly inappropriate for them to take matters into their own hands and add new ballots in, regardless of the circumstances. The assembly would need to order something like that. They should have reported this to the assembly at the next meeting, preferably without opening the new ballots so no one would know how they would impact the election.

 

On the other hand, I don't know where people are getting the idea that RONR says that the ballots were invalid and shouldn't have been counted. If the assembly had ordered a recount, those ballots appear to be valid and should have been counted.

 

At this point, I suppose the assembly will need to determine whether to accept whether the unauthorized recount should be accepted as valid and, if not, whether to order a new recount. While I'm sure the election coordinators had the best of intentions, that discussion will be a lot more complicated now that people already know how the recount will affect them. This all assumes that the next meeting is within a quarterly interval - otherwise, it's too late for a recount. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 444-446 for more information.

 

Our homeowner's association does not have regular meetings.  We are supposed to have an election meeting once per year, according to the bylaws, but it has been about 4 years or so since even that was done.  This election was the neighborhood's attempt to get back on track with a duly elected board.  It has been an exceedingly contentious election.  

[J. J.]

The bylaws state that we can have between 3 and 11 people on our board.  A majority of the votes cast elects each person.  Originally there were 73 votes cast, and a majority was 37.  Of the 10 candidates running, 8 received 37 or more votes, so were on the board.  When the 9 additional votes were discovered that meant 82 votes were cast, so majority was 42, and at the recount only 5 people received 42 or more votes.  So 3 of the originally elected board members lost their positions as a result of the 9 original ballots.

 

 

Presuming that your bylaws indicate that you must have at least three and no more than eleven, it would be necessary to take this to a meeting for a recount. 

[Dan Honemann]

If the results of this election were not announced at the election meeting prior to its adjournment, and if the bylaws do not specifically provide for this announcement to be made in some fashion following adjournment (such as being published to the neighborhood an hour after the election meeting, as we are told was done), I'm not sure that this election has been completed.

[Guest Julie Hellman]

If the results of this election were not announced at the election meeting prior to its adjournment, and if the bylaws do not specifically provide for this announcement to be made in some fashion following adjournment (such as being published to the neighborhood an hour after the election meeting, as we are told was done), I'm not sure that this election has been completed.

The election results were announced at the meeting prior to adjournment.  The bylaws do not provide for the announcement to be published to the neighborhood.  That was done because many neighbors were out of town (that's why the Advance Voting was done) and were eager to hear the results.

 

At this point, they are considering just invalidating the election and conducting a new one.  Would that be a "legal" way to proceed?  And if so, who would get to vote in that election?  Would it have to be the same 82 who voted the first time, or would it be a completely new election, and anyone/everyone could vote?

 

Lawsuits have been threatened, so reputable parliamentary advice is sorely needed!  Thank you!!

[Dan Honemann]

Based solely upon what has been posted, it would appear that the election results announced at the meeting stand, and will continue to stand unless the membership decides otherwise. As suggested in post #2, take a careful look at  RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 444-446 for more information.

[Josh Martin]

At this point, they are considering just invalidating the election and conducting a new one. 

 

Who is "they?" Since this election was conducted by the membership, only the membership has the authority to do anything about it.

[Guest Julie Hellman]

Based solely upon what has been posted, it would appear that the election results announced at the meeting stand, and will continue to stand unless the membership decides otherwise. As suggested in post #2, take a careful look at  RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 444-446 for more information.

Thank you.  This is helpful.  My edition of RONR is the 10th edition, and pages 444-446 don't relate to this issue.  Might you be able to tell me the chapter and section numbers I should look at?  Or what pages I should look at in the 10th edition?  Thanks so much for your help!

[Guest Julie H]

Who is "they?" Since this election was conducted by the membership, only the membership has the authority to do anything about it.

"They" is the Election Administrators.  Since our homeowners association does not have regular meetings, and currently has no duly elected board, how would we go about getting the membership to do something about it?  It seems like a reasonable idea, but am not sure how it would be carried out.  Since we do not have a meeting scheduled within a quarterly interval (or any future meetings scheduled at all, at this point), as mentioned in post #2 above, does that mean we just need to go with the results as announced before the election meeting was adjourned?

[Dan Honemann]

Thank you.  This is helpful.  My edition of RONR is the 10th edition, and pages 444-446 don't relate to this issue.  Might you be able to tell me the chapter and section numbers I should look at?  Or what pages I should look at in the 10th edition?  Thanks so much for your help!

 

The material on pages 444-46 of RONR, 11th ed., is new to that edition, so I strongly recommend that you get yourself a copy.

