Ineligible Candidate Elected and Cast Proxy Votes

[Guest James Riley]

A bit of a mess that as a Member of the Association being discussed, I'm trying to sort through. 

At the most recent Annual meeting (a couple weeks ago), all three Board of Director positions were open for election as two positions had lapsed their terms and one was vacant due to a resignation several years ago. The President of the Board chaired the meeting at which the election was held and utilized proxy votes (as dictated in Association By-Laws) to essentially override the vote of the Members present to select the Board election winners including themself, the previous remaining Board member, and a new Board member. The proxy votes were utilized and Members were upset because of their use and lack of awareness among the Members on how and when the proxy votes can be used, but shame on the Members for not understanding how the proxy votes work. Also, no announcement was made about the number of votes and no minutes or Election Teller's Report has been released since the meeting adjourned. There have been people talking about the numbers and what they recall from being involved in the count or talking to those who were, this makes it difficult to understand how the vote could be affected by different factors involved in the next paragraph. 

A week later the newly elected Board sits down to have their first official Board meeting when it is discovered that the longstanding Board member that has been presiding as President is notified that they do not meet the criteria for membership let alone a Board position per the Association By-Laws. The ineligible Board Member was asked to turn over Association property to another Board member to which they eventually complied. 

In discussing this with other Members we are wondering what exactly should be done at this point. 

 

Questions:

1. Is it necessary to go through a formal Board removal process dictated in the Association By-Laws? It seems generally understood that the Board member was not eligible for Membership and even was potentially aware of the breach for quite a while and did not work to resolve the breach. In fact, it seems the Board member has allowed other people to join as Members with the same breach as themselves. 

2. Is an entire new election for all three Board positions in order? The ineligible Board member cast their own vote as well as those of proxy votes in the election. Without the vote tally from the Election Teller's Report or in the meeting minutes, it becomes dependent on hearsay and people's recollection in order to reconstruct the vote. Also, at this time given the political turmoil, anything produced from the Secretary at the meeting related to the vote count or the actual ballots (if they still exist) would be lacking in credibility. 

3. In the ballot election for three Board positions, voting members were instructed to list the three names of the candidates they wished to elect to the Board. If a Member votes for the same person multiple (two or three) times, does that count as one vote or multiple votes for the person named? It would occur to me that would count as a single vote for the candidate while counting it as three votes cast in the total. I may be missing where this is covered in RONR and is an obvious question and answer. 

 

Thank you for your help as we work through this.

[Atul Kapur]

RONR doesn't allow proxy votes so any answers relating to them should be in your bylaws. 

Do your bylaws require that the proxy holder be a member?

Do your bylaws require that the presiding officer at a meeting be a member?

Re your Question 3: do your bylaws authorize Cumulative Voting? That sounds like what you are describing. See p. 443-4.

 

[Guest James Riley]

If I'm understanding the Association By-Laws correctly, Membership is defined at the beginning of the document and implies that the rest of the document is applicable to Members. I don't believe anything in the By-Laws states to rules applying to non-members directly. The By-Laws do provide for proxies, which begins "At all meetings of Members, each Member may vote in person or by proxy." Then, the section goes on to describe how to file them and how they can revoked or expire over time. There isn't a direct statement saying the proxy holder is a Member, but I take that as established by the earlier section establishing membership. For example, I wouldn't see it as legal for a non-member to be at the meeting and place proxy votes or votes of any kind. 

For the presiding officer, I don't see anything that directly states that the presiding officer of the meeting has to be a Member. However, an attorney was consulted on the Membership question and it was established that only Members can be Board Members. The By-Laws state that the President of the Board shall preside at all meetings and then the VP acts in the President's absence. While the By-Laws don't state directly that non-members can or can't preside over meetings, I would take as implied or established. 

Reading RONR p. 443-444 on cumulative voting, this sounds like exactly what transpired. Thank you. Though it was not stated at the meeting that the voting was a cumulative vote. It was presented as "Write three names on a piece of paper and turn it in." I'm not necessarily calling foul on this, it just seems to muddy the waters of an already confusing situation. I wish it had been more clearly explained. 

[Guest James Riley]

I should add that the Association By-Laws don't seem to dictate an election or voting method for the Board election. Just states "All eligible members of the Association shall vote on all Directors to be elected, and the candidate(s) receiving the most votes shall be elected."

