Is the election valid?

[Gary Novosielski]

That's quite a stretch.

The chair did not declare him elected by unanimous consent.  The chair announced the result of the ballot vote, and declared him elected by virtue of his 6 votes on the ballot.  There was no point of order raised, so the announced (albeit incorrect) result of the ballot vote stands.

 

[Dan Honemann]

2 hours ago, J. J. said:

Okay, the assembly voted for chairman by ballot; a majority is required.  The votes 3 for one candidate, 6 for another, 5 for the third. The chair declared that 6 was elected, and there was no objection from the assembly.

I submit that 6 was not elected by ballot.  6 was elected by the chair declare him elected and the assembly not objecting.  6 was elected by unanimous consent. 

The fact that there was a ballot at some point in this process does not mean that the action to select the chairman was taken by ballot. 

After the chair declared that 6 was elected, the only violation of the rules which had occurred and as to which a point of order could have been raised was the erroneous declaration by the chair that a plurality vote was sufficient for election.

[J. J.]

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

After the chair declared that 6 was elected, the only violation of the rules which had occurred and as to which a point of order could have been raised was the erroneous declaration by the chair that a plurality vote was sufficient for election.

I do not agree.   The chair declared 6 was selected, and the assembly agreed to that declaration, by its silence.  This was a ballot vote.  Because this is a ballot vote, the assembly cannot agree to its declaration by anything except a ballot vote.

If there was a motion that "to suspend the rules and elect by plurality," made after the chair's announcement, and that motion was otherwise in order, that motion could only be adopted by ballot. 

If there was a motion "to suspend the rules and declare that 6 is selected," made after the chair's announcement, and that motion was otherwise in order, that motion could only be adopted by ballot. 

If the chair asked for unanimous consent, a voice vote (for some reason), or a standing vote to adopt either motion, adopting that motion would violate  p. 413, ll. 1-4. 

It would be the same as a motion to make the vote unanimous that was not unanimous (though that has a different adoption threshold).  You could substitute the words "majority vote" for the word "unanimous" on p. 413, ll. 4-9. 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Joe]

So facts of the election were given to the officiating body for an "unofficial" finding. In their opinion, the candidate that received 6 votes and was not objected to as winner is elected. 

Now my problem is how do I make a motion, if in order, to "adopt" that decision by the body officially? Is it needed? Amend the minutes? 

I simply would like to "connect the dots" for any outside observers that questions the Chair's election that has read our bylaws and wonders how that election has stood. 

I have asked that the officiating body email their unofficial findings.

Thank you all.

[Dan Honemann]

4 hours ago, Guest Joe said:

So facts of the election were given to the officiating body for an "unofficial" finding. In their opinion, the candidate that received 6 votes and was not objected to as winner is elected. 

Now my problem is how do I make a motion, if in order, to "adopt" that decision by the body officially? Is it needed? Amend the minutes? 

I simply would like to "connect the dots" for any outside observers that questions the Chair's election that has read our bylaws and wonders how that election has stood. 

I have asked that the officiating body email their unofficial findings.

Thank you all.

As of now, the election stands, and it will continue to stand unless and until your assembly takes some affirmative action to overturn it. The minutes of your last meeting should reflect exactly what transpired at that meeting.

In other words, do nothing. If a point of order is raised at any future meeting claiming that the election was invalid because of the fact that the person declared to have been elected did not receive a majority of the votes cast, I think that the chair should rule that the point of order comes too late, citing RONR (11th ed.), p. 250, l.30 to p. 251, l. 23; p. 408, l. 35 to p. 409, l. 10; p. 445, l. 8 to p. 446, l. 2).

Or perhaps the chair will cite these "unofficial findings" of this "officiating body" (whatever that is). No matter how unofficial this body's findings may be, I'm sure that they are no more unofficial than the opinions being expressed here in this forum. 

[Dan Honemann]

11 hours ago, J. J. said:

I do not agree.   The chair declared 6 was selected, and the assembly agreed to that declaration, by its silence.  This was a ballot vote.  Because this is a ballot vote, the assembly cannot agree to its declaration by anything except a ballot vote.

I agree with Mr. Novosielski. To say that an assembly's doing absolutely nothing constitutes the taking of a vote is a bit of a stretch. 

