Stan Duffy Posted June 7, 2020 at 10:16 PM Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2020 at 10:16 PM Wow! Thanks everybody for these diverse comments. I don't feel it is fair to say that I don't care though. I truly DO care and is exactly why I asked the question - to try and make sure we do the right thing. Fortunately our candidate for President decided to stay on as a candidate and he won the election, so (for us) the issue is moot. One thing is clear to me - if we are to permit electronic voting in future we need a Bylaw amendment to expressly allow this and we will pursue that. With the reluctance of many people to gather in large groups at present, as a board (and I believe as an organization) there is preference to avoid having to put one's health/life at risk in order to exercise one's democratic right to vote. We will find out when we put the Bylaw amendment to the membership for approval. Again, thanks SO much for your input. Stay safe! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted June 7, 2020 at 11:41 PM Report Share Posted June 7, 2020 at 11:41 PM 1 hour ago, Stan Duffy said: I don't feel it is fair to say that I don't care though. I truly DO care and is exactly why I asked the question - to try and make sure we do the right thing. Fortunately our candidate for President decided to stay on as a candidate and he won the election, so (for us) the issue is moot. I think it is perfectly fair, in view of the second sentence. If (for you) the fact that no valid election took place is moot, that's pretty strong evidence. You are saying that although you are fully aware that no valid election took place, you are willing to ignore that and simply say someone was elected. To me that does not fit the description of doing the right thing. But good luck with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Duffy Posted June 8, 2020 at 06:19 PM Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2020 at 06:19 PM To Gary - You have seriously misunderstood my language and intent. I said that 'the issue is moot' because the candidate who has initially said he might withdraw actually stayed on and was elected President. The 'issue' that is moot is the only issue that I brought up - what to do if the sole candidate withdraws. Since he didn't withdraw, the 'issue' is moot, by definition. How is that any indication that I don't care? It is only relief that a potentially very awkward situation has been avoided. Nowhere do I say that I am rejoicing "an invalid election". It is by no means clear to me that our election was invalid. I appreciate your opinion but please don't be rude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted June 8, 2020 at 06:34 PM Report Share Posted June 8, 2020 at 06:34 PM (edited) 15 minutes ago, Stan Duffy said: To Gary - You have seriously misunderstood my language and intent. I said that 'the issue is moot' because the candidate who has initially said he might withdraw actually stayed on and was elected President. The 'issue' that is moot is the only issue that I brought up - what to do if the sole candidate withdraws. Since he didn't withdraw, the 'issue' is moot, by definition. How is that any indication that I don't care? It is only relief that a potentially very awkward situation has been avoided. Nowhere do I say that I am rejoicing "an invalid election". It is by no means clear to me that our election was invalid. I appreciate your opinion but please don't be rude. I agree that the question of the candidate withdrawing is moot. I think many of us read your statements as saying that the question of conducting the election electronically was moot, but perhaps this was not your intent. Since you say that you are, in fact, interested in our opinions of the validity of the election itself, and that it is simply not yet clear to you whether the election was invalid, I reiterate my earlier comments on this matter. If you have any additional questions or additional facts to add to that discussion, I would be interested to hear them. Oh, I quite agree with those who say that the entire election is invalid since we are told that the interpretation that electronic voting is permitted is based solely on the argument that the words "by ballot" are "vague/no-specific and that it was open enough to interpretation that we could vote electronically." If the organization has adopted RONR as its parliamentary authority, this argument is clearly wrong on the face of it. "It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the right to vote is limited to the members of an organization who are actually present at the time the vote is taken in a regular or properly called meeting, although it should be noted that a member need not be present when the question is put. Exceptions to this rule must be expressly stated in the bylaws." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 424, emphasis added) Edited June 8, 2020 at 06:35 PM by Josh Martin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted June 8, 2020 at 11:17 PM Report Share Posted June 8, 2020 at 11:17 PM 4 hours ago, Stan Duffy said: I said that 'the issue is moot' because the candidate who has initially said he might withdraw actually stayed on and was elected President. I am trying to be helpful but I must not understand what I'm reading. You say that this candidate stayed on and was elected, but is it not the case that this "election" was held electronically and is therefore invalid? If that is the case, then in what sense was he "elected"? If that's not the case then I shall try to reread this more carefully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts