Ballots with YES, NO, ABSTAIN and WRITE IN line

[Guest Annabell]

We are having an election soon and the person the nomination committee has placed for the president seat is not liked by many of the members.  It was questionable how he was the only person for this position as well.  The BOD decided that a ballot would be necessary, rather than show of hands, and also have a box for yes, no, abstain & provide a write in line.

 

If someone votes NO and writes a name in, is this a valid ballot, or is it a yes, no, abstain or write in on?

 

Also, in the rules and operating procedures, there was a qualifier that stated "any member wishing to run for a board position must notify a board member prior to the election month's meeting.  There is only 1 candidate that actually qualifies, the rest were added within the 2 weeks prior to the election.  At the same BOD meeting, one of the board members told the committee chair that he wanted to run for president, as well and the current president cited the rule above, to which it was countered, then none of the other 'nominations' were valid, either.  

 

As I understand, when the committee gives it's report at the meeting, prior to the election, unless otherwise stated in the rules and operating procedures, the president must then ask if there are nominations from the floor?  If this does not happen, will the proceeding election be compromised?

[Guest Nancy N.]

Ah, where to start.

[Guest Nancy N.]

....  It was questionable how he was the only person for this position as well. ...

 

1.  Unless you somehow launch an investigation, probably we'll have to let this one go.  And remember, the nominating committee selects whoever it wants to recommend as its proposed candidates.  It has no obligation to mention more than one person per office, unless your rules say otherwise.

 

 The BOD decided that a ballot would be necessary, rather than show of hands, and also have a box for yes, no, abstain & provide a write in line.

 

2.  It's not up to the board, at all (unless your rules say otherwise.)

 

Generally, of course, election by ballot is  the best way.  But the assembly at the meeting decides.  An organization's board is its servant, not its ruling Supreme Soviet.

 

3 (a).  No no.  Please, no:  there is no box for "no."  The only way to vote against a candidate is to  vote for someone else.  Do not let them print up these wrong ballots, it will be a mess.  Especially since it's not up to the board how the election is run.

 

Similarly, make sure that the voters know that to vote for a candidate is to vote for the candidate.  So, best no "yes" box, either:  just a box by the name of each candidate.  And, of course, yes, a line for a write-in.

 

3 ( b ).  And leave off "abstain," it's just silly.  To abstain is not to vote.

 

Okay, this is a start.

 

Nancy N.

[Guest Nancy N.]

... If someone votes NO and writes a name in, is this a valid ballot, or is it a yes, no, abstain or write in on?

 

4.  Please, Annabell, please don't let anyone do this.  To write (or check-off) "no" and write in a name just muddies things up.  Leave off the "no" box, I beg you; but if it's there, tell everybody not to do this.  It's just as confusing, ambiguous, and meaningless as checking off, or writing in, any other two things:  yes and no.  Yes and abstain.  No and abstain.

 

If someone actually goes and does this, then please write back about it.  I'm not going to go into it.  It's just too ridiculous.

 

(... Okay, to reply directly to the question:  I can't tell you.  Nobody can.  Who in sam hill knows if it's a yes, no, abstain or write-in?  It's gibberish!) 

 

... Also, in the rules and operating procedures, there was a qualifier that stated "any member wishing to run for a board position must notify a board member prior to the election month's meeting.  There is only 1 candidate that actually qualifies, the rest were added within the 2 weeks prior to the election.  At the same BOD meeting, one of the board members told the committee chair that he wanted to run for president, as well and the current president cited the rule above, to which it was countered, then none of the other 'nominations' were valid, either.  ...

 

5.  I'm not sure how binding this qualifier can be, in the first place, if it's not in the bylaws.  It may restrict a fundamental right of membership.

 

Either way, it looks to me as if that board member has a very telling point.

 

  ... As I understand, when the committee gives its report at the meeting, prior to the election, unless otherwise stated in the rules and operating procedures, the president must then ask if there are nominations from the floor?  If this does not happen, will the proceeding election be compromised?

 

6.  Yes, indeed, and RONR specifically uses the word "must" about immediately asking for nominations.  (Annabell, have you read the book?  This is maybe an obscure point.)  But if the presiding officer does not, and if the election then proceeds okay, then the failure to ask for more nominations will not compromise the election (citations available on request.  Maybe 25 cents each, I haven't decided).  So don't let it happen!  Make sure he knows in advance that he has to allow further nominations -- perhaps by hinting with a Parliamentary Inquiry; and if he neglects it, you and your allies be ready with your Points Of Order  (with Appeals ready if necessary).

