Guest Misty Posted November 10, 2015 at 06:27 PM Report Share Posted November 10, 2015 at 06:27 PM What happens in the case when the tellers' report, presented at the end of the meeting, indicated a tie vote for an office, but there was no quorum present when the report was given? The meeting was adjourned. Does the presiding officer call a special meeting for members to vote again or wait until the next regular meeting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted November 10, 2015 at 06:35 PM Report Share Posted November 10, 2015 at 06:35 PM What happens in the case when the tellers' report, presented at the end of the meeting, indicated a tie vote for an office, but there was no quorum present when the report was given? The meeting was adjourned. Does the presiding officer call a special meeting for members to vote again or wait until the next regular meeting?Calling a special meeting would probably be best, if possible. You'll need to check your bylaws to see how special meetings are called. If it's not possible to get a special meeting with a quorum together, you'll have to wait until the next regular meeting.For future reference, what the assembly should have done is to schedule an adjourned meeting to complete the election. This is one of the few things which can be done in the absence of a quorum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted November 11, 2015 at 08:23 AM Report Share Posted November 11, 2015 at 08:23 AM For future reference, what the assembly should have done is to schedule an adjourned meeting to complete the election. This is one of the few things which can be done in the absence of a quorum. Would you say that, as a technical matter, this should have been done even if the election had not resulted in a tie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted November 11, 2015 at 08:47 AM Report Share Posted November 11, 2015 at 08:47 AM Would you say that, as a technical matter, this should have been done even if the election had not resulted in a tie?Yes. The results must be announced with a quorum present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Misty Posted November 12, 2015 at 09:17 PM Report Share Posted November 12, 2015 at 09:17 PM What does it mean to "schedule an adjourned meeting?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted November 12, 2015 at 09:40 PM Report Share Posted November 12, 2015 at 09:40 PM At a meeting, the assembly could adopt a motion to meet again at any time before the next regular meeting. This second meeting is called an "adjourned meeting". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Misty Posted November 15, 2015 at 10:22 PM Report Share Posted November 15, 2015 at 10:22 PM What happens if a called meeting is scheduled and a tie occurs again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted November 15, 2015 at 10:27 PM Report Share Posted November 15, 2015 at 10:27 PM What happens if a called meeting is scheduled and a tie occurs again? Vote again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted November 15, 2015 at 10:27 PM Report Share Posted November 15, 2015 at 10:27 PM Repeat the balloting until someone gets a majority vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted November 16, 2015 at 12:03 AM Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 at 12:03 AM For future reference, what the assembly should have done is to schedule an adjourned meeting to complete the election. This is one of the few things which can be done in the absence of a quorum. Better yet, in the future the meeting should not adjourn until after it receives the Tellers' Report Next year, move to take a recess until the Tellers are done and are ready to report. That way it is easier to deal with a tie (or if no one receives a majority vote to be elected). The only other options now are to call a special meeting (if possible, per the By-laws) or until the next regular meeting (assuming that the group meets more often then yearly.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted November 16, 2015 at 09:09 AM Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 at 09:09 AM Better yet, in the future the meeting should not adjourn until after it receives the Tellers' Report Next year, move to take a recess until the Tellers are done and are ready to report. That way it is easier to deal with a tie (or if no one receives a majority vote to be elected). The only other options now are to call a special meeting (if possible, per the By-laws) or until the next regular meeting (assuming that the group meets more often then yearly.)The assembly didn't adjourn prior to receiving the teller's report. It lost a quorum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 16, 2015 at 12:09 PM Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 at 12:09 PM Is a coin toss a legitimate solution to a tie vote or a recurring tie vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted November 16, 2015 at 12:10 PM Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 at 12:10 PM The assembly could suspend the rules to allow it. Edited to add that except as noted in the comment below. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted November 16, 2015 at 01:12 PM Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 at 01:12 PM The assembly could suspend the rules to allow it.Unless the bylaws require a ballot vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted November 16, 2015 at 02:49 PM Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 at 02:49 PM Is a coin toss a legitimate solution to a tie vote or a recurring tie vote? The assembly could suspend the rules to allow it. Edited to add that except as noted in the comment below. Unless the bylaws require a ballot vote. The candidates can also agree among themselves that one of them will withdraw as the result of a coin toss. Even though it is technically permissible to elect someone who has declared that he is withdrawing his name from nomination, as a practical matter such an agreement and coin toss usually resolves the situation to (almost) everyone's satisfaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted November 16, 2015 at 06:16 PM Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 at 06:16 PM The candidates can also agree among themselves that one of them will withdraw as the result of a coin toss. Even though it is technically permissible to elect someone who has declared that he is withdrawing his name from nomination, as a practical matter such an agreement and coin toss usually resolves the situation to (almost) everyone's satisfaction.They can certainly do this, but if the bylaws require a ballot vote, the way to finalize this agreement is to hold another round of voting. Presumably, one or more of the members who were supporting the withdrawn candidate will change their vote, and the remaining candidate will receive a majority of the votes cast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted November 19, 2015 at 03:42 PM Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 at 03:42 PM They can certainly do this, but if the bylaws require a ballot vote, the way to finalize this agreement is to hold another round of voting. Presumably, one or more of the members who were supporting the withdrawn candidate will change their vote, and the remaining candidate will receive a majority of the votes cast. Especiallysince write-in votes are generally permtted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 19, 2015 at 03:48 PM Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 at 03:48 PM Would the coin toss have to be made via the normal motion process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted November 19, 2015 at 04:36 PM Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 at 04:36 PM Would the coin toss have to be made via the normal motion process?As Hieu Huynh noted in post No 13, if the ASSEMBLY (the members present) want to resolve the issue this way, it would require a suspension of the rules with a two thirds vote. However, if the candidates agree among themselves that they will toss a coin and the loser will withdraw, this is not formal action of the assembly at all. It is a private, personal agreement between the two candidates, just like stepping outside and having a duel in the old days. There is no motion and no voting on it. They can just decide between themselves to do it, just as either of them is free to withdraw for any reason or no reason. But, as others have said, if write in votes are permitted (and they are unless your bylaws prohibit them), members can still write in the name of the candidate who withdrew. If he wins, he will have to decide whether to take the position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 19, 2015 at 06:44 PM Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 at 06:44 PM I've learned that the ballots were recounted and it was discovered that two ballots were unmarked but were erroneously tallied, and those votes were given to one particular candidate. So, there actually was no tie--according to what I was told. I don't know who decided to recount, but it was not done at any kind of meeting. Is this "legal"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted November 19, 2015 at 07:00 PM Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 at 07:00 PM As Hieu Huynh noted in post No 13, if the ASSEMBLY (the members present) want to resolve the issue this way, it would require a suspension of the rules with a two thirds vote.To continue reiterating this point, such a suspension is only in order if the bylaws do not require a ballot vote.However, if the candidates agree among themselves that they will toss a coin and the loser will withdraw, this is not formal action of the assembly at all. It is a private, personal agreement between the two candidates, just like stepping outside and having a duel in the old days. There is no motion and no voting on it. They can just decide between themselves to do it, just as either of them is free to withdraw for any reason or no reason.But, as others have said, if write in votes are permitted (and they are unless your bylaws prohibit them), members can still write in the name of the candidate who withdrew. If he wins, he will have to decide whether to take the position.They could also write in someone else, or the assembly could reopen nominations, etc. So while one of two tied candidates withdrawing will probably mean that the remaining candidate is elected on the next ballot, there's no guarantee that this will be the case.I've learned that the ballots were recounted and it was discovered that two ballots were unmarked but were erroneously tallied, and those votes were given to one particular candidate. So, there actually was no tie--according to what I was told. I don't know who decided to recount, but it was not done at any kind of meeting. Is this "legal"?Well, this is an interesting question. Under ordinary circumstances, the answer would be a clear "No." Only the assembly has the authority to order a recount. The results announced would still stand.The problem here, however, is that the original results were never announced when a quorum was present, and so the original count is not yet final. In this sense, it isn't really a "recount." I'm still inclined to think that this was improper, however, as the tellers must be authorized by the assembly if they are to continue their duties beyond the adjournment of the meeting.So it seems to me that, at the next meeting, the original tellers' report should be submitted, and the assembly can then decide whether to order a recount. Since the unauthorized recount means that the ballots are no longer securely preserved, however, the assembly might decide to go straight to another round of voting instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted November 20, 2015 at 08:35 AM Report Share Posted November 20, 2015 at 08:35 AM I would not agree that the rules could be suspended to permit a coin toss to directly elect someone. That would violate the fundamental principle of each member being entitled to cast one vote. However, the candidates could agree that the loser of a coin toss withdraws. I would suspect that there could be other arrangments that would also be in order. Even in one of those methods in order was used a ballot would still be required. Members could still write in the name of the cadidate who withdrew, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted November 20, 2015 at 08:50 AM Report Share Posted November 20, 2015 at 08:50 AM The problem here, however, is that the original results were never announced when a quorum was present, and so the original count is not yet final. In this sense, it isn't really a "recount." I'm still inclined to think that this was improper, however, as the tellers must be authorized by the assembly if they are to continue their duties beyond the adjournment of the meeting. I am not sure if it would be the case that the could not tabulate the ballots while the assembly is not in session, though there should be guidance from the assemby on disposition of the ballots until then. If the tellers are unsure of the count, and they may be in a close election, they could, on their own, do additional county prior to reporting the results. These would not be "recounts" as defied in RONR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted November 20, 2015 at 09:19 AM Report Share Posted November 20, 2015 at 09:19 AM I would not agree that the rules could be suspended to permit a coin toss to directly elect someone. That would violate the fundamental principle of each member being entitled to cast one vote. However, the candidates could agree that the loser of a coin toss withdraws. I would suspect that there could be other arrangments that would also be in order. Even in one of those methods in order was used a ballot would still be required. Members could still write in the name of the cadidate who withdrew, for example.I have no disagreement at all that if the bylaws require a ballot vote, a ballot vote must be taken.As to whether the rules may be suspended to permit a coin toss if the bylaws do not require a ballot vote, those interested can find a detailed discussion here.I am not sure if it would be the case that the could not tabulate the ballots while the assembly is not in session, though there should be guidance from the assemby on disposition of the ballots until then. If the tellers are unsure of the count, and they may be in a close election, they could, on their own, do additional county prior to reporting the results. These would not be "recounts" as defied in RONR.I have no disagreement with the second paragraph. I'm still a bit uneasy about the tellers continuing their work beyond the session without authorization from the assembly, but I couldn't find something in RONR which addresses the issue.So are you saying that the new count is valid, provided that it was conducted by the tellers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted November 20, 2015 at 10:50 AM Report Share Posted November 20, 2015 at 10:50 AM I have no disagreement at all that if the bylaws require a ballot vote, a ballot vote must be taken.As to whether the rules may be suspended to permit a coin toss if the bylaws do not require a ballot vote, those interested can find a detailed discussion here.I have no disagreement with the second paragraph. I'm still a bit uneasy about the tellers continuing their work beyond the session without authorization from the assembly, but I couldn't find something in RONR which addresses the issue.So are you saying that the new count is valid, provided that it was conducted by the tellers? I do not agree with some of the opinions cited in that thread, as indicated on that thead. That said, I think there are some methods that would be in order and would acheive the same effect, in a non ballot vote. I do not believe that anything in RONR would require the ballots to be cast while the assembly is in session, though I think that there are very legitimate questions regarding the integity of the ballots that the assembly should consider. In other words, you have legitimate reasons to be uneasy. The newer count would be valid, provided that it was done by the tellers and that the tellers had not reported. I know of no rule that would prevent the tellers from counting the ballots several to be sure of the accuracy of the count, prior to announcing the results. They might consider it necessary to ensure an accurate count, especially in close votes. For the record, I agree that the results must be announced at a properly called and quorate meeting, unless the bylaws or rules provide differently (though I would generally not recommed such a rule). As this would occur outside of a meeting, the rules could not be suspended to permit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.