11 hours ago, J. J. said:

 

If there was a motion that "to suspend the rules and elect by plurality," made after the chair's announcement, and that motion was otherwise in order, that motion could only be adopted by ballot. 

If there was a motion "to suspend the rules and declare that 6 is selected," made after the chair's announcement, and that motion was otherwise in order, that motion could only be adopted by ballot. 

If the chair asked for unanimous consent, a voice vote (for some reason), or a standing vote to adopt either motion, adopting that motion would violate  p. 413, ll. 1-4. 

It would be the same as a motion to make the vote unanimous that was not unanimous (though that has a different adoption threshold).  You could substitute the words "majority vote" for the word "unanimous" on p. 413, ll. 4-9. 

 

None of these things happened.

[J. J.]

15 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I agree with Mr. Novosielski. To say that an assembly's doing absolutely nothing constitutes the taking of a vote is a bit of a stretch. 

None of these things happened.

Those are analogies.

I do not believe that the assembly is capable, in a procedural sense, of making the decision in this case without making that decision by ballot, p. 413, ll. 1-4.

If the assembly did not take some action, then nobody was elected.  I would not agree with the premise that no one was elected. 

[Josh Martin]

4 hours ago, J. J. said:

Those are analogies.

I do not believe that the assembly is capable, in a procedural sense, of making the decision in this case without making that decision by ballot, p. 413, ll. 1-4.

If the assembly did not take some action, then nobody was elected.  I would not agree with the premise that no one was elected. 

This overly expansive reading of the rule that no action can be taken that would reveal how a member voted in a ballot vote seems to make the rules for handling election complaints (and elections generally) unworkable. It would seem to me that, based on your logic, a member could argue that essentially any action that was or was not taken could have forced a member to reveal his vote, and therefore a member can always demand a ballot vote and/or claim a continuing breach.

For instance, if a member moves for a recount, must that vote be taken by ballot? If no candidate has received a majority after many rounds, and a candidate moves to reopen nominations, must that vote be taken by ballot? If a member raises a Point of Order that the winning candidate is ineligible for office, and an Appeal is raised from the chair’s ruling on that point, must that vote be taken by ballot?

Edited February 2, 2018 at 07:54 PM by Josh Martin

[J. J.]

55 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

This overly expansive reading of the rule that no action can be taken that would reveal how a member voted in a ballot vote seems to make the rules for handling election complaints (and elections generally) unworkable. It would seem to me that, based on your logic, a member could argue that essentially any action that was or was not taken could have forced a member to reveal his vote, and therefore a member can always demand a ballot vote and/or claim a continuing breach.

 

It depends on that the error is.  If the error causes the choice to be made by a method other than a ballot, yes, assuming that the vote is to be by ballot..

The chair could improperly ask for a for/against on each choice and take that vote by ballot; that is not a problem.  That is the first one that comes to mind. 

A point of order or a vote on appeal is not a vote on one of these choices.  A motion to postpone the pending motion (or election), is not a vote on these choices. 

Would you disagree that if the chair would have called for a voice vote on this motion, then this could be challenged at a later date? 

 

 

[Gary Novosielski]

20 hours ago, J. J. said:

I do not agree.   The chair declared 6 was selected, and the assembly agreed to that declaration, by its silence.  This was a ballot vote.  Because this is a ballot vote, the assembly cannot agree to its declaration by anything except a ballot vote.

 

Okay, now it's just gotten too silly.

The assembly cannot agree to the announcement of a vote by a vote, ballot or otherwise, or else it would have to agree to the result of that vote by yet another vote, which of course would be announced, and then voted on, accepted, and voted on, announced....

Even a motion to adjourn could not save them, because it cannot interrupt a vote, and even if sandwiched in somehow, the motion would need to be voted on, the result announced, the announcement accepted by a vote, the result announced, and before you know it Bob is no longer your uncle.

 

 

[J. J.]

10 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Okay, now it's just gotten too silly.

The assembly cannot agree to the announcement of a vote by a vote, ballot or otherwise, or else it would have to agree to the result of that vote by yet another vote, which of course would be announced, and then voted on, accepted, and voted on, announced....