 

Okay, that's more of a start.

 

Annabell, you with me?

[Guest annabell]

The majority of the current board did not and does not agree with the committee's choice of presidential candidate.  there was another Candidate, however, the one that is on the committee's list bullies and harangues others, so that person withdrew from the nomination.  The board knew all about it, the committee knew about it.  The committee chair completely disagreed with putting this person in the president spot, however, with the withdrawal of the other person, had no choice.

 

I cannot stress enough how much the current board - save for 1 member - cannot stand this person.  They stand for everything the chapter is not and doesn't even agree with the head agency we are a chapter of.  we have a certain mission statement that he would see butchered down to cut out most of what we are and just have it say we are x not x, y and z (I cannot go into details in the even this person lurks here, as I have been to get answers).

 

The only way the rest of the board could give the membership a chance to express support or lack of support was motioning the paper ballot and adding the yes, no, abstain and write in.  If there are a higher percentage of no's, the board will not accept him as president.  There is so much mud slinging and politics, but the current board is making a statement to this person they have no confidence in him running the chapter.  they think more harm will come than good.  Members are threatening to quit if this person 'wins' the election.  

 

This person was at the BOD mtg when all this was proposed and threw a fit any 5 year old would be envious of and then at recess, started to confront the individual members of the board demanding they rescind because "they" knew it may cost him the election.  They he verbally accosted the committee chair for allowing the "travesty" to happen, but he cited RR and the operating procedures, if there was nothing in the operating rules, the RR prevails.

 

Yes it is ugly and childish.  We've had members recently start adding family members to the rolls (legally and paid in full) just to ensure there are more votes that can be cast towards a big fat NO and thwart the victory.

 

There is nothing in the current operating procedures to remove an officer, so if he gets in, he is in for the duration, till the next election.  A lot of memberships are on the line, we could loss half and then may have to close the chapter - just because of this one person.

[Weldon Merritt]

None of what you have said changes the fact that a "no" vote on an election is not a proiper option. The only way to vote against a candidate os to vote for someone else (nominated or not). And to put it bluntly, who the Nominating Committee nominates (or why) is none of the board's business.  And it is not up to the board whethert to "accept him as president." That is up to the assembly, as determined by the election. If you think the candidate is a poor chioce, nominate someone else from the floor. If enough members agree with you, the "bad" candidate will not be elected. But if he is, that is the electorate's choice, and the had better get used to it.

[Guest Nancy N.]

All of course accurate, Mr. Merritt, but don't you think perhaps a tad harsh?  Looks to me as if Annabell's group is largely people who want to get something worthwhile done, and are unaccustomed to, and uncomfortable with, bare-knuckles brawling with a bully.

 

If it helps any, Annabell, you're far from alone.  All too often, bullies get their way because normal sane people are peaceable.  That's where Stalins come from.  (Also by having their opponents assassinated, when someone does stand up to them.)

 

(That's gonna help??!?  I think I'll find some fellow lemmings and jump off a cliff.)

[Weldon Merritt]

All of course accurate, Mr. Merritt, but don't you think perhaps a tad harsh?  Looks to me as if Annabell's group is largely people who want to get something worthwhile done, and are unaccustomed to, and uncomfortable with, bare-knuckles brawling with a bully.

Keep in mind that we have only seen one side of the issue. It may well be that other members have a totally different perpective (with the truth actually lying somewhere between). But even if everything is exactly as Annabell says, the proper course of action for her and others who share her views is to work within the rules to accomplish their purpose. Trying to use a clearly improper voting procedure is not the way to do it, especially when there are perfectly legitimate ways to proceed.

[Josh Martin]

The BOD decided that a ballot would be necessary, rather than show of hands, and also have a box for yes, no, abstain & provide a write in line.

 

This is improper. There should be a box with the President's name and a write-in line. "Yes" or "no" votes in an election are not proper, and a member can abstain by leaving the ballot blank (or not turning a ballot in). Also, this is not the board's decision.

 

If someone votes NO and writes a name in, is this a valid ballot, or is it a yes, no, abstain or write in on?

 

Also, in the rules and operating procedures, there was a qualifier that stated "any member wishing to run for a board position must notify a board member prior to the election month's meeting. There is only 1 candidate that actually qualifies, the rest were added within the 2 weeks prior to the election.  At the same BOD meeting, one of the board members told the committee chair that he wanted to run for president, as well and the current president cited the rule above, to which it was countered, then none of the other 'nominations' were valid, either. 

 

I'd count it as a vote for the name written in.