[Atul Kapur]

1 hour ago, Guest James Riley said:

There isn't a direct statement saying the proxy holder is a Member, but I take that as established by the earlier section establishing membership. For example, I wouldn't see it as legal for a non-member to be at the meeting and place proxy votes or votes of any kind.

That is an assumption that is open to interpretation and challenge. I don't believe it is a standard assumption for proxies.

1 hour ago, Guest James Riley said:

Reading RONR p. 443-444 on cumulative voting, this sounds like exactly what transpired. ... I'm not necessarily calling foul on this, it just seems to muddy the waters of an already confusing situation. I wish it had been more clearly explained. 

As cumulative voting "violates the fundamental principle of parliamentary law that each member is entitled to one and only one vote on a question" it needs to be explicitly provided for in the bylaws. So I would call foul on this unless you find it in your bylaws. (RONR 11th ed., p. 444, lines 5-7)

[Weldon Merritt]

2 hours ago, Guest James Riley said:

For the presiding officer, I don't see anything that directly states that the presiding officer of the meeting has to be a Member. However, an attorney was consulted on the Membership question and it was established that only Members can be Board Members. The By-Laws state that the President of the Board shall preside at all meetings and then the VP acts in the President's absence. While the By-Laws don't state directly that non-members can or can't preside over meetings, I would take as implied or established. 

 

Dr. Kapur didn't address this issue, so I will. You didn't say how "it was established that only Members can be Board Members." You said "an attorney was consulted," but so what? Did the attorney just assert "that only Members can be Board Members," or cite some authority for that conclusion?

While it is customary in most organizations that the officers be chosen from among the members, RONR does not impose any such requirement. If one exists, it must come form some other source. If I understand you correctly, your bylaws are silent on any such requirement; so unless there is some such requirement in a higher-level authority, such as a corporate charter or an applicable statute, it does not exist.

[Guest James Riley]

Dr. Kapur:

I'll have to look into the proxy holder question more. I'm not seeing anything in the By-Laws that states the conditions of who holds the proxy. The section before proxies states that each Member is entitled to one vote. Then the proxy section follows. I'm not sure it answers the question, but you have me thinking and looking for anything that defines who can hold the proxy and I don't think it directly states that. 

I'll bring up the cumulative voting issue. So, by that issue alone you would see as reason enough to conduct an entire new election?

 

Mr. Merritt:

Thank you for your question on the Board, that made me look for the particular clause. The Board section stipulates that the Directors on the Board shall be members. That was lapse on my part in explaining it. 

 

[Josh Martin]

On 6/21/2020 at 8:25 AM, Guest James Riley said:

1. Is it necessary to go through a formal Board removal process dictated in the Association By-Laws? It seems generally understood that the Board member was not eligible for Membership and even was potentially aware of the breach for quite a while and did not work to resolve the breach. In fact, it seems the Board member has allowed other people to join as Members with the same breach as themselves. 

If it is in fact correct that the individual in question is (and was) ineligible to serve as President, then a Point of Order may be raised that the election is null and void due to this fact, followed by an Appeal if necessary. The same process could be followed in regard to the person's position as a member. Formal disciplinary procedures are not required if the person's election as President (or as a member) are invalid from the start.

(Of course, it now seems the entire election is invalid, which may make this issue moot.)

On 6/21/2020 at 8:25 AM, Guest James Riley said:

2. Is an entire new election for all three Board positions in order?

Based on the facts presented, I am inclined to think a new election is required. In my view, a member should raise a Point of Order that the election is null and void due to the cumulative voting, followed by an Appeal if necessary. If the election is ultimately determined to be null and void, a new election will need to be held.

On 6/21/2020 at 8:25 AM, Guest James Riley said:

The ineligible Board member cast their own vote as well as those of proxy votes in the election.

If the person was not eligible to be a member, their own vote was invalid. As for proxy votes, it is ultimately up to your bylaws to determine the rules regarding such votes, such as whether a person must be a member in order to hold proxies and cast proxy votes. In the event this person was not eligible to be a member and the proxy votes can only be cast by a member, then the proxy votes are invalid. These would invalidate the election if the number of invalid votes was enough to potentially affect the result, although this could be difficult to determine since no results were ever announced. This should be corrected in future elections. The teller's report must be read in full (twice, actually - once by the chairman of tellers and once by the presiding officer) and recorded in full in the minutes.

