Revoting After Ballots Have Been Counted

[Guest Sarah]

A hobbyist group of which I am a former member is currently having a heated debate over election proceedings during a recent meeting.

Common procedure is to have all candidates for a position deliver a speech and answer questions while their opponents wait in another room. Once all nominees have had the chance to give their speeches and answer questions, members discuss them while the nominees wait in the antechamber. After this discussion, secret ballots are cast, counted immediately by three overseeing members, and then the nominees are invited back in and the winner is announced.

Recently, this procedure was followed up to the point that the ballots were counted, but rather than invite the candidates in and declaring the winner, the club president told everyone who had won, by what margin they had won (it was allegedly a considerable margin), and motioned to reopen discussion of the candidates so that she could pass control of the floor to a subordinate and criticize the winning candidate. This set off a long, heated, personal debate over both procedure and etiquette, culminating in a motion to revote, which saw a different candidate win by a margin of a single vote.

There were allegedly no irregularities in the ballots or how they were counted.

My question is about whether or not Robert's Rules has anything to say on this matter, and if so, where in the tome it may be found.

The current justification for this process was that because motions were presented and passed by a majority of members present, it doesn't matter that they deviated from the process laid out in any rules or bylaws, or that they deviated from custom, which in the past has been treated as a disturbance of the meeting even when no rules were broken.

Others claim that because the ballots had been cast and tallied, that the election was technically complete and thus the discussion and revote were out of order and the results of the second election are illegitimate. That group maintains that the only proper way to arrive at that second discussion and vote would have been to remove the first winner from the office and then proceed through a new nomination and election cycle.

Any guidance on this matter is much appreciate.

[Rob Elsman]

Insofar as I can determine from the facts given, there does not seem to be any continuing breach of the rules, and the interval of time within which to contest the election has now expired. Congratulations to your new officers.

[Guest Sarah]

That raises the additional question of what the accepted time window is to contest an election, and whether or not the candidate's knowledge of what transpired factors into it. The group allegedly adjourned immediately after the election and the appointment of the new officers, so the candidates themselves didn't learn about what had transpired until days later, some much sooner than others. Did those with objections lose their right to protest because they were out of the chamber? Or should they have filed an objection immediately upon hearing about what happened?

And still, I want to be certain that even if the binding rules of the election state that each candidate shall have X time to make a speech, Y time for questions, shall wait outside while other candidates make their own cases and while the club deliberates over them and votes, and then that the club shall vote by secret ballot and then the candidates shall be invited to return and the winner announced, you can actually insert a motion anywhere in there, even between the votes being counted and the candidate being informed that they won, and go back to discussion or hold another vote, effectively throwing out the previous results.

Does that imply that so long as the required number of voting members present supports a motion, you could do any number of things between counting ballots and swearing in your new officers? Could the candidates have been invited back in, informed of the first winner, and then a motion for a discussion and a re-vote could have taken place legitimately because the declared winners had not been sworn in yet?

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Guest Sarah said:

Recently, this procedure was followed up to the point that the ballots were counted, but rather than invite the candidates in and declaring the winner, the club president told everyone who had won, by what margin they had won (it was allegedly a considerable margin), and motioned to reopen discussion of the candidates so that she could pass control of the floor to a subordinate and criticize the winning candidate. This set off a long, heated, personal debate over both procedure and etiquette, culminating in a motion to revote, which saw a different candidate win by a margin of a single vote.

There were allegedly no irregularities in the ballots or how they were counted.

My question is about whether or not Robert's Rules has anything to say on this matter, and if so, where in the tome it may be found.

 

1 hour ago, Rob Elsman said:

Insofar as I can determine from the facts given, there does not seem to be any continuing breach of the rules, and the interval of time within which to contest the election has now expired. Congratulations to your new officers.

I'm not so sure that I agree with Mr. Elsman's position.  There are at least two reasons.

First, I don't see where the OP (Guest Sarah) ever told us when this election took place.  Therefore, there is no basis for us to conclude that "the interval of time within which to contest the election has now expired" as Mr. Elsman opined.  A recount, for example, may be generally be ordered at the same session or at the next session if within a quarterly time interval.  Also, if the first election was a valid and completed election, the second election may be challenged as long as the purported winner is still in office.  There is no other time  limit in that case.

Second, I believe the first election may in  fact have been completed and valid.  Although Guest Sarah said "rather than invite the candidates in and declaring the winner, the club president told everyone who had won, by what margin they had won (it was allegedly a considerable margin)" . . . .   Her own statement says "the club president told everyone who had won, by what margin they had won".  That sounds to me like declaring the winner.

If it does in fact amount to declaring the results of the election, then the exception on page 445 to the general rule that a point of order must be made at the time of the breach is rendered inapplicable and a point of order may be raised at any time during the continuance of the breach.  Specifically, the following provision on page 445 would apply if the "first election" was indeed a completed election:  "If there was a previously valid election for the same term, the subsequent election of another is the adoption of a main motion conflicting with one still in force."   It looks  like that just might be exactly what happened.  According to Guest Sarah, the president did in fact declare to the assembly who the winners of the election were and what the vote totals were.  That sure sounds like declaring the results of the election. If that is what happened, then the 2nd election is invalid and a point of order to that effect may be raised at any time during the continuance of the breach.

