Election question - ballots count?

[ecugss]

Our board fills vacancies that occur mid-term... need some help understanding how the election is determined regarding voting in this case. We have 2 candidates that have submitted their paperwork as required to be considered.  We did electronic voting in which the instructions we were given by our chair that we could write in the name of one of the two we wanted OR just not write in a name (essentially turning in a blank ballot) but still submit the form.  Our bylaws do not address write-in candidates.  We were told that because of that we could not just write in another person aside from those two.

 

The questions are:

1. Do a certain # of board members have to submit a ballot (whether with a name or blank) for the election to be valid (meaning something like do a majority of the 20 have to vote for it to be valid)?

2. If a ballot is submitted and the person writes "other, i am just not abstaining" - how does that count, if at all?

3. If only 6 people vote and 1 was the aforementioned "other" vote and one was "turned" in "blank", how do you determine the winner - or is there even enough to deteremine a winner?

 

Any specific sections that support the answers to the above would be helpful!

 

[jstackpo]

In the order you asked, plus a preliminary correction:

 

Prelim:  You wrote: "Our bylaws do not address write-in candidates.  We were told that because of that we could not just write in another person aside from those two."

 

You were told wrong.  Ask the "tellers" to show you such a rule  --  or show them RONR, p. 431, 442.

 

1). Apparently not, unless your rules require it.

 

2).  It's an abstention, just like a really "blank" ballot.

 

3)  Majority vote; i.e. more than half of the votes actually cast.

 

I trust that your bylaws authorize electronic (absentee) voting.  If not, you election is invalid.

[Josh Martin]

Our board fills vacancies that occur mid-term... need some help understanding how the election is determined regarding voting in this case. We have 2 candidates that have submitted their paperwork as required to be considered.  We did electronic voting in which the instructions we were given by our chair that we could write in the name of one of the two we wanted OR just not write in a name (essentially turning in a blank ballot) but still submit the form.  Our bylaws do not address write-in candidates.  We were told that because of that we could not just write in another person aside from those two.

 

To confirm, your bylaws have a rule which requires members to apply for the position 30 days in advance in order to be eligible, as discussed in this thread and hinted at here? If so, that is the reason I said write-in votes would not be in order.

 

Additionally, electronic voting is only permitted if authorized in your bylaws.

 

1. Do a certain # of board members have to submit a ballot (whether with a name or blank) for the election to be valid (meaning something like do a majority of the 20 have to vote for it to be valid)?

 

No, unless your rules so provide.

 

2. If a ballot is submitted and the person writes "other, i am just not abstaining" - how does that count, if at all?

 

If that is exactly what is written, it is an abstention. If they actually wrote a name, I'd treat it as an illegal vote. That is, it counts in the number of votes cast (and would therefore affect the number needed for a majority), but that person can't actually win. At most, it will delay the final outcome of the election.

 

3. If only 6 people vote and 1 was the aforementioned "other" vote and one was "turned" in "blank", how do you determine the winner - or is there even enough to deteremine a winner?

 

The blank vote isn't counted at all. The "other" vote, depending on the specific facts, might not be counted at all, or it might count toward the number of ballots cast but not be credited to a specific candidate. I'm not sure it matters, though, since a majority of six or seven is four. So whoever got four or more votes won. If neither candidate got four votes, you vote again.

 

As for page numbers, information on ballot voting starts on pg. 412, and information on elections starts on pg. 438.

 

Prelim:  You wrote: "Our bylaws do not address write-in candidates.  We were told that because of that we could not just write in another person aside from those two."

 

You were told wrong.  Ask the "tellers" to show you such a rule  --  or show them RONR, p. 431, 442.

 

I think the poster is referring to the discussion in this thread, starting from Post #5. The key is this statement: "Our bylaws/policies do not speak about how to handle write-in because to be eligible for election, the candidate has to turn an application and notify us of their intent to run 30 days before elections." If that is an accurate and complete statement of what the organization's bylaws say on this subject, then it would seem that write-in votes are not in order.

[ecugss]

I found this "members still have the right, on the ballot, to cast 'write-in votes" for other eligible persons." RONR § 46 (p. 442). Wouldn't that only apply if our rules didn't already address what potential candidates must do to be considered for an office thus what makes them "eligible"? In our case they had to submit an application intending their desire to run to our nominating committee chair. Our rules further state that the nominating chair submits the applications to the board members and they in turn submit their vote to the board's chair.

Our rules speak on establishing quorum and majority needed for elections at our bi annual conference but it is not addressed when talking about the boards filling vacant positions in between the conferences.

Our bylaws do not address absentee voting specifically, but do address that the board is allowed to conduct their business between conferences via electronic format. In the past, we have voted via email by telling the past chair yes or no on if only one person or the name of who we wanted if more than one person running or that we didn't want someone. Now, we are using online voting poll site and it had place for our name and a place to write in the name of the candidate from among the two eligible or to just submit our name, essentially a blank vote.