On 6/21/2020 at 8:25 AM, Guest James Riley said:

Also, no announcement was made about the number of votes and no minutes or Election Teller's Report has been released since the meeting adjourned.

This is extremely problematic but, in and of itself, it is not sufficient to invalidate the election.

On 6/21/2020 at 8:25 AM, Guest James Riley said:

lso, at this time given the political turmoil, anything produced from the Secretary at the meeting related to the vote count or the actual ballots (if they still exist) would be lacking in credibility. 

This has no parliamentary significance.

On 6/21/2020 at 8:25 AM, Guest James Riley said:

3. In the ballot election for three Board positions, voting members were instructed to list the three names of the candidates they wished to elect to the Board. If a Member votes for the same person multiple (two or three) times, does that count as one vote or multiple votes for the person named? It would occur to me that would count as a single vote for the candidate while counting it as three votes cast in the total. I may be missing where this is covered in RONR and is an obvious question and answer. 

It should be counted as a single vote for the candidate and as a single vote cast, unless the organization's bylaws explicitly permit cumulative voting. Members may vote for up to three candidates, but they cannot vote for the same person multiple times. Additionally, in an election for multiple persons, a ballot is treated as one vote cast.

If cumulative voting is not authorized in the bylaws (which does not appear to be the case), then permitting members to do so is a violation of the fundamental principle of parliamentary law that each member may vote once (and only once). As a result, any excess votes are (in effect) votes cast by ineligible voters. If there are enough such votes that they could have affected the total, the election is null and void. Since in this case it is theoretically possible that as many as 2/3 of the votes are such votes, this seems to me to be sufficient grounds to rule the election null and void even without the actual tally of votes.

22 hours ago, Guest James Riley said:

Membership is defined at the beginning of the document and implies that the rest of the document is applicable to Members... There isn't a direct statement saying the proxy holder is a Member, but I take that as established by the earlier section establishing membership.

I don't find this argument to be terribly persuasive.

It might be a non-issue for now, since I think the cumulative voting alone is sufficient to invalidate the election, but I strongly advise the organization to amend its bylaws in the future. If the organization wishes to require that only members can hold proxies, this should be explicitly stated.

22 hours ago, Guest James Riley said:

While the By-Laws don't state directly that non-members can or can't preside over meetings, I would take as implied or established. 

Again, I would not rely on "implied or established."

I also don't think it's a good idea to prohibit non-members from presiding altogether. If the organization wants to have a rule that only non-members may be officers, that's fine and not at all unusual. It may be desirable, however, not to adopt a rule explicitly prohibiting non-members from presiding. At times (such as when particularly controversial items are expected), it is sometimes desirable to invite a neutral third party (such as a professional parliamentarian) to preside.

17 hours ago, Guest James Riley said:

I'll bring up the cumulative voting issue. So, by that issue alone you would see as reason enough to conduct an entire new election?

In my view, yes, the cumulative voting issue alone is sufficient to require the organization to conduct a new election. I think it is actually the best issue of the three to target, since 1) there is no ambiguity on whether cumulative voting is permitted (while there may be ambiguity regarding the other issues), and 2) it seems easy enough to conclude that there were sufficient votes to affect the result, which may be difficult for the other issues given the lack of a count.

Edited June 22, 2020 at 04:05 PM by Josh Martin

[Richard Brown]

16 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

 If the organization wants to have a rule that only non-members may be officers, that's fine and not at all unusual.

Is that what you meant to say? I agree that such a rule would be permissible, but I think it would be exceedingly unusual.

[Josh Martin]

33 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Is that what you meant to say? I agree that such a rule would be permissible, but I think it would be exceedingly unusual.

Yes, that would be unusual. I think that was supposed to say "members."

Edited June 22, 2020 at 04:05 PM by Josh Martin

[Guest James Riley]

Sincerely appreciate the questions and help with this process and the questions raised. This back and forth is causing me to look for and research items I had not considered earlier as I learn more about this. 

The Association By-Laws provide a method for the Members to petition for a Special Meeting. Several Members and I have been speaking with other Members and collecting signatures for a petition to hold a Special Meeting to conduct a new election per the issues already discussed in this thread. The process it seems to me would be to get this petition signed by enough Members per the Association's By-Laws and deliver to the remaining Board members in order to hold the meeting. Would the process be to declare a Point of Order at the beginning of this Special Meeting stating that the recently held election results are null and void due to the cumulative voting procedure and other issues? 