In short, this appears to be largely a factual question as to whether the president's initial declaring the winners of the "first election" finalized the election.   I believe the way to resolve that dispute is by someone raising a point of order at the next meeting (or at any meeting as long as the purported winner of the second election is in office) that the second election is null and void on the basis that someone  else had already been elected to the position earlier in the meeting.   The chair will rule on the point of order and his ruling can be appealed to the assembly.   I question whether we, on this forum, based on the facts presented, can state which election we believe is the valid election.  This appears to be quite a mess and is a good example of why proper procedure should be followed.

Note:  I see that Guest Sarah made another post while  I was typing this one.  At this time I am not commenting on her new post.

  

 

 

[Rob Elsman]

The truth of the matter is that what occurred so little resembles the proper procedures for an election that it is clear that nobody, including, but not limited to, the president, was prepared to carry out an election in accordance with the rules. It strikes me as odd to go through such an extemporaneous and chaotic meeting and afterward pull out the rules and nitpick what happened. There is no point trying to "unscramble the egg". I advise moving on. All of you spend this term studying the rules and training for the next election, and do it right.

[Richard Brown]

Guest  Sarah, were the candidates permitted to vote in both elections?  If not, please elaborate.

[Atul Kapur]

8 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

If it does in fact amount to declaring the results of the election, then the exception on page 445 to the general rule that a point of order must be made at the time of the breach is rendered inapplicable and a point of order may be raised at any time during the continuance of the breach.  Specifically, the following provision on page 445 would apply if the "first election" was indeed a completed election:  "If there was a previously valid election for the same term, the subsequent election of another is the adoption of a main motion conflicting with one still in force."   It looks  like that just might be exactly what happened.  According to Guest Sarah, the president did in fact declare to the assembly who the winners of the election were and what the vote totals were.  That sure sounds like declaring the results of the election. If that is what happened, then the 2nd election is invalid and a point of order to that effect may be raised at any time during the continuance of the breach.

I agree with this analysis. Timeliness is not an issue here. Multiple errors don't obviate a breach of fundamental principles and rights.

Edited January 29, 2020 at 08:57 PM by Atul Kapur

[Guest Sarah]

2 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Guest  Sarah, were the candidates permitted to vote in both elections?  If not, please elaborate.

Though there is no rule against candidates submitting votes, because they are outside of the room when ballots are cast they do not vote.

 

2 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

If it does in fact amount to declaring the results of the election, then the exception on page 445 to the general rule that a point of order must be made at the time of the breach is rendered inapplicable and a point of order may be raised at any time during the continuance of the breach.  Specifically, the following provision on page 445 would apply if the "first election" was indeed a completed election:  "If there was a previously valid election for the same term, the subsequent election of another is the adoption of a main motion conflicting with one still in force."   It looks  like that just might be exactly what happened. 

This comment was very helpful. Thank you.

 

2 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

The truth of the matter is that what occurred so little resembles the proper procedures for an election that it is clear that nobody, including, but not limited to, the president, was prepared to carry out an election in accordance with the rules. It strikes me as odd to go through such an extemporaneous and chaotic meeting and afterward pull out the rules and nitpick what happened. There is no point trying to "unscramble the egg". I advise moving on. All of you spend this term studying the rules and training for the next election, and do it right.

That is likely precisely what's happening. This is entirely out of character for the club and many feel the need to reaffirm the rules by which it is run. Specifically, many members are upset that many of the presiding officers, including the president, still claim to see no "chaos" or other problems with how the elections went, and would like to present irrefutable rules to correct this behavior now, lest it become normalized in any way.

[Richard Brown]

10 minutes ago, Guest Sarah said:

Though there is no rule against candidates submitting votes, because they are outside of the room when ballots are cast they do not vote.

So they did not vote?  This is problematic, because as members of the society  (organization), they are entitled  to vote.  Voting is a fundamental  right of membership, probably the most fundamental of all rights of membership.   How  many members did not get to vote?  If the votes of those members COULD HAVE affected the result, it is grounds to set aside the election if they were not permitted to vote.  Since the winning candidate won by only one vote, it seems to me that those candidates who were outside the room and not permitted to vote could have affected the result.  However, if they voluntarily gave up their right to vote and essentially abstained, they may well have waived the right to complain. 

 

17 minutes ago, Guest Sarah said:

many feel the need to reaffirm the rules by which it is run. Specifically, many members are upset that many of the presiding officers, including the president, still claim to see no "chaos" or other problems with how the elections went, and would like to present irrefutable rules to correct this behavior now, lest it become normalized in any way.

See to it that the president and as many other officers (and members) as possible have a copy of "The Right Book", Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th edition, abbreviated "RONR".  It is 716 numbered pages. Then follow it!!!  It is a book of RULES, not a book of "suggestions"  or "guidelines".   That is the only authentic current version of Robert's Rules of Order.  

