Irregularities in election and waffling candidates

[jbhhawaii]

Situation:

Elections were held for 2016 officers at our December monthly meeting as is the annual tradition. We do not take nominations from the floor. We have pre-printed ballots with a place for write-ins.  The VP (chairing the mtg because the president was a candidate for another position) announced the balloting would take place at the end of the mtg and the mtg would be declared adjourned after the last ballot was cast.  Members could vote if they had govt IDs OR if two or more board members validated their membership. The tellers had this information.

One member came in at the end of the mtg but was in time to sign in and vote. The president who was out and about, was asked if he could vote or not. The president said Robert’s Rules would allow it. The member was shown to the voting table and told to sign in and go ahead and vote.  A candidate has called the sitting president a “cheat” for trying to allow him to vote.

A person who was supposed to be an “observer only” refused to allow the member to vote.

Irregularities:

1)      The president claims the observer was incorrect to have stopped the member.  Yes or no?

2)      The same observer prevented one of the tellers from issuing three ballots due to no IDs and would not make an exception.

3)      There were four more ballots in the box than number of ballots signed for.  Appears a valid problem.

Postings and continuation of the election:

Results were posted the next morning with the explanation about the four extra ballots. It was stated that anyone with more than a four point win had secured their positions. Anyone with a four point or less win would need to participate in a “run-off” election at the January mtg. Should this have been posted or the results announced at the January mtg and an election held in February?  Are the irregularities so numerous an entire new election should be held?

Candidates waffling:

Both candidates for Treasurer have withdrawn.

One of the other candidates who lost by one point conceded and wished people well. Then she jumped back  in because she misunderstood the posting...and then she withdrew again because she heard one of the other candidates had withdrawn. The president-elect (should it not be the sitting president?) asked anyone who wanted to withdraw to do so in writing So she did so again, declaring it a “permanent" withdrawal and wished the other candidate well again.  Now...she sent yet another email and wants back in.  As an aside, she has quit three times in the past midstream terms as an officer (don’t ask!)  From what I have read here, it seems she can continue this yo-yo behavior right up until the election.

The president-elect wants to permit nominations from the floor in January. Should this be allowed if we follow our usual tradition?  Isn’t this a “continuation” of the previous election at which no nominations would be allowed from the floor?  What is the procedure for electing a new Treasurer?

Please someone help!     How do we proceed?  Thank you.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

What do you mean by "tradition"? Isn't it specified in your bylaws?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

If you wish to follow Robert's Rules of Order (and if you have no superior rule saying otherwise), then:

• You can open nominations from the floor with an ordinary motion to do so (adoptable by a majority vote).

• If you have 3 otherwise questionable ballots, then any candidate with a margin of victory greater than 3 is considered elected. That is, you never re-hold an election for 100% of the candidates where the tainted number of votes cast did not/could not have affected that given position's election.

***

Q. How could an "observer" be empowered TO DO ANYTHING? -- If a person is observing, then, by definition, they cannot interfere. So why did your tellers committee or election committee even bother to LISTEN TO, and OBEY, the "observer"?

Observers never touch ballots, and never issue ballots. (Else, they are really acting as the election committee, and aren't observing anything.) -- You should have escorted the observer OUT OF THE BUILDING as soon as the observer stopped "observing", and started ENFORCING RULES and INTERPRETING RULES. -- Yeeow!

[jbhhawaii]

13 hours ago, potzbie said:

If you wish to follow Robert's Rules of Order (and if you have no superior rule saying otherwise), then:

• You can open nominations from the floor with an ordinary motion to do so (adoptable by a majority vote).

• If you have 3 otherwise questionable ballots, then any candidate with a margin of victory greater than 3 is considered elected. That is, you never re-hold an election for 100% of the candidates where the tainted number of votes cast did not/could not have affected that given position's election.

***

Q. How could an "observer" be empowered TO DO ANYTHING? -- If a person is observing, then, by definition, they cannot interfere. So why did your tellers committee or election committee even bother to LISTEN TO, and OBEY, the "observer"?

Observers never touch ballots, and never issue ballots. (Else, they are really acting as the election committee, and aren't observing anything.) -- You should have escorted the observer OUT OF THE BUILDING as soon as the observer stopped "observing", and started ENFORCING RULES and INTERPRETING RULES. -- Yeeow!

