Interpretation of Bylaws timing

[Josh Martin]

Schmuel, if you take your logic literally, you could have a devious Election Committee who made decisions while an election is in progress that the electorate didn't know about and which would disenfranchise many votes the voters who were never informed of such a change. I see no support for this in RONR. The process Josh et al above specify of using a Point of Order is consistent with RONR and allows the Chair and the members to weigh in on rulings. That process ensures that rulings have the agreement of the body and become precedent.

While written rule is best, RONR allows for custom that has effectively become written rule to hold significant weight. The question here seems to be what happens if an Election Committee perceives the custom to contradict RONR (which may or may not be their correct interpretation). Allowing them effectively "secret" rulings which is inconsistent with RONR.

What exactly are disagreeing about here? Everyone seems to be in agreement that if a rule is ambiguous, and if the assembly has a long-standing custom regarding that rule, then a subordinate committee should respect the assembly's custom. My understanding of the facts is that the assembly does, in fact, have a long-standing custom on the subject and the rules in question are, in fact, ambiguous.

The argument appears to arise over what is the committee's proper course of action if the rule in question is not ambiguous. If the assembly's custom is so clearly in violation of its written rules, to the extent that there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions on the subject (the same grounds as for denying an appeal), then I concur with Mr. Gerber that the committee can and should act upon the written rule and not follow the contrary custom.

I understand the concern that the committee's interpretation may well be incorrect, and in circumstances like this one, the committee may end up disenfranchising members of the right to vote. By the time the assembly meets to correct the error, it's too late - the damage has been done. If the rules on the subject are truly clear-cut, then this danger does not arise. If the assembly applies the rules properly, it will uphold the committee's decision.

My original assumption, based on the OP's question, was that the assembly has its own rules in the bylaws in the subject, which are ambiguous on the point of whether it is permissible for a member to cast the sealed ballot of an absentee voter. It's possible that this assumption is wrong, however, and the bylaws clearly state that only members who are present can vote. Alternately, perhaps the bylaws are silent on absentee voting. This would be equally clear, since absentee votes are clearly prohibited by RONR.

In either case, the assembly's interpretation on the subject is clearly wrong, and if the committee was to act in accord with the interpretation, it would violate the bylaws (or a fundamental principle of parliamentary law) - which have much greater weight than the assembly's custom. As to the issue of the committee making its decision "in secret," I personally agree with Mr. Gerber that the committee should make its decision known in advance, although it is not strictly required to do so.

If it fails to do so, the assembly can discipline the committee, and the assembly could also take these facts into account when deciding what to do about the election. If the votes which were cast by absentee voters could have affected the result, then since it is the case that members were not informed that they could not vote in this way, I think the assembly would be justified in ordering a new ballot.

[Guest Terp Questioner]

What exactly are disagreeing about here? Everyone seems to be in agreement that if a rule is ambiguous, and if the assembly has a long-standing custom regarding that rule, then a subordinate committee should respect the assembly's custom. My understanding of the facts is that the assembly does, in fact, have a long-standing custom on the subject and the rules in question are, in fact, ambiguous.

 

This was my question and I've been letting all you experts speak. Let me clarify. You are correct Mr Martin. We have a bylaws which has been interpreted for years to allow in-person voting either by casting your own ballot or by bringing in another person's sealed ballot (access issues of members make it difficult for many to attend meetings). Our by-laws are ambiguous on the subject.

 

I see agreement that a subordinate committee should respect the assembly's custom. The question which we seemed to be going down was if they don't agree with this, what is the election committee entitled to do and how can they do it? In our case we have a hostile election committee which has no desire for a fair election nor appears to understand RRNR. As I understood it from the discussion above, the Election Committee needed to make a recommendation to the assembly or that any member could make a point of order to achieve an actual ruling on the subject and that could be overturned by the assembly. The Election Committee could not just decide on its' own ruling without the main body being involved.

 

I am confused Mr Martin by your most recent posting as to why it is not contradicting your prior post. Can you clarify? Additionally, why would a secret ruling ever be allowed? As a variation, would a secret ruling during the middle of the election (not prior to its start) be allowed? How would the membership be able to follow it if it is secret? Would that guarantee to create an invalid election?