[Josh Martin]

15 minutes ago, Guest James Riley said:

Would the process be to declare a Point of Order at the beginning of this Special Meeting stating that the recently held election results are null and void due to the cumulative voting procedure and other issues?

I might suggest focusing solely on the cumulative voting rather than getting into an argument over the other issues (which I think are less clear-cut), but yes, that would be the correct course of action. The chair would then rule this point well taken (meaning he agrees) or not well taken (meaning he disagrees) and would explain his reasoning. A member could then Appeal from the chairman's ruling, and if this is seconded, that would place the decision in the hands of the assembly. After debate, the vote is taken on the question "Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?" A majority vote in the negative is required to overturn the chair's ruling.

Assuming that the assembly concludes that the election is null and void, it could then proceed to conduct a new election.

[Atul Kapur]

Are you specifying that the purpose of the special meeting is to decide issues arising from the election?

[Guest James Riley]

Thank you. I agree focusing on the one issue makes the discussion more focused and clear cut than trying to touch the many points and issues with the recently held election. 

The petition we took to members specified per Association By-Laws the date, time, place, and the purpose of the meeting. In the petition we stated that the purpose was to hold a new election per the issues with the recently held election and provided information related to those issues. The Association By-Laws state that 25% of the members must sign the petition and that the President of the Association shall call the meeting with the petition. This is where it gets interesting...

The petition was sent via certified mail signature required (US Postal) and the tracking information indicated that the petition was delivered to the Board President today in the afternoon. This evening a notice (via electronic messaging system used by the Board) was sent from the Board of a Special Meeting to be held to discuss and vote on amendments to the By-Laws. The notice from the Board makes no mention of the specifics of the amendments to be proposed, discussed, or voted upon. There was no discussion of the petition received by the Board President today before this notice of the Special Meeting for the By-Laws amendments was sent out to the members of the Association. 

Now my question changes a bit, is there a clause or anything in RONR relating to time of receipt of a petition such as this to the Board before the Board sends out their own notice of another meeting? It seems that the Board has chosen to ignore the receipt of the petition and is proceeding to conduct their own Special Meeting without consideration of the petition. 

Second question, given that the Special Meeting notice to amend the Association By-Laws does not contain the details of the amendments to be proposed and voted upon, this violates the process for By-Laws amendment in RONR correct? The Association By-Laws do not detail the process to amend them, so my understanding is that it would default to RONR as the By-Laws cite RONR for Parliamentary Rules. 

Apologies for the many and changing questions, the situation seems to be changing very quickly. 

[Josh Martin]

9 hours ago, Guest James Riley said:

Now my question changes a bit, is there a clause or anything in RONR relating to time of receipt of a petition such as this to the Board before the Board sends out their own notice of another meeting?

No.

9 hours ago, Guest James Riley said:

It seems that the Board has chosen to ignore the receipt of the petition and is proceeding to conduct their own Special Meeting without consideration of the petition. 

I'm not sure we can necessarily assume that (although it is possible, and this would be improper). It may be that the President still intends to call the special meeting requested by the members (as required by the bylaws), however, the board has also called another special meeting. There's nothing wrong with that, provided the bylaws grant the board the authority to call special meetings. (The call itself, however, appears to have some problems.)

9 hours ago, Guest James Riley said:

Second question, given that the Special Meeting notice to amend the Association By-Laws does not contain the details of the amendments to be proposed and voted upon, this violates the process for By-Laws amendment in RONR correct? The Association By-Laws do not detail the process to amend them, so my understanding is that it would default to RONR as the By-Laws cite RONR for Parliamentary Rules. 

For starters, if your bylaws are entirely silent regarding their amendment, this should be corrected as soon as possible.

In the interim, it is correct that the default procedures in RONR for amending the bylaws would kick in. In such a case, the bylaws may be amended in two ways:

1.) Notice may be provided of the amendments, either orally at the previous regular meeting if the next regular meeting is within a quarterly interval, or by including the amendments at the call of the meeting. While the notice does not need to include the exact wording of the amendments, it must contain a description of the scope and purport of the amendments. Simply saying "bylaw amendments" doesn't cut it for notice. If such notice is provided, the amendments may be adopted by a 2/3 vote.