Thank you.  It will be good to be able to open nominations from the floor. Since a nomination would be considered a "motion" would it require a second?

The "observer" is the city employee responsible for coordinating all 10 of the community gardens on the island. He is not supposed to interfere but has started doing so with some gardens.  He started with our association and has continued this behavior with some other gardens.  Many are displeased and I dare say this will not end here.

Since we will need to run another vote, is there any reason latecomers to the meeting cannot vote?  No one feels refusing the last latecomer a ballot was right since he was there before the polls closed and the meeting did not adjourn until the last ballot was cast.

Your input is appreciated.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

10 minutes ago, jbhhawaii said:

[...] is there any reason latecomers to the meeting cannot vote? 

No, there is no reason to deny a member who is empowered to vote a ballot.

Just "being late" is not a parliamentary justification for anyone to deny that member a ballot.

[jbhhawaii]

Thank you. 

As there were 4 too many ballots in the box than signed for, we agree that anyone with fewer than a 5 vote  margin could not win that office.  What about the 4 people denied a ballot at all...  3 supposedly for lack of ID and 1 more because "late?" Does that then increase the margin of error to 9 for a win?

Ah well, we will get through this!

[Thomas Ralph]

A few random observations:

A motion to open nominations would be in order, and probably a good idea. I just hope the prohibition on nominations from the floor isn't in the bylaws, because you might then have arguments as to whether it is clearly in the nature of a rule of order and apt to be suspended by a two-thirds vote.

Nominations themselves do not require a second, but the motion to open nominations does.

If this alleged observer isn't a member of the body that is meeting, the chair should order him from the room as soon as he engages any interference. Or a member can move that he be excused prior to voting taking place – this is a Question of Privilege affecting the assembly. If he is a member, while he cannot be (easily) ordered from the room, I see no reason why a member could not make a motion that he take a seat on the opposite side of the room to the voting table.

The person who can't make up her mind whether she is withdrawing or not can be renominated at the next meeting, and go from there.

Remember that unless your rules require otherwise, no ballot takes place for an office with only one nominee; the chair declares such a candidate elected without further formality.

[Gary Novosielski]

And there is no evident reason the president should not have been presiding.

[Josh Martin]

17 hours ago, jbhhawaii said:

What about the 4 people denied a ballot at all...  3 supposedly for lack of ID and 1 more because "late?" Does that then increase the margin of error to 9 for a win?

The members who were denied a ballot because they were "late" were improperly denied the right to vote, so yes, they should be included in the "margin of error."

It's not clear whether the members who did not have identification should have been permitted to vote. You said in your original post that "Members could vote if they had govt IDs OR if two or more board members validated their membership." Is this what your rules require? If so, did the members without identification have their membership validated by two or more board members?

[jbhhawaii]

Yes, our rules and instructions given to the supervisors at each table  were that if members did not have ID they could get two board members to validate their membership on the spot and then they could vote. The observer told one of the supervisors (tellers?) she could not issue them ballots because they had no IDs. To my knowledge, he did not interfere with any of the other three supervisors when they did this.

As and aside which makes all of this awkward, and is not particularly a parliamentary problem, the observer is a Parks & Rec Coordinator who often tries to impose an authority at our meetings which, by City and County rules, he does not have. We often have to call him out of order at meetings. He and his supervisor came to the meeting to "make sure things were done fairly" but not to interfere...yet he did. There is also a serious concern about his own impartiality. This supervisor handing out ballots thought the coordinator had the authority to override our rule.  

Also, and I do not have the RONR book at hand, we were under the impression that if the president was running for office the VP had to chair the meeting.

Thank you so much for your help with this.

 

[Gary Novosielski]

I'm a little hazy on whether the rules were actually rules in your bylaws or elsewhere.  I have no doubt that there were instructions given to the supervisors, but where did the instructions come from?  Did someone just make them up because they sounded good, and did whoever did so have the authority to do so?  

Or do you have formalized special rules of order or bylaws provisions, properly adopted by the membership, that say that ID is required?