Even a motion to adjourn could not save them, because it cannot interrupt a vote, and even if sandwiched in somehow, the motion would need to be voted on, the result announced, the announcement accepted by a vote, the result announced, and before you know it Bob is no longer your uncle.

 

 

Then you tell me what elected that person chairman?  Normally, I would say a vote, but that is not the case here. 

[Gary Novosielski]

3 minutes ago, J. J. said:

Then you tell me what elected that person chairman?  Normally, I would say a vote, but that is not the case here. 

What elected the person was certainly a ballot vote, the result of which was improperly interpreted, and which may have been subject to a timely point of order if one had been raised, but now stands.  

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, J. J. said:

A point of order or a vote on appeal is not a vote on one of these choices.  A motion to postpone the pending motion (or election), is not a vote on these choices. 

The chair erroneously declaring that the plurality winner is elected also isn’t a vote on any of these choices. Or a vote of any kind.

3 hours ago, J. J. said:

Would you disagree that if the chair would have called for a voice vote on this motion, then this could be challenged at a later date? 

If the chair called for a voice vote on which candidate to elect, when the bylaws require that the vote be by ballot then yes, this could obviously be challenged at a later date.

55 minutes ago, J. J. said:

Then you tell me what elected that person chairman?  Normally, I would say a vote, but that is not the case here. 

It wasn’t? It looks to me like people voted. The chairman mistakenly declared the plurality winner elected, but that doesn’t mean the vote doesn’t exist.

[J. J.]

52 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

What elected the person was certainly a ballot vote, the result of which was improperly interpreted, and which may have been subject to a timely point of order if one had been raised, but now stands.  

I do not agree.  The ballot was interpreted improperly, but that interpretation was still not the ballot.  I have to keep coming back to p. 413.  Basically the chair is declaring a plurality a majority when it was not.

That is my answer to Josh as well. 

Maybe you could answer this; this is where I'm having the problem.  If instead of needing a majority to be adopted, what if it needed a unanimous vote of those voting and the chair declared this vote unanimous, would that be a breach of a continuing nature? 

I do understand that there is a problem of "belling the cat."  Somebody has a raise of order, or object, at some point. 

Edited February 3, 2018 at 01:16 AM by J. J.

[Guest Zev]

An individual being elected to an important position in a society by way of an erroneous statement by the presiding officer, in my opinion, creates an enormous internal political crisis. I am having some serious trouble imagining that such an event is a done deal.

[Josh Martin]

On 2/2/2018 at 7:06 PM, J. J. said:

Maybe you could answer this; this is where I'm having the problem.  If instead of needing a majority to be adopted, what if it needed a unanimous vote of those voting and the chair declared this vote unanimous, would that be a breach of a continuing nature? 

No.

Making a vote which has already been taken unanimous and erroneously declaring a vote unanimous are still not the same thing. In the former case, the issue is one of whether the organization should display unanimity, notwithstanding that the vote was not actually unanimous. In such a case, it is quite logical to assume that any member who opposes this motion did not vote for the winning candidate. In the latter case, the issue is one of interpreting the rules. Any member who is aware of the chair’s error can and should point out the error, regardless of how he voted in the election.

On 2/2/2018 at 7:40 PM, Guest Zev said:

An individual being elected to an important position in a society by way of an erroneous statement by the presiding officer, in my opinion, creates an enormous internal political crisis. I am having some serious trouble imagining that such an event is a done deal.

The fact that an error “creates an enormous internal political crisis” is not one of the grounds for declaring a continuous breach.

[J. J.]

On 2/5/2018 at 9:44 AM, Josh Martin said:

No.

Making a vote which has already been taken unanimous and erroneously declaring a vote unanimous are still not the same thing. In the former case, the issue is one of whether the organization should display unanimity, notwithstanding that the vote was not actually unanimous. In such a case, it is quite logical to assume that any member who opposes this motion did not vote for the winning candidate. In the latter case, the issue is one of interpreting the rules. Any member who is aware of the chair’s error can and should point out the error, regardless of how he voted in the election.

 

To me, the result seems to be identical. 

I would have the same problem if, after the fact, the assembly adopted a rule  "suspend the rules and permit a plurality to elect," unless the vote was by ballot.