[Guest Terp Questioner]

Just to add one more thing. Our bylaws are quite clear that by-mail balloting is allowed in addition to all this in-person balloting. So I believe there is no question that allowing methods beyond a person coming in person to cast there own vote is explicitly sanctioned. Were these methods not used, the nature of the group's accessibility issues would disenfranchise most voters.

[Josh Martin]

I see agreement that a subordinate committee should respect the assembly's custom. The question which we seemed to be going down was if they don't agree with this, what is the election committee entitled to do and how can they do it?

 

You seem to already understand what the committee is entitled to do under these circumstances. There seems to be an implication that the committee may end up doing things that it is not entitled to do, and I'd note that the assembly has options available to it if that happens. The assembly could overturn the committee's decision, call for a new election (if appropriate), and/or discipline the members of the committee.

 

In our case we have a hostile election committee which has no desire for a fair election nor appears to understand RRNR. As I understood it from the discussion above, the Election Committee needed to make a recommendation to the assembly or that any member could make a point of order to achieve an actual ruling on the subject and that could be overturned by the assembly. The Election Committee could not just decide on its' own ruling without the main body being involved.

 

I think it's a bit unfair to the committee to label them as "a hostile election committee which has no desire for a fair election nor appears to understand RRNR." The committee may honestly believe that the bylaws prohibit absentee members from giving their sealed absentee ballots to other members to deliver, and this may well be a reasonable interpretation (perhaps even the correct interpretation) of the rules in question. Viewed from that angle, the committee is attempting to ensure that no illegal votes are counted.

 

I am confused Mr Martin by your most recent posting as to why it is not contradicting your prior post. Can you clarify?

 

My most recent post was meant to address a situation in which the assembly's custom clearly and unambiguously conflicted with the organization's rules, as there appeared to be some disagreement regarding what the committee should do in such a situation. You say that your organization's bylaws are indeed ambiguous on this subject, so I wouldn't worry about it.

 

Additionally, why would a secret ruling ever be allowed? As a variation, would a secret ruling during the middle of the election (not prior to its start) be allowed? How would the membership be able to follow it if it is secret? Would that guarantee to create an invalid election?

 

I don't know that the ruling could truly be "secret" (at least, not properly), but the committee would not be strictly required to announce its decision in advance (although doing so seems like an extremely good idea). I would not say that this would guarantee an invalid election, but it may well have that effect, depending on the facts of a particular case. I don't think it is appropriate for the committee to take this action in your situation, so I wouldn't worry about it.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Suppose though the interpretation apparently contradicts that bylaws, like "all ballots must be sealed before submitted for counting."  and is interpreted as any sealed vote is valid no matter where it came from.  I'm thinking of two scenarios.

 

1)  The interpretation was voted on and is official.  The election committee believes this interpretation is in error and renders the vote invalid.  How do they know you didn't seal up a vote in the parking lot and the absentee "voter" has no way of knowing someone is stealing their vote.  What would the election committee do?

 

2)  The interpretation is unofficial - it's the way we always did it. Why can't the Election Committee come up with its own unofficial interpretation and see how the membership reacts?

 

I think it depends how this "interpretation" came about. If the assembly has directly decided a legitimate question of interpretation, then of course a subordinate committee cannot simply decide on its own that the assembly's decision was not correct. However, if it is simply that the organization has in the past conducted business in a certain way that clearly conflicts with the written rules, I don't think the committee, in carrying out the duties it has been charged with, should defer to the custom in preference to the written rules.

 

I must have missed Saint Cad's post before I wrote mine, or else I simply neglected to acknowledge it. That is pretty much the distinction I was talking about.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Schmuel, if you take your logic literally, . . .

 

So take it logically, or figuratively, or however you like.

(Just don't take it late for lunch.)

Edited to add: By the way, the spelling of this topic title is bugging me. I would like to change it, but the system changes the URL whenever the topic title is changed, and I don't want to break the Web if I don't have to.

[Guest Terp Questioner]

Oops. Sorry on the topic typo. Thanks for not changing it till this discussion is done.

 

While I appreciate your benefit of the doubt and would normally join you in it, this is, indeed, a hostile Election Committee strongly associated with one group of candidates and created after intentionally removing a prior impartial Election Committee. The people on it have shown little RRNR expertise in past actions. There is overwhelming belief in these views by the members and strong distrust of the Election Committee.

