Voting Season

[fixter]

It seems that every year I am here with a new twist on the same old game. Voting time. In the past we have been through voter eligibility and interpreting it from our bylaws. There is alway a power group trying to exclude voters to further their own agenda. Last year I was successful keeping everyone in the vote using statements from here and our attorney. Our bylaws state that you have to be an active or active exempt member in good standing and completed your initial probationary period to vote in the election. Those are 2 of the 4 categories of membership as defined in the bylaws. After these 4 categories there is an additional one for lifetime members that have reached 15 years of service. It states that they enjoy all the privileges of membership. So they are always trying to find a way to exclude the older, wiser members. (One day they too will be old). This years twist is the exclude members that have not passed a physical. There is nothing in the bylaws about this but you also can't be an active member without it. That will probably be motioned to vote on. Personally I believe everyone should have the right to vote unless they meet the criteria in the bylaws. We  have one member on probation that is not eligible to vote. I am sure it will be brought up to allow him to. It really is tough when people can't follow their own laws. I told them last year to change the bylaws but no one wants to go through the 3 month process.

 Next we have the issue of running unopposed. Our bylaws state that there will be a ballot vote. Last year the elections went on a long time because of childish games after I informed them they were allowed to vote for whoever they wanted.  Here are the actual bylaws

Section 3. All officers shall be elected by ballot at the annual meeting by majority vote by the members present thereat, but, if for any reason an officer is not elected at the annual meeting, a special election may be held at the next regular meeting or a special meeting may be called for this purpose.

Section 4. In the event of three or more candidates and one does not receive the majority vote on the first ballot, the candidate with the least votes shall be dropped and this procedure continued until one candidate can be elected.

My question is dropping a candidate. Would that mean any votes cast for them would no longer be legal?

I was also approached by a member saying that we could create "rules" for the election such as having the secretary cast one ballot. I od him we have addressed this in the past but he insists that rules can be made and changed as necessary. I responded that the rule could not violate the bylaws. What are the thoughts on this?

 

[Atul Kapur]

Your bylaws (the parts quoted, at least) do not prohibit write-in votes so votes cast for dropped candidates are still legal votes. There is a specific statement in RONR 11th ed. that states this, but I don't have a copy with me.

Similarly, because Section 3 requires a ballot election, I recall that RONR does not allow the secretary to "cast one ballot".

[Richard Brown]

8 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

Your bylaws (the parts quoted, at least) do not prohibit write-in votes so votes cast for dropped candidates are still legal votes. There is a specific statement in RONR 11th ed. that states this, but I don't have a copy with me.

Dr. Kapur is correct. I do have RONR handy and I believe the provision Dr. Kapur is referring to is the footnote on page 441 which reads as follows:

*An organization could suspend the rules, or adopt a special rule of order, so that the nominee with the fewest votes is dropped from the list of nominees for succeeding ballots in the expectation that voters will then confine their choice to the remaining nominees. Only a bylaws provision, however, could make the dropped nominee ineligible for election so as to render illegal any subsequent votes cast for that nominee. (See pp. 430–31.)   (Emphasis added by RB)

8 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

Similarly, because Section 3 requires a ballot election, I recall that RONR does not allow the secretary to "cast one ballot".

Again, Dr. Kapur is correct  See page 412 which contains the following statement:  "When the bylaws require a vote to be taken by ballot, this requirement cannot be suspended, even by a unanimous vote."  And see also page 413 which says:  "Whenever a vote is to be taken by ballot, it is out of order to move that one person—the secretary, for example—cast the ballot of the assembly."

[Josh Martin]

11 hours ago, fixter said:

Our bylaws state that you have to be an active or active exempt member in good standing and completed your initial probationary period to vote in the election. Those are 2 of the 4 categories of membership as defined in the bylaws. After these 4 categories there is an additional one for lifetime members that have reached 15 years of service. It states that they enjoy all the privileges of membership. So they are always trying to find a way to exclude the older, wiser members. (One day they too will be old). This years twist is the exclude members that have not passed a physical. There is nothing in the bylaws about this but you also can't be an active member without it.

As you say, your bylaws require that members “have to be an active or active exempt member in good standing and completed your initial probationary period to vote in the election.” If this is correct, then anyone who does not meet these criteria may not vote. No additional requirements to vote may be added, however, without amending your bylaws.

11 hours ago, fixter said:

My question is dropping a candidate. Would that mean any votes cast for them would no longer be legal?

No. The bylaws would need to specifically state that.

11 hours ago, fixter said:

I was also approached by a member saying that we could create "rules" for the election such as having the secretary cast one ballot. I od him we have addressed this in the past but he insists that rules can be made and changed as necessary. I responded that the rule could not violate the bylaws. What are the thoughts on this?