[Josh Martin]

I found this "members still have the right, on the ballot, to cast 'write-in votes" for other eligible persons." RONR § 46 (p. 442). Wouldn't that only apply if our rules didn't already address what potential candidates must do to be considered for an office thus what makes them "eligible"? In our case they had to submit an application intending their desire to run to our nominating committee chair. Our rules further state that the nominating chair submits the applications to the board members and they in turn submit their vote to the board's chair.

 

If your rules specifically state that this is required to be eligible, then write-in votes would not be in order, since the rule only permits members to cast write-in votes "for other eligible persons."

 

Our rules speak on establishing quorum and majority needed for elections at our bi annual conference but it is not addressed when talking about the boards filling vacant positions in between the conferences.

 

A quorum is required at all meetings, but since a quorum is the minimum number of members who must be present in order to conduct business, the term has no meaningful application in a vote by e-mail.

 

Our bylaws do not address absentee voting specifically, but do address that the board is allowed to conduct their business between conferences via electronic format.

 

If your bylaws are as vague on this subject as this summary suggests, then I haven't the slightest idea whether what was done was proper or not. It's up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation.

[ecugss]

@josh,

Th prior thread was regarding our elections at conferences, this thread is about our elections in between conventions, due to vacancies, when the board (and not the delegates) vote on the board of directors.

Yes, that is exactly what was written "other, I'm just not abstaining"

[Josh Martin]

Th prior thread was regarding our elections at conferences, this thread is about our elections in between conventions, due to vacancies, when the board (and not the delegates) vote on the board of directors.

 

Thanks. That clears up where the second candidate came from.

 

Do the rules in your bylaws about applying for positions in order to be eligible apply in all cases, or only to the elections at conferences? That may be something to look into.

 

Yes, that is exactly what was written "other, I'm just not abstaining"

 

Then despite what the member wrote, I'd treat it as an abstention (although it doesn't really make any difference, since the blank ballot is certainly an abstention, and the lowest majority of six or seven votes is four). See Official Interpretation 2006-5 for information regarding a similar situation.

 

So the only votes which need to be counted are the six for an actual person. Four or more votes will be sufficient to win. If neither candidate receives four or more votes, you'll need to vote again.

[Guest Edgar]

Yes, that is exactly what was written "other, I'm just not abstaining"

 

Then despite what the member wrote, I'd treat it as an abstention . . . 

 

And you can tell this member that, unless he votes for someone, he's not voting. And if he's not voting, he's abstaining.

 

(Which reminds me of the titles of two books by the marvelous Raymond Smullyan: "What Is The Name of This Book" and "This Book Needs No Title". I highly recommend both for aspiring, and practicing, parliamentarians.)

[Josh Martin]

And you can tell this member that, unless he votes for someone, he's not voting. And if he's not voting, he's abstaining.

 

(Which reminds me of the titles of two books by the marvelous Raymond Smullyan: "What Is The Name of This Book" and "This Book Needs No Title". I highly recommend both for aspiring, and practicing, parliamentarians.)

 

Although, in fairness, a member who supports neither candidate is painted into a corner due to the organization's rules. I don't really blame him for attempting to cast a meaningful vote, although he failed in doing so.

 

The organization should really consider whether its rules on this subject are advisable.

[ecugss]

Here is what the rules say about vacancies between conferences:

 

In the bylaws, A vacancy in all other offices (aside from President) shall be filled by majority vote of the Board of Directors. 

 

In our policies which are one level below our bylaws, The Nominating Committee Chair will solicit qualified applicants to fill the vacancy from applications and interest cards submitted within two years prior to the date of the vacancy.  Applicants having an application on file may submit, within ten days of the notification of the vacancy, a letter of intent to be included in the slate of candidates for the office. The candidates may update information on file and include goals and references for the office involved.  Applicants having no application on file may indicate interest in the office by: requesting an application from the Nominating Committee Chair and submitting the completed application and letter of intent to the by specified deadlines.

 

We have 2 applicants and 15 voting members.  We only had 6 votes cast and 2 we've determined are abstentions.  Can either candidate win this election based on the above?

[Guest Edgar]

We only had 6 votes cast and 2 we've determined are abstentions.  Can either candidate win this election based on the above?

 

The suspense is killing me!

 

What was the actual vote count?

 

In other words, how many voted for A and how many voted for B?

[jstackpo]

Can't say.  Your phrase "majority vote of the Board of Directors" is inherently ambiguous

 

Look at p. 403 for the clearly defined three variations in voting requirements.  Since your phrasing does not match any of these it will be up to your association to figure out what your phrase means.  See p. 588 for help in that regard.

[ecugss]

Edgar,

4 voted for A, 0 for B, 2 abstentions

The suspense is killing me!

 

What was the actual vote count?

 

In other words, how many voted for A and how many voted for B?

[Guest Bozo]

Edgar,

4 voted for A, 0 for B, 2 abstentions

Did the chair declare A elected?

[ecugss]

Did the chair declare A elected?

No, no announcements have been made as some board members believe that we need to first establish quorum and then to win, the person has to have a majority of the votes cast. That's how we vote on other matters. Others think that the person needs 8 votes to win since 8 is a majority of the board.