 

While we are in the ambiguous area, I am curious about the unambiguous area because good people can differ on what is clear. What I seem to read is that a subordinate committee can, either acting in good faith or with malicious intent, make a ruling that something is clear in the bylaws and effectively disenfranchise many or all of the membership by not telling them the ruling and discounting their ballots based on it, when an election is already in motion. Note that our elections start with a mail in ballot so any in-person voting is done significantly after the start of the election period. The members only remedy appears to be to appeal the election to the assembly. This would seem not to be ideal and would be solved if the ambiguous/non-ambiguous distinction were either not made and everything went to the assembly for clarity or at least rulings be publicized before an election is in flight.

[SaintCad]

Ultimately, the membership should decide what the proper interpretation is if it has not done so already.  If it has, a Point of Order is necessary if the election committee goes against that interpretation.  If not and you anticipate issues, what about a motion ahead of time stating, "I move that the section of the bylaws 'XXXXXX' be interpreted as meaning 'YYYYYY'."  If the election committee comes back with their interpretation of the rules different than the presumed interpretation then a Point of Order is in order.  If the point is well taken and the Election Committee destroyed or lost the proxy ballots, then it is an incomplete election.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Ultimately, the bylaws should be amended so that there is no need for interpretation.

[Josh Martin]

While we are in the ambiguous area, I am curious about the unambiguous area because good people can differ on what is clear.

Of course, but surely we can agree that some things truly are clear, and in such an event, the committee should act in accord with the written rules.

While we are in the ambiguous area, I am curious about the unambiguous area because good people can differ on what is clear. What I seem to read is that a subordinate committee can, either acting in good faith or with malicious intent, make a ruling that something is clear in the bylaws and effectively disenfranchise many or all of the membership by not telling them the ruling and discounting their ballots based on it, when an election is already in motion. Note that our elections start with a mail in ballot so any in-person voting is done significantly after the start of the election period. The members only remedy appears to be to appeal the election to the assembly. This would seem not to be ideal and would be solved if the ambiguous/non-ambiguous distinction were either not made and everything went to the assembly for clarity or at least rulings be publicized before an election is in flight.

There is certainly a continuum of clarity vs. ambiguity. What I am proposing is that the committee can and should follow the rule if the rule is so clear that there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions on the subject. Let's suppose that an organization's bylaws clearly provide that "Only members who are present shall have the right to vote." There are no other provisions on this subject and nothing authorizing mail voting. In such a case, any interpretation suggesting that any absentee votes would be permitted would be clearly wrong. That's the sort of situation I have in mind.

I also don't agree that everything should go to the assembly. Let's suppose that a new issue arises - one where there is no custom. Wouldn't it be appropriate for the committee to make a decision then?

There is also the issue that we all tend to see things through the lens of our current situation. You say you currently have a corrupt election committee. One would hope that is a rare occurrence. If there was a well-respected committee in place, sending everything to the assembly would waste the assembly's time and call into question why the committee is needed.

Finally, if there was no distinction, how would this change anything? If a committee is good, it will respect the distinction. If a committee is truly corrupt, will telling the committee that it can't do something stop it?

So yes, I think the distinction is appropriate. The committee should make a ruling contrary to a custom on its own only if the interpretation clearly conflicts with the written rules, and it should in any event publish its decision in advance if at all possible.

[Guest Terp Questioner]

Saint Cad, you have a very good idea to force a ruling ahead of time. I wish this had be done. I will remember it for the future.

 

Mr Huynh, I agree the assembly's Bylaws need amending. Unfortunately unless this election goes through fairly that will not happen.

 

Thank you Mr Martin for your patience and long and clear comments. I truly want to thank you and everyone for helping me understand RRNR's details.

 

Why would a ruling by the subordinate committee not be required to be taken in advance of election? I had thought that RRNR required that rules be consistent throughout an election. Is it really the case that rules of an election can be changed while it is in progress?

 

Mr Martin said, "Finally, if there was no distinction, how would this change anything? If a committee is good, it will respect the distinction. If a committee is truly corrupt, will telling the committee that it can't do something stop it?"

 

In our case there is a higher, parent body at which we can appeal such items. This higher, parent body, has the confidence of the members and contains RRNR experts. Hence if a subordinate committee of our assembly are not following either the bylaws or RRNR, they can be made to do so or their authority removed and given to a neutral party, such as paid staff, to administer.

 

 

[Josh Martin]

Why would a ruling by the subordinate committee not be required to be taken in advance of election? I had thought that RRNR required that rules be consistent throughout an election. Is it really the case that rules of an election can be changed while it is in progress?

