Contest an election due to disenfranchisment

[Gary Novosielski]

Yes, they're certainly not clearly in the nature of rules of order.  Besides, I agree with Mr. Martin that they are applicable outside a meeting.  So if it's desired to make them suspendible, the bylaws would have to specifically allow for their suspension.

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Yes, they're certainly not clearly in the nature of rules of order.  Besides, I agree with Mr. Martin that they are applicable outside a meeting.  So if it's desired to make them suspendible, the bylaws would have to specifically allow for their suspension.

In my opinion, a rule pertaining to the time when the polls are closed is clearly in the nature of a rule of order. RONR states that rules of order are those relating to the orderly transaction of business in meetings or the duties of officers in that connection. One might infer from this that rules pertaining to absentee voting are not rules of order, since they do not relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings or to the duties of officers in that connection. I think that RONR’s statement on this matter, however, must be viewed in light of the fact that, so far as RONR is concerned, business may only be transacted at a meeting, and the definition of rules of order is based upon that fact.

If an organization has adopted rules in its bylaws which permit business to be transacted outside of a meeting, then I think rules pertaining to the transaction of business are properly understood to be in the nature of rules of order, even although the transaction of that business occurs, in whole or in part, outside of the context of a meeting.

Nonetheless, because RONR provides that rules with application outside of a meeting context cannot be suspended, the rule in question may not be suspended unless the bylaws so provide.

Edited August 28, 2018 at 05:31 PM by Josh Martin

[J. J.]

3 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

Of course, but my point is, you enter a strange area when you depart from RONR's wisdom in the first place. Voting outside of a meeting is prohibited by RONR. If the bylaws allow it, it doesn't seem that odd to me that they might also make a mess of determining what is in the nature of a rule of order. However, the standard is "clearly," so maybe that answers it.

It is not correct to say that RONR prohibits voting outside of a meeting, in the case of a "'polling place' apart from the convention meeting,"  and extends this to large meetings of different types of assemblies (p. 439, ll. 14-18).  That is not absentee voting; I refer to it as a type extra cameral voting.  

There are some substantive differences between voting at a polling place apart from the meeting and mail voting.  In the "polling place" balloting, the member directly votes with the organization and not through an intermediary, i.e. the US Postal Service.  Among other methods, a special rule of order order could authorize the "polling place balloting."

Take two hypothetical sets of special rules:

First set of rules (A):

"Rule 2A.  The annual meeting shall adjourn for lunch between 11:30 AM and 2:00 PM."

"Rule 5A.  Balloting for the election of officers shall be held in a separate room between the hours 10:00 AM and 2:30 PM."

At 11:00 AM the rule could be suspended to permit the polls to be closed at 1:00 PM.  Even though the voting is happening at a point when the meeting is not is session, the meeting still has control over when polls open or close.  The polls could also be suspended to close the polls a 3:00 PM.

Second set of rules (B): 

"Rule 2B.  The annual meeting shall adjourn for lunch between 11:30 AM and 2:00 PM."

"Rule 5B.  Balloting for the election of officers shall be held in a separate room between the hours 10:00 AM and 2:30 PM, unless, upon the order of the president, a new time is set and that five days notice is sent to the members of the new time."

The rules could not be suspended to close the polls at 1:00 PM or to keep open until 3:00 PM, because notice and notice protects absentee rights.

All four of these rules are rules of order, and if in the bylaws, all are in the nature of a rule of order.  Rules 2A, 5A, and 2B, could be suspended.  Rule 5B could not, because involves absentee rights.

The situation described is more like Rule 5B, because mail voting very clearly deals with an absentee right. 

In dealing with this, the first question is if the rule is in the nature of a rule of order.  The second question is, if this is a rule of order, could it be suspended.  There are certainly rules of order that cannot be suspended. 

 

Edited August 28, 2018 at 06:22 PM by J. J.

[J. J.]

53 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

In my opinion, a rule pertaining to the time when the polls are closed is clearly in the nature of a rule of order. RONR states that rules of order are those relating to the orderly transaction of business in meetings or the duties of officers in that connection. One might infer from this that rules pertaining to absentee voting are not rules of order, since they do not relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings or to the duties of officers in that connection. I think that RONR’s statement on this matter, however, must be viewed in light of the fact that, so far as RONR is concerned, business may only be transacted at a meeting, and the definition of rules of order is based upon that fact.

 

I will disagree with the bolded inference, though I agree with the overall conclusion.  

My prior example shows that a rule of order might not apply within the meeting context.  Another case would be related to standing committees established by special rules of order.  

I could very easily see a special rule establishing a standing to impose procedural requirements on that committee that have no application in the assembly's meeting.  A specific matter may be referred to a standing and the rules require that once the committee makes a favorable decision,it automatically refers the matter to another standing committee.