It is most certainly correct that the rule in question cannot be created because it conflicts with the rule in the bylaws requiring a ballot vote. It is possible that other rules could be created, but such rules may not conflict with any rules in the bylaws. Rules of order adopted for a single meeting require a 2/3 vote for adoption.

Edited November 6, 2018 at 11:30 AM by Josh Martin

[fixter]

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

As you say, your bylaws require that members “have to be an active or active exempt member in good standing and completed your initial probationary period to vote in the election.” If this is correct, then anyone who does not meet these criteria may not vote. No additional requirements to vote may be added, however, without amending your bylaws.

Good information by all as usual.  The question with this portion is the lifetime members which enjoy all privileges of membership. Would they not be provided with the privileges of active and active exempt even though they may not currently fall into that membership category?

[Atul Kapur]

17 hours ago, fixter said:

Our bylaws state that you have to be an active or active exempt member in good standing and completed your initial probationary period to vote in the election. Those are 2 of the 4 categories of membership as defined in the bylaws. After these 4 categories there is an additional one for lifetime members that have reached 15 years of service. It states that they enjoy all the privileges of membership.

 

4 hours ago, fixter said:

The question with this portion is the lifetime members which enjoy all privileges of membership. Would they not be provided with the privileges of active and active exempt even though they may not currently fall into that membership category?

As you have described them, the bylaws appear to have an ambiguity regarding the rights of Life Members to vote in elections. This is to be resolved by the assembly. It sounds like you have previously interpreted the bylaws to allow Life Members to vote. This sets a precedent but is not necessarily binding on future decisions. Much better to amend your bylaws to remove the ambiguity.

There are others here who may wish you to quote the bylaws exactly and then provide more specific advice. In the end, the final decision remains in the hands of your organization.

[fixter]

2 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

 

As you have described them, the bylaws appear to have an ambiguity regarding the rights of Life Members to vote in elections. This is to be resolved by the assembly. It sounds like you have previously interpreted the bylaws to allow Life Members to vote. This sets a precedent but is not necessarily binding on future decisions. Much better to amend your bylaws to remove the ambiguity.

There are others here who may wish you to quote the bylaws exactly and then provide more specific advice. In the end, the final decision remains in the hands of your organization.

Section 1 Membership of this Company shall be divided into four classes: active, active exempt, exempt and social members.

Bylaws go on the describe each....

Section 5. Life Membership. Life Membership shall be conferred upon all members of the company who have completed 15 years of active service. Life Members shall retain all privileges of membership in the Company, but shall not be required to pay dues and shall receive a special pin to signify completion of 15 years of service. Life Members will also be entitled to keep their key.

Life Members who do not perform any of the duties of a member of the company for a period of time of one year will have their status changed to Inactive Life Member. They shall forfeit all privileges and rights of membership. If they desire, they may reapply for membership in the regular manner, as a new member.

So the way I have always looked at it the LT members are a separate category from those described in the membership. They gave 15 years of service and are being recognized for it. It is ambiguous and reads to me that they enjoy the privileges of the 4 categories until they have done absolutely nothing for a year.

[Atul Kapur]

First, I will just note with interest that "Life Membership" has a very short life span.

It appears to me that you actually have six categories of membership, no matter what section 1 says. Or, actually, five categories because Inactive Life is the same as non-membership.

12 hours ago, fixter said:

reads to me that they enjoy the privileges of the 4 categories until they have done absolutely nothing for a year.

But you told us in your original post that only 2 of the 4 categories have the right to vote in elections. So the Life Members cannot "enjoy the privileges of the 4 categories" because they aren't the same for the 4 categories. There's the source of your ambiguity. 

Your assembly is than one that interprets the bylaws when there is an ambiguity. If you don't want to have an argument every year, amend your bylaws to remove the ambiguity.

Edited November 7, 2018 at 06:04 AM by Atul Kapur
Corrected typo

[fixter]

9 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

First, I will just note with interest that "Life Membership" has a very short life span.

It appears to me that you actually have six categories of membership, no matter what section 1 says. Or, actually, five categories because Inactive Life is the same as non-membership.

But you told us in your original post that only 2 of the 4 categories have the right to vote in elections. So the Life Members cannot "enjoy the privileges of the 4 categories" because they aren't the same for the 4 categories. There's the source of your ambiguity. 

Your assembly is than one that interprets the bylaws when there is an ambiguity. If you don't want to have an argument every year, amend your bylaws to remove the ambiguity.

 I've often been told that our bylaws were originally intended to not be cut and dried so things could be discussed with membership. I guess it is ultimately up to membership to decide these things. The hard part is that it is the entire membership that decides and not a select few that want to.

 At any rate we held our elections last night. Votes were done properly by ballot even for unopposed positions. Only one person was excluded from the vote by not meeting the criteria that membership decided on.

 I strongly encouraged people who did not like the way the bylaws are to start working on changes now. It is a 3 month process to do it so waiting until a month before elections is not going to work

Thanks for the input!