Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Disenfranchised vote


Quest

Recommended Posts

Good morning, 

First, let me just say I am grateful for this site. Your experience has been immensely helpful.

We are in the process of creating new Bylaws. A board director wants to add a clause about legally documenting the vote specifically our annual or special meeting votes for officers, bylaw or Article changes.

In the past we had 'tellers' who count and verify the count...whether by ballot or hand raised count. Now as I understand from reading once the Chair states the motion carried or the ______ was adopted that the vote is now legally binding. I have no problem with requiring, say a notary, to sign the official count for record but to me that does not make it more legal.

The objective of the member is to empower members months or even years later to challenge a decision made. (She does not trust the president that was chair at that time and disagrees with the vote/decision made. She believes members should be able to state that decision is null and void if such affirming documents such as the notary are not present. MY contention is that a board could actually neglect to properly take such action and disenfranchise the vote.

Am I wrong that the VOTE stated at that meeting is legal and final and such additional burden creates an undo burden that could compromise the vote?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that it sounds like you would just be inviting trouble. If she doesn't trust the chair (or the tellers) then she should make her point at the time.

See page 408-409 on time limits on efforts to challenge a vote. If she proposes this as a bylaw amendment, show that to here and ask her to explain why she can't make her challenge at the time the vote occurs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Atul Kapur said:

I agree that it sounds like you would just be inviting trouble. If she doesn't trust the chair (or the tellers) then she should make her point at the time.

See page 408-409 on time limits on efforts to challenge a vote. If she proposes this as a bylaw amendment, show that to here and ask her to explain why she can't make her challenge at the time the vote occurs.

 

Thank you...That makes perfect sense...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Quest said:

In the past we had 'tellers' who count and verify the count...whether by ballot or hand raised count. Now as I understand from reading once the Chair states the motion carried or the ______ was adopted that the vote is now legally binding. I have no problem with requiring, say a notary, to sign the official count for record but to me that does not make it more legal.

Whether and when the vote is "legally binding" is a question for an attorney.

I agree that, as a parliamentary matter, the result of the vote is final when it is announced by the chair, and whether or not it has been signed by (say, a notary) has no bearing. There are also guidelines in RONR concerning timelines for requesting a recount or raising a Point of Order.

1 hour ago, Quest said:

The objective of the member is to empower members months or even years later to challenge a decision made. (She does not trust the president that was chair at that time and disagrees with the vote/decision made. She believes members should be able to state that decision is null and void if such affirming documents such as the notary are not present. MY contention is that a board could actually neglect to properly take such action and disenfranchise the vote

This member's suggestion has several layers of problems. :)

Generally speaking, a Point of Order must be raised at the time of the breach in order for it to be timely. In some particularly egregious cases, however, a violation constitutes a continuing breach. In such cases, a Point of Order may be raised at a later time (even months or years later). There are also rules governing the timelines for a recount. These rules are discussed in RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 250-251, 408-409, 418-419. Alternately, if members acknowledge that the decision was valid but wish to rescind the unexecuted portion of the decision, there are rules for that.

The member's objective "to empower members months or even years later to challenge a decision made" (for reasons other than those for which this is already possible) is likely unwise. The timeliness requirement exists for very good reasons - it is not helpful for the society's decisions to be challenged months or years later on the basis of minor irregularities. Even to the extent that the society felt this was a worthwhile goal, however, the member's proposed solution doesn't make any sense. If it is desired to permit members to challenge decisions at a later time, it would make the most sense to adopt rules permitting more leniency in the timeliness of Points of Order, not to invent meaningless and arbitrary requirements, and to then make those meaningless and arbitrary requirements the basis for the challenge.

It is also not at all clear to me that, even if this rule was adopted, it is actually true that a "decision is null and void if such affirming documents such as the notary are not present." I am not certain that failure to have such a signature would be a continuing breach as a parliamentary matter, so if this is what is desired, this should probably be explicitly stated in the rule. (Failure to have these signatures (if required by the bylaws) may or may not have legal implications, but that is a question for an attorney.)

1 hour ago, Quest said:

Am I wrong that the VOTE stated at that meeting is legal and final and such additional burden creates an undo burden that could compromise the vote?

No, I agree entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the above responses, particularly Mr. Honemann's. I'd just add that the OP was phrased in terms of legal requirements, and we don't comment on those here. I'd also add that the reference to notarization is also misplaced. Notarization ensures that the correct person signed the document, not that the contents are correct. (Sometimes, notaries also administer oaths, but even then, the notary is only verifying that the person took the oath.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/14/2020 at 7:24 PM, Joshua Katz said:

I agree with the above responses, particularly Mr. Honemann's. I'd just add that the OP was phrased in terms of legal requirements, and we don't comment on those here. I'd also add that the reference to notarization is also misplaced. Notarization ensures that the correct person signed the document, not that the contents are correct. (Sometimes, notaries also administer oaths, but even then, the notary is only verifying that the person took the oath.)

Good points...thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...