recount of votes

[fisr4245]

our association held our annual officers election and the results showed 27/28, however the voters who signed the register was only 54.

Later it was found that the nominating& election chair failed to sign the register before voting.She claimed to be one of the 28 votes.

protest was launched by the losing candidate for president but was ignored. examination of the minutes showed no protest. The meeting

was adjourned with no motion and no second. How can we recount the votes without violating the privacy of the voters?later after investigating the

voter registration and members list that 20 of the 54 was not eligible to vote.

[Timothy]

Since ineligible voters affected the result, and it apparent that you won't be able to remove the 20 from the result, it will be necessary to vote again. The mechanism for beginning that process is a point of order. 

[Richard Brown]

I agree with Mr. Fish based on the information provided.

 

Isn't this the same question that was asked in another thread just a few days ago.... within the past week?  I remember expressing amazement that almost half of the 55 votes cast were cast by people ineligible to vote and nobody caught it at the time.

[jstackpo]

And since all those illegal votes are irretrievably mixed in with the good ones, this is a continuing breach and can be point-of-ordered at any time. Next time do it right!

[Richard Brown]

Isn't this the same question that was asked in another thread just a few days ago.... within the past week?  I remember expressing amazement that almost half of the 55 votes cast were cast by people ineligible to vote and nobody caught it at the time.

 

Ah, I found it.  The other thread, which is also by fisr4245, can be found here:  http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/23153-illegally-elected-officers/?hl=votes#entry126378

 

fisr4245, may I ask why you started a new thread rather than posting a follow up or clarifying question in your original thread?  Every time someone posts in a thread, it bumps it back to the top so everyone sees it.  Maybe you just wanted to try again with the question worded slightly differently? 

[Josh Martin]

our association held our annual officers election and the results showed 27/28, however the voters who signed the register was only 54.

Later it was found that the nominating& election chair failed to sign the register before voting.She claimed to be one of the 28 votes.

protest was launched by the losing candidate for president but was ignored. examination of the minutes showed no protest. The meeting

was adjourned with no motion and no second. How can we recount the votes without violating the privacy of the voters?later after investigating the

voter registration and members list that 20 of the 54 was not eligible to vote.

 

Why would recounting the votes violate the privacy of the voters? It shouldn't, if a secret ballot is done properly.

 

In any event, however, if it is correct that the result of the election was 28-27 and 20 of those votes were cast by persons who were not eligible to vote, I concur with the previous responses that the election is null and void and must be redone, since the votes cannot be identified and most certainly could have affected the result. A member should raise a Point of Order at the next meeting of the membership that the election is null and void, followed by an Appeal if necessary.

 

These facts also suggest that your assembly apparently needs better security measures for ballot votes in the future.

[fisr4245]

Since the election is null and void and must be redone, who will be running the association? there only three valid officers left, board of directors who has one year left 

in their term. Can they call the assembly to meet and vote on a special meeting. The next  assembly scheduled meeting is in December. Also a petition was submitted

to removed the ex president from the membership.

[Josh Martin]

Since the election is null and void and must be redone, who will be running the association?

 

The officers remain in office unless and until the election is declared null and void at a meeting of the membership. The membership should then immediately elect new officers.

 

Can they call the assembly to meet and vote on a special meeting.

 

You'll need to check what your bylaws say about special meetings.

[Richard Brown]

Since the election is null and void and must be redone, who will be running the association?

 

What do your bylaws say about terms of office?  Do your officers and directors serve only fixed terms, such as "for one year"?  Or is there a qualifier added, such as "for one year or until their successors are elected"?  Or "for one year and until their successors are elected"?  

 

If it's either of the latter two, the former officers and directors serve until such time as their successors are properly elected.

[Timothy]

The officers remain in office unless and until the election is declared null and void at a meeting of the membership. The membership should then immediately elect new officers.

 

 

You'll need to check what your bylaws say about special meetings.

 

What do your bylaws say about terms of office?  Do your officers and directors serve only fixed terms, such as "for one year"?  Or is there a qualifier added, such as "for one year or until their successors are elected"?  Or "for one year and until their successors are elected"?  

 

If it's either of the latter two, the former officers and directors serve until such time as their successors are properly elected.

 

I don't think these answers have cleared anything up. One implies the improperly elected officers are in office while the other implies the previous officers remain in office. I'm going to side with Josh, since we don't yet know the result of the point of order. One or a few people believing something to be improper is not the same as the society officially recognizing it. 