I'm very trouble about looking at the reasons for why we think a breach of a continuing nature happened.  The first case is deliberate act; the second is presumably by accident.  That should not make a difference.  Continuing breaches are many times accidental in nature.  Many times they are deliberate.  We  are presuming that the election case is accidental, but the unanimous vote might have been taken by voice, without realizing that it would force some members to presumably reveal their ballot vote.

[Guest Zev]

On ‎2‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 6:44 AM, Josh Martin said:

The fact that an error “creates an enormous internal political crisis” is not one of the grounds for declaring a continuous breach.

I realize this. However, RONR classifies breaches in different ways, some as of a continuing nature and others not. My own preference is for the case of elections of officers that an erroneous declaration by the chairman be arbitrarily classified as a continuous breach and anytime in the future a Pont of Order could be raised, the chairman declares the election null, the office now is vacant, the assembly proceeds to elect a new officer, and the problem goes away. With the rule as it now stands the only option I see is for the assembly to impeach the elected officer which a recalcitrant and determined minority may prevent. As a result the internal crisis continues for who knows how long. I do not understand why some of you think this is a good thing. If there is a reason why this type of occurrence cannot be handled this way I would like to hear it. Perhaps there is some detail I was unaware of and may change my mind.  (Incidentally, I have seen a similar case, although in a slightly different form, and the episode took almost a year to play itself out and the organization was scarred with a lot of unhappy people and lost opportunities.)

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, J. J. said:

To me, the result seems to be identical. 

I would have the same problem if, after the fact, the assembly adopted a rule  "suspend the rules and permit a plurality to elect," unless the vote was by ballot.

I'm very trouble about looking at the reasons for why we think a breach of a continuing nature happened.  The first case is deliberate act; the second is presumably by accident.  That should not make a difference.  Continuing breaches are many times accidental in nature.  Many times they are deliberate.  We  are presuming that the election case is accidental, but the unanimous vote might have been taken by voice, without realizing that it would force some members to presumably reveal their ballot vote.

I would not say that intent is the issue. If the chair knew full well that a majority was required, and declared the member elected anyway, I do not think that changes anything about the validity of the election (although disciplinary action may be appropriate).

The key is whether the action forces a member to reveal his vote. A motion to “Suspend the Rules and permit a plurality to elect” arguably does this, as one could quite logically assume that any member who votes against this motion did not support the leading candidate. If the chair declares the member elected, however, I do not think we can make the assumption that anyone who raises a Point of Order does not support the leading candidate. Instead, I would simply assume that the member is a knowledgeable individual of good character who wishes to ensure that the assembly’s rules are fairly applied and followed. A member could quite logically vote for  motion to Suspend the Rules and permit a plurality to elect, and yet raise a Point of Order if the chair were to simply declare that the plurality winner was elected.

I understand that looking at motivations is a tricky business, but I think the language of the rule makes that necessary. Even in the example given in the text, the member’s vote is not directly revealed - it is revealed only through members’ interpretations of the member’s vote on the subsequent motion.

[Josh Martin]

31 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

I realize this. However, RONR classifies breaches in different ways, some as of a continuing nature and others not. My own preference is for the case of elections of officers that an erroneous declaration by the chairman be arbitrarily classified as a continuous breach and anytime in the future a Pont of Order could be raised, the chairman declares the election null, the office now is vacant, the assembly proceeds to elect a new officer, and the problem goes away. With the rule as it now stands the only option I see is for the assembly to impeach the elected officer which a recalcitrant and determined minority may prevent. As a result the internal crisis continues for who knows how long. I do not understand why some of you think this is a good thing. If there is a reason why this type of occurrence cannot be handled this way I would like to hear it. Perhaps there is some detail I was unaware of and may change my mind.  (Incidentally, I have seen a similar case, although in a slightly different form, and the episode took almost a year to play itself out and the organization was scarred with a lot of unhappy people and lost opportunities.)

But Zev, with that logic, why limit it to just elections? Why not other motions, such as bylaw amendments? Could those not also create internal political crises which are difficult to resolve? How about other motions? Where do you draw the line? And where do you balance the crisis of this issue versus the crisis of losing an officer halfway through his term due to an error that was not found until months later?