[Dan Honemann]

"They" is the Election Administrators.  Since our homeowners association does not have regular meetings, and currently has no duly elected board, how would we go about getting the membership to do something about it?  It seems like a reasonable idea, but am not sure how it would be carried out.  Since we do not have a meeting scheduled within a quarterly interval (or any future meetings scheduled at all, at this point), as mentioned in post #2 above, does that mean we just need to go with the results as announced before the election meeting was adjourned?

 

As noted, your Election Administrators do not have the authority to invalidate the election and conduct a new one unless your bylaws grant them this power (which I'm inclined to doubt); and as previously stated, the election results announced at the meeting stand, and will continue to stand, unless and until the membership decides otherwise.

[Josh Martin]

 

"They" is the Election Administrators.

 

The election administrators do not have the authority to invalidate the election.

 

Since our homeowners association does not have regular meetings, and currently has no duly elected board, how would we go about getting the membership to do something about it? 

 

Actually, the association does have a duly elected board. The results announced at the meeting stand unless and until the membership does something about it.

 

If it's possible to call a special meeting and practical to get a quorum for that meeting, you might have some options. Otherwise, it's over.

 

Since we do not have a meeting scheduled within a quarterly interval (or any future meetings scheduled at all, at this point), as mentioned in post #2 above, does that mean we just need to go with the results as announced before the election meeting was adjourned?

 

Well, the recount that the election administrators conducted was not valid. At a special meeting (if held within a quarterly interval), the membership could ratify that recount or order a separate recount.

[Guest Julie H]

Thank you all for your help and advice!

[Guest Julie H]

Although it has been determined that the overlooked ballots cannot be counted and the election stands as announced at the meeting, the possibility remains that some neighbors might call a special meeting for the purpose of considering whether to conduct a recount to include the overlooked ballots.  The question now is, what should be done with the ballots themselves?  Voting was done by secret ballot, but each homeowner signed their ballot for verification purposes, so by looking at the ballots, one can see how each person voted.  Neighbors were promised that only the two Election Administrators would see the ballots, and know how an individual voted.  Now, many neighbors are demanding to see the ballots.  

 

Should the ballots be shredded?  Should they be retained, but have the identifying information removed?  Should they be retained intact?  And if so, who would have the authority to see them in the event of a recount, as the Election Administrators are now no longer authorized to do anything? 

[Josh Martin]

Now, many neighbors are demanding to see the ballots.  

 

Members who want to see the ballots should be informed that only the assembly can grant such a request.

 

Voting was done by secret ballot, but each homeowner signed their ballot for verification purposes, so by looking at the ballots, one can see how each person voted.

 

Well... that's not really a secret ballot. In a true secret ballot, no one should know how an individual member voted. There are other methods for verification than signing the ballots. Unless the bylaws call for the ballots to be signed, this might call the validity of the election into question (although it seems questionable whether the body with the authority to do something about this will meet before the point becomes moot).

 

Should the ballots be shredded?  Should they be retained, but have the identifying information removed?  Should they be retained intact?  And if so, who would have the authority to see them in the event of a recount, as the Election Administrators are now no longer authorized to do anything? 

 

The ballots should be kept intact, sealed and given to the Secretary, who should keep them until the time for ordering a recount expires. At that time, the ballots should be destroyed. Since the meeting was held this month, the latest a special meeting could be held and still be within a quarterly interval would be December 31. So the ballots should be destroyed on January 1st. It would probably be wise to make sure the "extra" ballots are kept separate from the others.

 

In the event of a recount, the chair would appoint tellers to count the ballots. These could be the same people who served as Election Administrators or new tellers chosen specifically for the recount.

[Guest Julie]

Members who want to see the ballots should be informed that only the assembly can grant such a request.

 

 

Well... that's not really a secret ballot. In a true secret ballot, no one should know how an individual member voted. There are other methods for verification than signing the ballots. Unless the bylaws call for the ballots to be signed, this might call the validity of the election into question (although it seems questionable whether the body with the authority to do something about this will meet before the point becomes moot).

 

 

Although a signed ballot, as it turns out, is not really a secret ballot, when they voted,the members all believed this would be a true secret ballot.  Because this was a contentious election, the secrecy of the ballots was very important to many members.  

 

At this point, it seems probable that there will be a special meeting called within the next week or two, to address whether to allow the overlooked ballots to be counted.  If there is, could a motion to allow viewing of the ballots be entertained, or would the only business permitted be that which is stated in the notice of the special called meeting?

 

I suppose my basic question is, is there any way to insure that the ballots remain secret?  Or, if the membership votes to allow the ballots to be viewed, must the viewing be done with the identifying information still attached?