2.) Additionally, the bylaws may be amended without notice by a vote of a majority of the entire membership (that is, members who abstain or who are absent would have the same effect as "no" votes.

Option 2 isn't possible in this case, however, since there are also rules for notice of a special meeting, which require a clear and specific description of the subject matter of the motions to be brought up. Again, just saying "bylaw amendments" doesn't cut it.

"Unless the rules require the full text of the motion, resolution, or bylaw amendment to be submitted in the notice, only the purport need be indicated; but such a statement of purport must be accurate and complete—as in 'to raise the annual dues to $20'—since it will determine what amendments are in order when the motion is considered." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 122)

"Special requirements for this motion's adoption should be specified in the bylaws, and they should always include at least notice and a two-thirds vote, which (with a vote of a majority of the entire membership as an allowable alternative) are the requirements for its adoption if such specification in the bylaws is neglected (see pp. 580–82)." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 592)

"A special meeting (or called meeting) is a separate session of a society held at a time different from that of any regular meeting, and convened only to consider one or more items of business specified in the call of the meeting. Notice of the time, place, and purpose of the meeting, clearly and specifically describing the subject matter of the motions or items of business to be brought up, must be sent to all members a reasonable number of days in advance." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 91)

Edited June 30, 2020 at 02:09 PM by Josh Martin

[J. J.]

On 6/21/2020 at 2:01 PM, Guest James Riley said:

Reading RONR p. 443-444 on cumulative voting, this sounds like exactly what transpired. Thank you. Though it was not stated at the meeting that the voting was a cumulative vote. It was presented as "Write three names on a piece of paper and turn it in." I'm not necessarily calling foul on this, it just seems to muddy the waters of an already confusing situation. I wish it had been more clearly explained. 

Cumulative vote, in this case, would be if someone wrote the same name on the paper more than once and that counted as more than one vote for that individual.  In other if A, B, C, and D were all candidates, and someone  wrote B's name three times, it would count as three votes for B.  Is that what happened?

I would say that, if this happened, and it did not effect the result, the election would still be valid, based on p. 416.  In other words, if B won by 20 votes, and had more than majority without the ballot that had B's name written three times, then the election itself would be valid. 

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, J. J. said:

I would say that, if this happened, and it did not effect the result, the election would still be valid, based on p. 416.  In other words, if B won by 20 votes, and had more than majority without the ballot that had B's name written three times, then the election itself would be valid. 

There is a bit of a challenge in applying this rule in the present circumstances, since the results have not been announced, and therefore the assembly does not know how many votes the winning candidates won by.

[J. J.]

6 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

There is a bit of a challenge in applying this rule in the present circumstances, since the results have not been announced, and therefore the assembly does not know how many votes the winning candidates won by.

Well, first the chair or assembly would have to determine that there was a breach of a continuing nature.  Then, if yes, to determine if the breach would have effected the result of the election.

[Atul Kapur]

I I think it is clear that cumulative voting is a continuing breach since it violates the fundamental principle of parliamentary law of one person, one vote. After that has been determined, I believe the standard is whether the breach could have affected the result of the election. In this case, it sounds like it definitely could have done so.

[Guest James Riley]

A bit of any update on the situation as discussed above. 

I asked one of the election vote counters if there were instructions given on how to count the votes and they stated that no instructions were given. I followed up by asking if any of the ballots came in with multiple or repeated names to which they stated that no ballots came in with multiple names. The counter stated that each single ballot (index card) came in with three individual candidate's names on them and no repeated names. 

Since it seems that cumulative voting was not taking place does that nullify that argument? Or is it that since clear instruction were not given that cumulative could have taken place and thus nullifies the election results?

Second, shortly after my last post the Board announced they had amended the By-Laws to fix the breach for this particular member and now with the amended the By-Laws the ineligible candidate is now eligible, but the ineligible candidate resigned a week earlier before the By-Laws were amended. The state laws for where the Association resides give the Board the authority to amend or edit the By-Laws given that the By-Laws don't state (are silent on) their own amendment process, which is the case with these Association By-Laws. 

Would an argument hold that under the original By-Laws the candidate was ineligible and since that ineligible candidate received the most votes of all the candidates this nullifies the election results since the votes cast for this candidate could have gone to other candidates and changed the overall result?