As a more basic alternative, you might consider RONR In Brief, a smaller book of basic rules and procedures published by the Robert's Rules Association and written by the same authorship team as RONR.  It is based on and true to RONR.   I emphasize that it is a book  of BASIC, fundamental rules of procedure.  You will  not find solutions to complex situations in it.  It is intended for those who really know nothing (or very little) about parliamentary procedure. It gives you the basics of how to conduct a meeting.

Here are links to both books:  RONR:    https://www.robertsrules.com/book.html

RONR in Brief:  https://www.robertsrules.com/inbrief.html

You can get them both from Amazon and in most large bookstore.  Do not  accept cheap knockoff versions!

 

[Guest Sarah]

31 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

However, if they voluntarily gave up their right to vote and essentially abstained, they may well have waived the right to complain. 

This would be my assessment of the situation. Because there is no rule against voting if you're a candidate, it's just custom that candidates abstain. In this case, had the candidates been brought back into the room for the vote, it would have prevented this entire situation because the first winner (and likely the second, given my personal judgment of their character) would have protested the deviation from established proceedings on the spot.

I believe the general justification given for the custom of abstention when one is a candidate for office is something flimsy like, "candidates will just vote for themselves so they'll all cancel out," or something similar.

 

37 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

See to it that the president and as many other officers (and members) as possible have a copy of "The Right Book", Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th edition, abbreviated "RONR".  It is 716 numbered pages. Then follow it!!! 

The club itself has a copy per executive position and everyone to occupy an office is encouraged to read their copy, but all too often it's left as a resource to consult after irregularities, rather than a knowledge source to internalize beforehand. I myself own a copy and have read it, but I don't trust myself to fully understand all of it, so I figured I'd ask here to make sure I didn't miss anything important or niche.

[Rob Elsman]

Guest Sarah, I wish to assure you that the book is written to be understood correctly by ordinary readers who approach it in good faith. It says what it means, and it means what it says. There is absolutely no reason why you should not trust your understanding.

Your group should collectively undergo a year-long program in three parts:

• Study. The whole group should study the applicable rules for nominations and elections; points of order; appeals from decisions of the chair; and the roles and duties of presiding officers, secretaries, tellers, and all others who might have a part in elections. There should end up being such general familiarity with the rules that deviations are quickly identified, contested, and corrected.
• Training. The whole group should undergo training in performing the duty of voting. All members need to have such knowledge of how to be a correct voter that all can perform their duty comfortably and confidently. Members who are likely to perform other roles during the election cycle, such as presiding officers, secretaries, tellers, ushers, poll workers, and the sergeant at arms, should also receive additional training in the duties of their particular roles, so that all can perform their duties in strict conformity to the rules, comfortably, and confidently.
• Rehearsal. The whole group should use multiple mock elections to rehearse the whole election cycle until it is clear that all can easily and correctly proceed through the whole cycle in strict conformity to the rules according to their particular roles.

[Guest Zev]

I was struck by the fact that the candidates were brought in one-by-one to present their election pitch, and then escorted out to join the other candidates. This is not the routine during elections, but rather is what happens during trials. The candidates are being treated like defendants waiting for their verdicts of whether they are guilty or not guilty. This organization would do itself a great favor by ditching this practice altogether.

[Rob Elsman]

It reminds me of cattle brought to auction before slaughter. 😆

[Richard Brown]

I am aware that many organizations have a custom of having the candidates wait outside and then come in and speak and answer questions one by one with the other candidates waiting outside and then permitting the assembly to discuss the candidates while they are still outside. But I’m struggling to think of an organization that does not permit the candidates to come back in to vote!

[Guest Sarah]

6 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

I was struck by the fact that the candidates were brought in one-by-one to present their election pitch, and then escorted out to join the other candidates. This is not the routine during elections, but rather is what happens during trials. The candidates are being treated like defendants waiting for their verdicts of whether they are guilty or not guilty. This organization would do itself a great favor by ditching this practice altogether.

My understanding of the practice is that it was created to keep candidates presenting their pitches later in the queue from "stealing" ideas from those who went first. The club is heavily based on creative projects and apparently there were a few cases several years ago of people thinking up novel spins on the project ideas pitched by people who preceded them in the queue, so they incorporated those ideas into their pitches and ultimately won even though they had not thought of the project that won them the election before seeing one of their opponents present a similar project.

I would personally rather see a solution like pitches being presented to the secretary ahead of time and the speeches confined to those items than see the candidates exiled from the room if only because it prevents them from making their own observations or asking their own questions of their opponents.

5 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I am aware that many organizations have a custom of having the candidates wait outside and then come in and speak and answer questions one by one with the other candidates waiting outside and then permitting the assembly to discuss the candidates while they are still outside. But I’m struggling to think of an organization that does not permit the candidates to come back in to vote!

This is one item I'm definitely relaying back to the pertinent officers. It makes no sense to keep the candidates out of the room for the vote.