[Guest Edgar]

If there are 15 members on the board and if the quorum is 8 and if there were only 6 members present then the election doesn't count.

 

That issue is entirely separate from whether a vote of 4-0 is enough to elect someone. Which it usually is but might not be in this case. Fortunately it doesn't matter.

 

So first you establish the presence of a quorum. You've got one? You're good to go, No quorum? Go home. No need to worry about who won since you couldn't hold an election without a quorum.

[Guest Bozo]

No, no announcements have been made as some board members believe that we need to first establish quorum and then to win, the person has to have a majority of the votes cast. That's how we vote on other matters. Others think that the person needs 8 votes to win since 8 is a majority of the board.

IQ, how many living, breathing members of the board were present? (That is, when that '4-0-2' vote was tallied?)

[ecugss]

It was a vote taken electronic with an online poll where all 15 had access to the link and opportunity to vote.

[jstackpo]

Do your bylaws define what a "quorum" means for your electronic voting opportunities?  Because, after all, nobody is "present".

[Josh Martin]

In our policies which are one level below our bylaws, The Nominating Committee Chair will solicit qualified applicants to fill the vacancy from applications and interest cards submitted within two years prior to the date of the vacancy.  Applicants having an application on file may submit, within ten days of the notification of the vacancy, a letter of intent to be included in the slate of candidates for the office. The candidates may update information on file and include goals and references for the office involved.  Applicants having no application on file may indicate interest in the office by: requesting an application from the Nominating Committee Chair and submitting the completed application and letter of intent to the by specified deadlines.

 

We have 2 applicants and 15 voting members.  We only had 6 votes cast and 2 we've determined are abstentions.  Can either candidate win this election based on the above

 

Based on these facts, it doesn't seem to me that write-in votes are prohibited after all (although it doesn't really matter, since no one cast any write-in votes). It's not entirely clear to me that the policy you've stated prohibits write-in votes - it doesn't actually say that only applicants who complete an application and letter of intent are eligible. In any event, however, a policy is not sufficient to make a candidate ineligible for office or to strip the members of the right to cast write-in votes. Such rules would need to be in the bylaws.

 

4 voted for A, 0 for B, 2 abstentions

 

With these facts, I don't understand how there is any doubt that Candidate A won the election.

 

Do your bylaws define what a "quorum" means for your electronic voting opportunities?  Because, after all, nobody is "present".

 

I don't think there is a "quorum" for an electronic vote unless the bylaws so provide.

[ecugss]

But it does say that those that are interested have to specify by specified deadlines, leading me to believe that write-ins would not be eligible if those persons didn't indicate their interest by the deadline.  Am I missing something here?

 

Based on these facts, it doesn't seem to me that write-in votes are prohibited after all (although it doesn't really matter, since no one cast any write-in votes). It's not entirely clear to me that the policy you've stated prohibits write-in votes - it doesn't actually say that only applicants who complete an application and letter of intent are eligible. In any event, however, a policy is not sufficient to make a candidate ineligible for office or to strip the members of the right to cast write-in votes. Such rules would need to be in the bylaws.

 

 

With these facts, I don't understand how there is any doubt that Candidate A won the election.

 

 

I don't think there is a "quorum" for an electronic vote unless the bylaws so provide.

[Josh Martin]

But it does say that those that are interested have to specify by specified deadlines, leading me to believe that write-ins would not be eligible if those persons didn't indicate their interest by the deadline.  Am I missing something here?

 

A rule pertaining to applicants seems similar to my mind to a rule pertaining to nominees, and as noted, members may cast votes for any eligible candidate, even one who has not been nominated. The rule does not clearly state that a member must have applied by the deadline in order to be eligible for the office.

 

But it doesn't really matter, because you say these rules are in "our policies which are one level below our bylaws," and only a rule in the bylaws would be sufficient in this instance.

[ecugss]

The bylaws say "A vacancy in all other offices (aside from President) shall be filled by majority vote of the Board of Directors."

So are you saying that even though we have this section in our policies, not in the bylaws, other than that the section above, the policy doesn't matter? We've always operated as that our bylaws tell us what and our policies tell how to do it.

[Josh Martin]

So are you saying that even though we have this section in our policies, not in the bylaws, other than that the section above, the policy doesn't matter?

 

Oh, I don't know that I would go that far. A policy cannot, however, prevent a member from being eligible for office or prevent a member from casting write-in votes.

 

We've always operated as that our bylaws tell us what and our policies tell how to do it.

 

Yes, and that will generally be perfectly fine, but some rules are so important that they must be placed in the bylaws in order to be valid, such as rules pertaining to members' eligibility for office.

[ecugss]

I think this is the final question... so if we started to vote with the thought that write-in were not allowed and the results have not been announced, can we re-vote again?  We are already in the 2nd round of voting because the 1st round was a ballot with both names, without an option to submit a blank vote, and the 2nd ballot included was just a space for us to type in the name.