[Josh Martin]

Although a signed ballot, as it turns out, is not really a secret ballot, when they voted,the members all believed this would be a true secret ballot.  Because this was a contentious election, the secrecy of the ballots was very important to many members.  

 

That might have been a good thing to think of before having the members sign their names.

 

Regardless of whether they believed it was a secret ballot, it wasn't. So if your bylaws require a ballot vote and do not require members to sign their names, you've already violated their secrecy, and that could be a reason to invalidate the election.

 

At this point, it seems probable that there will be a special meeting called within the next week or two, to address whether to allow the overlooked ballots to be counted.  If there is, could a motion to allow viewing of the ballots be entertained, or would the only business permitted be that which is stated in the notice of the special called meeting?

 

The only business permitted is that stated in the call of the meeting. Perhaps someone should request to include the question of whether members should be permitted to view the ballots (or whether the election is valid).

 

I suppose my basic question is, is there any way to insure that the ballots remain secret?

 

You can't ensure that something remains secret if it wasn't secret to begin with. You can try to ensure that the names don't become more public.

 

Or, if the membership votes to allow the ballots to be viewed, must the viewing be done with the identifying information still attached?

 

No. The membership is free to order that the identifying information be removed (and I think that would be a very good idea).

 

Of course, as noted previously, since you've already violated the members' secrecy, the election might be invalid anyway.

[sMargaret]

The bylaws state that we can have between 3 and 11 people on our board.  A majority of the votes cast elects each person.  Originally there were 73 votes cast, and a majority was 37.  Of the 10 candidates running, 8 received 37 or more votes, so were on the board.  When the 9 additional votes were discovered that meant 82 votes were cast, so majority was 42, and at the recount only 5 people received 42 or more votes.  So 3 of the originally elected board members lost their positions as a result of the 9 original ballots.

Something that I'm curious about is the actual mechanics of your ballots.

 

You were electing for multiple positions, correct? From three to eleven people on the board? How many times did each member get to vote? 

[Guest Julie H]

Something that I'm curious about is the actual mechanics of your ballots.

 

You were electing for multiple positions, correct? From three to eleven people on the board? How many times did each member get to vote? 

There were 10 candidates on the ballot.  Each member could vote for as many (or as few) of the candidates as they wished.  Each candidate who received a majority of the votes cast were elected.  Our bylaws are pretty sketchy, and definitely need some revision, but this was one area where they did seem to offer at least some guidance.

[Guest Julie]

No. The membership is free to order that the identifying information be removed (and I think that would be a very good idea).

 

Of course, as noted previously, since you've already violated the members' secrecy, the election might be invalid anyway.

It's good to learn that a motion could be made to remove identifying information from the ballots, in the event of a recount.

 

It seems pretty likely that there will be a special meeting called, either to vote on ordering a recount, or to vote to invalidate the election.

 

Our bylaws do allow (but not require) a ballot vote, and do not address whether or not the ballot should be signed.  They also allow voting by mail.  The signature was added to the ballot in order to ensure that the Advance Voting ballots were valid.  However, there must be another way to do that.  It seems pretty obvious that the association should never again require signatures on a ballot!

[Josh Martin]

Our bylaws do allow (but not require) a ballot vote, and do not address whether or not the ballot should be signed.  They also allow voting by mail.  The signature was added to the ballot in order to ensure that the Advance Voting ballots were valid.  However, there must be another way to do that.  It seems pretty obvious that the association should never again require signatures on a ballot!

 

Okay. If the bylaws don't require a ballot vote, I think you can breathe now.

 

For conducting a secret ballot via mail, RONR suggests the "double envelope" method for verification, in which the inner envelope (rather than the ballot itself) is signed. This enables verification without sacrificing the secrecy of the member's vote. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 424-425 for more information.

 

It is correct that the assembly should never require that a member sign the ballot itself in a secret ballot, since the ballot is then no longer secret, as the tellers will know how the member voted.

[Guest Julie]

Okay. If the bylaws don't require a ballot vote, I think you can breathe now.

 

For conducting a secret ballot via mail, RONR suggests the "double envelope" method for verification, in which the inner envelope (rather than the ballot itself) is signed. This enables verification without sacrificing the secrecy of the member's vote. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 424-425 for more information.

 

It is correct that the assembly should never require that a member sign the ballot itself in a secret ballot, since the ballot is then no longer secret, as the tellers will know how the member voted.

LOL!   Breathing is such a relief!  

 

I love the double envelope idea.  Typical RONR... so sensible.    

 

Thank you, Josh, for all your help.  I fear we are far from finished with this ordeal, but I feel confident that at least now we know the correct way to proceed, thanks to you and all the others who have provided advice.