 

Based upon your rules, however, it seems possible that this might be an illegal vote. It's ultimately up to your organization to interpret its own rules. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation. An illegal vote still counts for purposes of determining whether any candidate achieves a majority, but an ineligible candidate can't actually win, of course. As noted, it seems that quite a few other candidates may also be ineligible if the rule is interpreted to mean that only candidates who "notify a board member prior to the election month's meeting" are eligible for office. (Of course, it may be that this rule is null and void anyway.)

 

 As I understand, when the committee gives it's report at the meeting, prior to the election, unless otherwise stated in the rules and operating procedures, the president must then ask if there are nominations from the floor?

 

Yes, this is correct, but it seems that your rules may state otherwise.

 

If this does not happen, will the proceeding election be compromised?

 

A member would need to raise a Point of Order immediately, followed by an Appeal if necessary. After the election is over, it's too late to complain about it.

 

4.  Please, Annabell, please don't let anyone do this.  To write (or check-off) "no" and write in a name just muddies things up.  Leave off the "no" box, I beg you; but if it's there, tell everybody not to do this.  It's just as confusing, ambiguous, and meaningless as checking off, or writing in, any other two things:  yes and no.  Yes and abstain.  No and abstain.

 

If someone actually goes and does this, then please write back about it.  I'm not going to go into it.  It's just too ridiculous.

 

(... Okay, to reply directly to the question:  I can't tell you.  Nobody can.  Who in sam hill knows if it's a yes, no, abstain or write-in?  It's gibberish!) 

 

I disagree. While the ballot design is indeed terrible, if a member votes "No" for the sole candidate on the ballot and then writes in another name, it seems obvious that the member intends to vote for the name written in on the ballot.

 

Yes it is ugly and childish.  We've had members recently start adding family members to the rolls (legally and paid in full) just to ensure there are more votes that can be cast towards a big fat NO and thwart the victory.

 

And then what? Even assuming that votes for "no" are proper (they are not), if no candidate is elected, the assembly proceeds to another round of voting, and so on and so forth until a candidate is elected. So voting "no" doesn't accomplish your goal. If your rules permit it (which seems unclear), the proper course of action is to vote for and elect someone else. If your rules do not permit it, I suppose the best course of action in the circumstances is to postpone the election so the society can amend its rules, and then elect someone else.

 

The society cannot simply decide not to elect a President.

 

There is nothing in the current operating procedures to remove an officer, so if he gets in, he is in for the duration, till the next election.

 

This is not correct. See FAQ #20.

[Guest Annabell]

Regarding positions:

 

A. The officers of the Chapter shall be: President, Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer, all of whom shall be elected for a term of one year. Each position may be shared by two (2) people. As stated, there was another candidate, and for whatever reason the 'sharing' was not opted for and the other candidate simply stepped out of the race after bullying and intimidation.

B. Should an officer be unable to complete the term, the Board of Directors shall elect a replacement to complete the term.

C. No officer shall hold more than one office at a time and no officer shall serve in the same office more than two (2) consecutive terms. An exception to this rule will be made if no member will come forward to fill the position, or if they are included on the nominating committee’s slate.

 

ELECTIONS: 

 

SECTION 1. The Vice-Chairperson, prior to the February general meeting, shall appoint a Chair for the nominating Committee committee. The nominating committee shall consist of three (3) or more non-Board members. The Committee committee shall present a slate of candidates for offices of the Chapter at the April general meeting.  

 

SECTION 2. Prior to the March general meeting, any member may declare themselves a candidate by notifying any Board member. A Board member notified of a member’s stated interest to be a candidate for an office must notify the person the President designates to print the ballot.  The first person to speak up for a position is the candidate that dropped out.  The person "slated" to be President did not announce his candidacy until 1 April, in an email to the non committee.  All other candidates were actively recruited between mid March trough last weeks BOD meeting.

 

SECTION 3. Members present and voting at the April general meeting shall elect the new officers. A majority of all votes cast shall constitute election. There is one (1) vote per member, two (2) votes per household membership. Election results will be announced at the May general meeting and will be published in the next newsletter.  Since there was no mention of show of hands v ballot, this is where the motion was to make this election by ballot.

 

SECTION 4. Officers shall assume their duties at the conclusion of the meeting at which they are elected. By the May general meeting, the retiring Secretary shall complete the meeting minutes, and the retiring Treasurer shall complete the financial transactions to close the books. By the May general meeting, all retiring officers shall complete their duties and return all chapter materials.