[Josh Martin]

14 hours ago, jbhhawaii said:

Yes, our rules and instructions given to the supervisors at each table  were that if members did not have ID they could get two board members to validate their membership on the spot and then they could vote. The observer told one of the supervisors (tellers?) she could not issue them ballots because they had no IDs. To my knowledge, he did not interfere with any of the other three supervisors when they did this.

Okay, but that still doesn't answer the question of whether these members did, in fact, have their membership validated by two or more board members. If they didn't, then weren't the tellers correct in refusing to give these members ballots?

14 hours ago, jbhhawaii said:

Also, and I do not have the RONR book at hand, we were under the impression that if the president was running for office the VP had to chair the meeting.

This impression is mistaken. The fact that the President is running for office, in and of itself, does not require the President to relinquish the chair to the Vice President for the duration of the election.

[George Mervosh]

16 hours ago, jbhhawaii said:

Also, and I do not have the RONR book at hand, we were under the impression that if the president was running for office the VP had to chair the meeting.

 

2 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

This impression is mistaken. The fact that the President is running for office, in and of itself, does not require the President to relinquish the chair to the Vice President for the duration of the election.

In fact, jbhhawaii, RONR contains an affirmative statement indicating the president should not hesitate to preside over the elections, even if he is a candidate.  See RONR (11th ed.), p. 451, l. 35, to p. 452, l. 3.

[jbhhawaii]

We do not have independent written bylaws for our gardens.  We follow the city and county bylaws. While we may create additional bylaws specific to the garden, our gardeners have chosen not to do so. The city is silent on elections. The city defines the type of officer positions we must have and some minimal duties which may be expanded as needed per garden. Technically, I suppose we could draw names from a hat to fill the positions as far as the city is concerned.  Like most of our guidelines, this is one that is customary practice passed on yearly and carried out by the officers. Our guidelines evolve over time as situations obviate the need to do so.  The officers are charged with making procedural changes such as whether to have the voting at the beginning of the meeting or at the end or just have voting at the meeting and carry other business over to the next meeting.  It has been customary over the years to require ID to vote.  We have over 150 gardens and not everyone knows everyone so at some time in the past someone did make up the rule because it sounded good as a way to avoid cheating at the polls which had been a problem.  Also, for the benefit of new gardeners who join throughout the year, notice is posted that members will need an ID to vote. That notice is a month ahead of the annual voting (December).  Additionally, notice is given at the November meeting. The board has a procedure to help those who do show up without ID that allows two of them to ID the person.

If there are major changes, they are either suggested by membership or they are brought before the membership for discussion and vote.   We post notices on major action items at least 30 days in advance on a posted memo or agenda.  The officers change things procedurally as needed; but, only with a month's notice. Ad hoc committees do research on big issues like venue change, construction needs, raising of dues, etc and present to the membership for

[jbhhawaii]

3 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

Okay, but that still doesn't answer the question of whether these members did, in fact, have their membership validated by two or more board members. If they didn't, then weren't the tellers correct in refusing to give these members ballots?

This impression is mistaken. The fact that the President is running for office, in and of itself, does not require the President to relinquish the chair to validate Vice President for the duration of the election.

Sorry, I am just getting used to how to manage these quotes. 

To answer your first question: the person handing out the ballots was seated at a table.  The members arrived at the table without ID.  She is not an officer.  She said she would get two officers to validate their eligibility.  The city "observer"  was standing directly behind her, interrupted her and told her she could not do that. The three voters have limited English skills and that teller had actually been asked to help so she could help interpret...something she does often for this one community of non-English speakers. ( We have four people who routinely help us with 4 languages that require interpretation). As she was seated, and there was a very long line in front of her, she deferred to the city coordinator & did not attempt to push her chair back into him, and brought it up after the voting was over. In fact, I have now found out from one of the other tellers, a former president, that at least two of them did use the 2 officer procedure but the city coordinator was not standing by them so they could proceed as instructed.  The problem here also is that the city coordinator knew that rule.

[jbhhawaii]

Thank you Josh and George for the clarification about who can chair the meeting.  I picked up the RONR from work last night and will check it out and inform the others in case it happens again.

[jbhhawaii]

This evening's meeting with the runoff elections will be done a bit differently since each member will sign in on the regular attendance sign in sheets and will be given a ballot as soon as they get there instead of signing for a ballot at the end of the meeting. 