The rules of an election actually can be changed during an election. There is nothing in RONR which provides otherwise. A society could theoretically amend its bylaws in the middle of an election, and there is no reason the society would have to adopt a proviso stating that the changes will take place at a later date (although it would probably be a good idea). That's not exactly what's happening here - the committee is (in its opinion) enforcing the rules that already exist.

In our case there is a higher, parent body at which we can appeal such items. This higher, parent body, has the confidence of the members and contains RRNR experts. Hence if a subordinate committee of our assembly are not following either the bylaws or RRNR, they can be made to do so or their authority removed and given to a neutral party, such as paid staff, to administer.

Okay, then do that. You say that your bylaws are ambiguous on this subject. I believe you. If that is the case, then I continue to maintain that, in these circumstances, it is not appropriate for the committee to issue a ruling on its own authority which conflicts with the assembly's custom. Whether it would be appropriate for the committee to do so in some other set of circumstances isn't relevant to your situation.

[Dan Honemann]

 Edited to add: By the way, the spelling of this topic title is bugging me. I would like to change it, but the system changes the URL whenever the topic title is changed, and I don't want to break the Web if I don't have to.

 

What's so bad about correcting spelling in topic titles? I used to do it all the time. 

[Guest Terp Questioner]

This is a place I hope RONR changes in its' next addition. I think you'll find that public elections prevent the changing of rules after an election is in flight. Any changes seem guaranteed to provide negative results and overturned elections. A group voting part of one set of rules and part on another is not creating a fair election. I appreciate that the goals of RONR are procedure for in-person meetings. It seems that such a loophole provides a procedure for an unfair election.

 

I assume an assembly can add such a procedure to its bylaws and not be in conflict with RONR?

 

The rules of an election actually can be changed during an election. There is nothing in RONR which provides otherwise. A society could theoretically amend its bylaws in the middle of an election, and there is no reason the society would have to adopt a proviso stating that the changes will take place at a later date (although it would probably be a good idea). That's not exactly what's happening here - the committee is (in its opinion) enforcing the rules that already exist.
 

 

[Guest Terp Questioner]

What's so bad about correcting spelling in topic titles? I used to do it all the time. 

Many people bookmark or keep a tab to a screen. Changing spelling affects the URL rendering it suddenly to appear "vanished."

[Edgar Guest]

Many people bookmark or keep a tab to a screen. Changing spelling affects the URL rendering it suddenly to appear "vanished."

 

But, if one cared enough, it could be found with a minimal amount of effort.

 

Worse, I think, is when a topic is moved from the Advanced Discussion forum to the General Discussion forum. But that seems to be a non-starter.

[Josh Martin]

This is a place I hope RONR changes in its' next addition.

 

I'm afraid you will be disappointed. RONR can't prevent an assembly from amending its special rules of order or bylaws in the middle of an election because those rules take precedence over RONR.

 

I assume an assembly can add such a procedure to its bylaws and not be in conflict with RONR?

 

Certainly. An assembly's bylaws take precedence over RONR.

[Guest Terp Questioner]

I appreciate that bylaws would take precedent over RONR (although I thought ours say if there is a conflict with RONR then RONR wins so maybe not in our case--need to check this). What RONR could do would be to say in an election rules must be established before the election. Then the only way that could be changed is if an assembly's bylaws specifically override it. I would expect that would be very unusual indeed and would yield the expected results of most assemblies as well as consistency with election law.

[Josh Martin]

I appreciate that bylaws would take precedent over RONR (although I thought ours say if there is a conflict with RONR then RONR wins so maybe not in our case--need to check this).

If your bylaws are written sensibly, they'll say just the opposite.

What RONR could do would be to say in an election rules must be established before the election.

No rule in RONR can prevent an assembly from amending its rules of order or bylaws in the middle of an election if it wishes to do so. Such rules are difficult to amend anyway, so that should be protection enough.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Edited to add: By the way, the spelling of this topic title is bugging me. I would like to change it, but the system changes the URL whenever the topic title is changed, and I don't want to break the Web if I don't have to.

What's so bad about correcting spelling in topic titles? I used to do it all the time. 

Actually, there is nothing bad about it (except possibly causing confusion regarding comments related to the topic title), since apparently the system is intelligent enough to automatically point browsers from the old topic URL to the edited one.