 

SECTION 5. The Officers and Directors of the Chapter are not personally liable for any debts or obligations of the

Chapter.

 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

SECTION 1. The property, business affairs and concerns of the Chapter shall be vested in the Board of Directors

composed of the elected Officers (President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer), the Immediate Past President, and two Members at Large. All Board of Directors members shall have equal voting rights.

 

SECTION 2. Should an officer or committee chairperson neglect the duties of the position, they may be replaced by a majority vote of the Directors.

Is there wiggle room for interpretation?  Let's say we are a club that create paintings.  Every other chapter and the state org accept paintings of kinds.  The proposed incoming President, however, wants the chapter to only create clown paintings.  Exclusion of everything but clowns does not fall within the mission of the group or any other charters.  I realize the analogy is ridiculous, but it was the best I could do without revealing more than I need to.  If this exclusion somehow becomes the chapter mission, or an attempt to do so, is this considered neglect off duties?  If they try to take over the jobs of the other board members, is that something to have them dismissed?  This person (as of TODAY) is already trying to change things that were voted by the BOD and already PAID FOR, and not even elected.  This persons narcissism is absolutely phenomenal.

 

SECTION 3. The A Board of Directors meeting shall be called as needed by the President. The presence of a majority of the Board of Directors shall constitute a quorum.

 

I know this must seem the exaggerated and insurmountable pile of hyperbole, however, I assure you, it is not.  Dare I add this person was on the nomination committee, as well, but appeared out of nowhere?  the chair didn't even know how  this person got on the committee. 

[Josh Martin]

A. The officers of the Chapter shall be: President, Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer, all of whom shall be elected for a term of one year. Each position may be shared by two (2) people. As stated, there was another candidate, and for whatever reason the 'sharing' was not opted for and the other candidate simply stepped out of the race after bullying and intimidation.

 

Sharing positions is a terrible idea anyway, so it's probably just as well that this was not opted for.

 

SECTION 2. Prior to the March general meeting, any member may declare themselves a candidate by notifying any Board member. A Board member notified of a member’s stated interest to be a candidate for an office must notify the person the President designates to print the ballot.  The first person to speak up for a position is the candidate that dropped out.  The person "slated" to be President did not announce his candidacy until 1 April, in an email to the non committee.  All other candidates were actively recruited between mid March trough last weeks BOD meeting.

 

It seems like a lot will come down to interpreting this rule. The question is whether "candidate" means essentially the same thing as "nominee" or if the intent of the rule is that, in order to be eligible for office, a member must "declare themselves a candidate by notifying any board member" before the March meeting of the general membership. If the latter, it sounds like you might not have any eligible candidates for any office, based on the facts provided. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation.

 

Also, I take it now that this rule is actually in your bylaws, not just in the "rules and operating procedures" as you stated earlier?

 

Since there was no mention of show of hands v ballot, this is where the motion was to make this election by ballot.

 

Yes, but it's the membership which would make that decision, not the board.

 

SECTION 2. Should an officer or committee chairperson neglect the duties of the position, they may be replaced by a majority vote of the Directors.

Is there wiggle room for interpretation?  Let's say we are a club that create paintings.  Every other chapter and the state org accept paintings of kinds.  The proposed incoming President, however, wants the chapter to only create clown paintings.  Exclusion of everything but clowns does not fall within the mission of the group or any other charters.  I realize the analogy is ridiculous, but it was the best I could do without revealing more than I need to.  If this exclusion somehow becomes the chapter mission, or an attempt to do so, is this considered neglect off duties?  If they try to take over the jobs of the other board members, is that something to have them dismissed?  This person (as of TODAY) is already trying to change things that were voted by the BOD and already PAID FOR, and not even elected.  This persons narcissism is absolutely phenomenal.

 

See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation.

 

I know this must seem the exaggerated and insurmountable pile of hyperbole, however, I assure you, it is not. 

 

I really don't care whether these facts have been exaggerated or not, because they make absolutely no difference in the application of the rules. If this person is ill-suited for the presidency, the solution is not to vote "no" but to vote for someone else. If your rules indeed provide that candidates need to declare by a certain date in order to be eligible for office, it would seem that this rule should be amended as soon as possible. Conversely, if the rule applies only to the process for nominations, then it is in the nature of a rule of order and may be suspended by a 2/3 vote, or if the assembly fails to suspend the rules, the members can simply cast write-in votes.

 

Actually, even if the rule only applies to the nomination process, it seems it might still be wise to amend it, considering the fact that not one of the nominees complied with the requirement (excepting the nominee who eventually withdrew).