[Richard Brown]

In re-reading the entire thread, I realize that the election has not yet been declared null and void, so I agree with Josh that perhaps the improperly elected officers might remain in office until  such time as their election is declared null and void.  I was thinking that the election had already been declared null and void.

 

But, that raises some intriguing questions:  If the election of those officers is in fact null and void, why is it necessary for the assembly to declare it so?  If they are null and void, why aren't they null and void regardless of whether the assembly later declares them so?  Are actions those officers take while illegally elected valid?  Is the election null and void from the beginning or only from the moment the assembly declares them null and void?

 

If an assembly passes a motion to do something that is prohibited by the bylaws, we say that such motion is null and void.  But, is it valid and binding and enforceable until such time as the assembly declares it null and void?  Or can it be....should it be...ignored and treated as void ab initio....from the beginning? 

 

Is a a motion adopted in violation of the bylaws null and void from the beginning, or only from the time that the assembly declares it null and void?  I suspect that, despite the fact that RONR repeatedly says that actions which violate the bylaws or fundamental principles of parliamentary law are null and void, as a practical matter, they are enforceable until such time as they are properly declared null and void by the society.

 

Maybe my lack of sleep last night has caught up with me and I'm just not thinking clearly now, but I'm suddenly wondering about the above questions.

[Richard Brown]

I don't think these answers have cleared anything up. One implies the improperly elected officers are in office while the other implies the previous officers remain in office. I'm going to side with Josh, since we don't yet know the result of the point of order. One or a few people believing something to be improper is not the same as the society officially recognizing it. 

 

The more I think about it, which has really been only a few minutes, the more I think that Josh and Tim have it right.... the recently elected officers remain in office until  such time as the assembly or some higher authority declares the election void.  Like I said a few minutes ago, I thought the society had already done that.

 

As to where that leaves the society if they do not immediately elect new officers, I'm not sure.  I'm thinking that the former officers will suddenly be back in office unless the bylaws provide that they serve unqualified fixed terms. 

 

Thoughts, anyone?

[fisr4245]

each elected officer except member of the Board of Directors, shall serve for one year.Each member of the Board of Directors shall serve for two years with three of 

the board of Director positions up for reelection each year.

[Richard Brown]

As to where that leaves the society if they do not immediately elect new officers, I'm not sure.  I'm thinking that the former officers will suddenly be back in office unless the bylaws provide that they serve unqualified fixed terms. 

 

The answer to that question might be in fisr4245's original thread which he apparently abandoned and then started this one.  In his original post in that thread, he said this is an Alabama non-profit corporation.  If that is the case, I strongly suspect that Alabama non-profit corporation law provides that officers serve until their successors are elected.  I suggest that firs4245 check that out.  It might answer the question of who the officers will be between the time this election is declared null and void and the time the society elects new officers.

 

Here's a link to his original thread.  I posted this several comments up and asked him why he didn't post his follow up questions in that thread, but he never answered.  http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/23153-illegally-elected-officers/?hl=votes#entry126378

[fisr4245]

I might add that the board did a formal investigation of the matter and declared the election null and void but the president acting alone refused to have an election

and went ahead with the induction of officers less one Board of Director yesterday. There were only two nominated.

[Timothy]

If an assembly passes a motion to do something that is prohibited by the bylaws, we say that such motion is null and void.  But, is it valid and binding and enforceable until such time as the assembly declares it null and void?  Or can it be....should it be...ignored and treated as void ab initio....from the beginning? 

 

Obviously, the motion is not enforceable. When a society has bylaws and standing rules that conflict with each other, the bylaws take precedence. But what does that mean to a situation like this? In this case, the adopted motion is not in violation of the bylaws. The thing that is in question is the vote. The last word on the subject was that the chair declared the person elected.

[Gary Novosielski]

I might add that the board did a formal investigation of the matter and declared the election null and void but the president acting alone refused to have an election

and went ahead with the induction of officers less one Board of Director yesterday. There were only two nominated.

 

Well, the president has no such power, and "induction" of officers is a formality that carries no parliamentary weight.   But the board may also lack the power to declare the election null and void. Typically, a point of order regarding a void election would be done by a (general, not board) member, and ideally during the meeting where the election took place, but failing that, at the next meeting of members.

 

Unless your bylaws grant the board the power to be election judges, their opinion isn't necessarily binding.

[Josh Martin]

I might add that the board did a formal investigation of the matter and declared the election null and void but the president acting alone refused to have an election

and went ahead with the induction of officers less one Board of Director yesterday. There were only two nominated.

 

The board doesn't have the authority to declare an election by the membership null and void, so the President (probably unknowingly) did the right thing by not listening to the board.