We could switch our voting sequence around and hold the voting immediately and when that is done, start our regular agenda format, or hold our regular meeting format first and vote at the end as we did last month .  If we hold the vote first, the count can be taken in the back while the meeting is going on, and  if any irregularities occur we could address them immediately...also, members would know the results when they leave.

[Josh Martin]

36 minutes ago, jbhhawaii said:

To answer your first question: the person handing out the ballots was seated at a table.  The members arrived at the table without ID.  She is not an officer.  She said she would get two officers to validate their eligibility.  The city "observer"  was standing directly behind her, interrupted her and told her she could not do that. The three voters have limited English skills and that teller had actually been asked to help so she could help interpret...something she does often for this one community of non-English speakers. ( We have four people who routinely help us with 4 languages that require interpretation). As she was seated, and there was a very long line in front of her, she deferred to the city coordinator & did not attempt to push her chair back into him, and brought it up after the voting was over. In fact, I have now found out from one of the other tellers, a former president, that at least two of them did use the 2 officer procedure but the city coordinator was not standing by them so they could proceed as instructed.  The problem here also is that the city coordinator knew that rule.

Hm. I'm torn on this one. As a general rule, if a member is actually denied the right to vote, this is a continuing breach. On the other hand, if a member is simply given bad advice, this is not a continuing breach. What happened here seems to be a little bit of both. The members were denied a ballot, but this was done in accordance with the organization's rules, however, the members were not informed of the alternative procedures they could use to receive a ballot. What complicates things further is whether these rules are valid to begin with is not entirely clear. I think the assembly itself will be the ultimate judge of this issue.

[jstackpo]

You don't want to vote "immediately", but real soon in the meeting  --  for the reasons you note  --  because you should at least be sure that a quorum is present before you start the voting process.  Otherwise you will be in other kinds of trouble.

So wait for a quorum to show up, open the meeting with whatever ceremony is customary, read the minutes (or whatever you do about them), then open the polls.

[jbhhawaii]

10 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

Hm. I'm torn on this one. As a general rule, if a member is actually denied the right to vote, this is a continuing breach. On the other hand, if a member is simply given bad advice, this is not a continuing breach. What happened here seems to be a little bit of both. The members were denied a ballot, but this was done in accordance with the organization's rules, however, the members were not informed of the alternative procedures they could use to receive a ballot. What complicates things further is whether these rules are valid to begin with is not entirely clear. I think the assembly itself will be the ultimate judge of this issue.

OK thank you. I understand.  We can put it to the membership. Do you have any suggestions that would make it more valid in the future?  The organization is reticent to make more "rules" than exist already.  Would it work as "binding" or "authoritative" if we put things in writing and called them voting "procedures" or "guidelines" instead of "rules" or having to add a "bylaw"?  (Simpler...we just never allow the alternative again as a means of  trying to be a bit lenient.)

[jbhhawaii]

50 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

You don't want to vote "immediately", but real soon in the meeting  --  for the reasons you note  --  because you should at least be sure that a quorum is present before you start the voting process.  Otherwise you will be in other kinds of trouble.

So wait for a quorum to show up, open the meeting with whatever ceremony is customary, read the minutes (or whatever you do about them), then open the polls.

Thanks.  Great suggestion.

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, jbhhawaii said:

OK thank you. I understand.  We can put it to the membership. Do you have any suggestions that would make it more valid in the future?  The organization is reticent to make more "rules" than exist already.  Would it work as "binding" or "authoritative" if we put things in writing and called them voting "procedures" or "guidelines" instead of "rules" or having to add a "bylaw"?  (Simpler...we just never allow the alternative again as a means of  trying to be a bit lenient.)

Putting it in writing would certainly be a lot more authoritative. Calling it a "guideline" implies a lot more wiggle room than I'm comfortable with for something which will determine whether someone can or cannot vote. I suppose "procedures" is fine. Plenty of organizations call their rules that. It's also important that there's a record in the minutes that this rule (or "procedure," if you like) was actually adopted at some point - by the board, if your bylaws authorize them to adopt rules of this nature, or by the membership if your board lacks that authority.

[Gödel Fan]

Also for the future, you might casually remark to the chairman that non-members can be expelled by the chair.  There may be applicable laws in the way of that, though.