forced to accept illegal voting?

[Guest LM]

For many reasons, members of our organization requested a review of the election documents after a new election. During the review, it was found that Board members, in disregard of state law, used proxy votes that they were not entitled to use (which also enhanced their own reelection chances), and that other members of the organization were unaware that proxies assigned to them were either invalidated without cause or simply ignored, thus depriving those members of the use of the ballots associated with those proxies.

In response to what the review revealed, this is what the election management company said, “There are two attachments [recount documents]: The ‘Accepted’ results [sic] that were announced on election night and signed off on by the Chair and Tellers. And the ‘Recalculated’ results that are the net sum of all of the counts done since that night. Robert’s Rules says that the ‘Accepted’ results are the final word because they were announced and ratified at the ANNUAL Meeting.”

According to various emails, it appears that besides the recount done by members of the organization, there were as many as eight more recounts done by the management company until they came to their final “Recalculated” results.

I was one of two tellers and did not having access to the proxy assignments, and thus, did not know of those improprieties. If things had been done properly, the election results would be different.

Is the Board correct? Are the “Accepted” results the final word?

[Josh Martin]

Robert’s Rules says that the ‘Accepted’ results are the final word because they were announced and ratified at the ANNUAL Meeting.”

 

RONR says nothing of the sort.

 

Is the Board correct? Are the “Accepted” results the final word?

 

No. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 444-446 for information on "Contesting the Announced Result of an Election."

[Chris Harrison]

Also, depending on the details of the law being violated the election might be null and void because the vote may have been "in violation of applicable procedural rules prescribed by federal, state, or local law" (RONR p. 251[c]) and/or absentee voting was used in a way it wasn't supposed to be (RONR p. 251[d]).  Whether either or both of those rules are applicable is something you all will need to determine.

[Guest LM]

To JOsh Martin and Chris Harrison,

Thank you for your guidance. You have no idea how much strength you have provided to us who felt trapped with the results of a corrupted election. While many feel that the parliamentarian with whom the Board consults manipulates RONR to the Board's bidding, I suspect that he is not given all relevant information and, like us, may be misled by the Board and management company. I also wonder if he actually gave the advice the management company cited, or having had the parliamentarian's help in the past, if the management company just invoked his participation to give credence to their claim.

Thank you again.

LM

[Gary Novosielski]

For all practical purposes you can ignore the fact that a parliamentarian is involved.  

 

The parliamentarian gives advice (to the presiding officer), but the only person that can actually issue a ruling is the presiding officer, and those rulings can be challenged by moving to Appeal (see §24) from the decision of the chair.

 

It wouldn't be the first time that a parliamentarian was asked to give an opinion on a topic, and the membership then told that because the words came out of the mouth of a parliamentarian, the matter was no longer open to question.   That's nonsense.  Parliamentarians can't issue rulings, they can't tell you how to vote, and except for strictly procedural matters, they can't be weighing in on one side or the other of an issue, or interpreting procedure so as to assure a particular outcome.  That's all bad behavior for a parliamentarian.

 

Your argument, if you have one, is never with the parliamentarian, but rather with the chair.  And there are remedies.(see §24).

[Guest LM]

For all practical purposes you can ignore the fact that a parliamentarian is involved.  

 

The parliamentarian gives advice (to the presiding officer), but the only person that can actually issue a ruling is the presiding officer, and those rulings can be challenged by moving to Appeal (see §24) from the decision of the chair.

 

It wouldn't be the first time that a parliamentarian was asked to give an opinion on a topic, and the membership then told that because the words came out of the mouth of a parliamentarian, the matter was no longer open to question.   That's nonsense.  Parliamentarians can't issue rulings, they can't tell you how to vote, and except for strictly procedural matters, they can't be weighing in on one side or the other of an issue, or interpreting procedure so as to assure a particular outcome.  That's all bad behavior for a parliamentarian.

 

Your argument, if you have one, is never with the parliamentarian, but rather with the chair.  And there are remedies.(see §24).

Thank you very much for your counsel! I'll review section 24 on Appeals right away!