If an assembly wants to adopt its own rules on this subject, it is free to do so, but I think the rules in RONR are as they should be.

Edited February 7, 2018 at 12:49 AM by Josh Martin

[Guest Zev]

10 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

But Zev, with that logic, why limit it to just elections? Why not other motions, such as bylaw amendments? Could those not also create internal political crises which are difficult to resolve? How about other motions? Where do you draw the line? And where do you balance the crisis of this issue versus the crisis of losing an officer halfway through his term due to an error that was not found until months later?

If an assembly wants to adopt its own rules on this subject, it is free to do so, but I think the rules in RONR are as they should be.

In my opinion the bulleted items that end on page 446 should have one additional item which covers this case. That is all. I am drawing the line on this specific case only.

Bylaw amendments are already expected to require a 2/3 vote. A crisis may be created, true. The recalcitrant minority greater than 1/3 may prevent its fixing, I grant you that. But that is a bylaw issue. I am just not worried about it.

Electing a new officer is not a crisis in my book. I am not worried about this either.

Any other erroneously-adopted motion can be easily dealt with by giving notice to rescind the motion in question. In this particular case, however, the only avenue I can detect given the present rules is to impeach the officer. The recalcitrant minority may prevent this.  I do not wish to have a situation whereby each organization has to figure this problem on its own. This is similar to the issue of Cushing's Manual and leaving the details up to each reader which is what then-Lieutenant Colonel Henry Robert tried to prevent.

My hope is that the authors will consider this change as my request and that they discuss this specific matter. If they decide against it, then so be it. I've done the best I could.

[Weldon Merritt]

You're not worried about a bylaws issue, but about the erroneous declaration of an election winner. But others may be more concerned about an erroneous declaration of the result of a bylaws vote  (or any of a number of other issues).  I agree with Mr. Martin that the RONR rule is as it should be, and any asembly that wants to add to the list can do so by a special rule of order. (Even better would be for the members to learn to pay attention and raise point of order when appropriate.)

[Gary Novosielski]

13 hours ago, J. J. said:

I would have the same problem if, after the fact, the assembly adopted a rule  "suspend the rules and permit a plurality to elect," unless the vote was by ballot.

I'd have a problem with that too, but because the rule mandating a majority can't be suspended and would require a bylaws amendment.  

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

I'd have a problem with that too, but because the rule mandating a majority can't be suspended and would require a bylaws amendment.  

Based on...?

[J. J.]

14 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

 

The key is whether the action forces a member to reveal his vote. A motion to “Suspend the Rules and permit a plurality to elect” arguably does this, as one could quite logically assume that any member who votes against this motion did not support the leading candidate. If the chair declares the member elected, however, I do not think we can make the assumption that anyone who raises a Point of Order does not support the leading candidate. Instead, I would simply assume that the member is a knowledgeable individual of good character who wishes to ensure that the assembly’s rules are fairly applied and followed. A member could quite logically vote for  motion to Suspend the Rules and permit a plurality to elect, and yet raise a Point of Order if the chair were to simply declare that the plurality winner was elected.

 

This is perhaps where I have a problem.  I feel if a rule can be suspended, the breach of that cannot be a breach of a continuing nature.  Likewise, if cannot be suspended, its violation creates a continuing breach. 

That is certainly implicit in RONR, as the section that  breaches of a continuing refers to the section on rules that cannot be suspended.  It has also been that the authorship team, collectively, have stated, saying, in regard to the 10th edition: 

"Answering that question [of what constitutes a continuing breach] did not require writing on a clean slate, since in the existing work there was already considerable similarity between specific rules listed as providing exceptions to the timeliness requirement and those described as rules that cannot be suspended. Indeed, there is considerable force to the argument that, in general, those rules of such importance that they cannot be suspended are also those whose violation is so consequential that they should be subject to even an untimely point of order.”

(“Significant Changes in RONR, Part II,” National Parliamentarian, 2st Quarter, 2001)

I see no changes between the 10th and 11th editions on this point.

You can also ask if that relationship between a breach and a suspension is an accurate reporting of the nebulous general parliamentary law.  I think it is.