 

Appreciate the help as this is a confusing situation. 

[Atul Kapur]

You definitely could make this argument in a Point of Order, basing your argument on "If an individual does not meet the qualifications for the post established in the bylaws, his or her election is tantamount to adoption of a main motion that conflicts with the bylaws." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 445, lines 19-22)

The presiding officer would rule on the point of order. If they rule against you (aka your point "is not well taken"), then you can Appeal the decision to the meeting (see pages 255-260 of RONR 11th ed.). It takes a majority vote to overturn the chair's ruling.
The takeaway from this is that the judge of whether the election was valid or not is the chair, subject to being overruled by the assembly.

[Josh Martin]

14 hours ago, Guest James Riley said:

Since it seems that cumulative voting was not taking place does that nullify that argument?

Yes.

14 hours ago, Guest James Riley said:

Or is it that since clear instruction were not given that cumulative could have taken place and thus nullifies the election results?

No. If no cumulative voting actually occurred, there is no grounds for a Point of Order on that basis.

There might still be grounds for the Point of Order regarding the proxy voting issue, if it can be determined that 1) the person who cast the proxy votes was, in fact, not a valid member of the society and 2) the bylaws require a proxy holder to be a member of the society, and 3) the number of proxy votes was such that it could have affected the result.

Additionally, there might also still be grounds for a Point of Order regarding the election of the President, if it can be determined that he was not eligible to be President. This would not affect the election of the other board positions, since my understanding is that their eligibility to serve is not in question.

14 hours ago, Guest James Riley said:

Second, shortly after my last post the Board announced they had amended the By-Laws to fix the breach for this particular member and now with the amended the By-Laws the ineligible candidate is now eligible, but the ineligible candidate resigned a week earlier before the By-Laws were amended. The state laws for where the Association resides give the Board the authority to amend or edit the By-Laws given that the By-Laws don't state (are silent on) their own amendment process, which is the case with these Association By-Laws. 

Would an argument hold that under the original By-Laws the candidate was ineligible and since that ineligible candidate received the most votes of all the candidates this nullifies the election results since the votes cast for this candidate could have gone to other candidates and changed the overall result?

If the person in question was not eligible at the time of election, a Point of Order may be raised regarding that basis, notwithstanding the fact that the bylaws were subsequently amended so that the candidate is eligible for the office.

[Guest James Riley]

Mr. Martin, does it matter in terms of this argument if the ineligible candidate received the most votes at the election in question? My thinking is that the results would have been much different if the votes were not cast for the ineligible candidate. 

Answers to you questions:

1. The ineligible candidate is not eligible for membership per the By-Laws. In this particular case, this is a neighborhood association where ownership of the lot within the neighborhood is a requirement for membership and the ineligible candidate in question is a tenant/renter of the lot in the neighborhood and does not own the lot in question. 

2. I don't believe the By-Laws require proxy holders to be Members of the Association. I understand this as a gray area however, the section on voting within the Association By-Laws states that only Members have the right to vote in-person or by proxy. 

3. The ineligible candidate cast the proxy votes which changed the result of the election. The proxy votes cast by the ineligible candidate caused a current Board member to be elected instead of a floor nominated candidate. If the floor candidate had won and allowed to remain on the Board, several actions taken by the Board recently would not have occurred. 

[Josh Martin]

7 minutes ago, Guest James Riley said:

Mr. Martin, does it matter in terms of this argument if the ineligible candidate received the most votes at the election in question?

Yes. If the ineligible candidate didn't win, then there wouldn't be a problem.

7 minutes ago, Guest James Riley said:

My thinking is that the results would have been much different if the votes were not cast for the ineligible candidate. 

Agreed.

8 minutes ago, Guest James Riley said:

Answers to you questions:

1. The ineligible candidate is not eligible for membership per the By-Laws. In this particular case, this is a neighborhood association where ownership of the lot within the neighborhood is a requirement for membership and the ineligible candidate in question is a tenant/renter of the lot in the neighborhood and does not own the lot in question. 

2. I don't believe the By-Laws require proxy holders to be Members of the Association. I understand this as a gray area however, the section on voting within the Association By-Laws states that only Members have the right to vote in-person or by proxy. 

3. The ineligible candidate cast the proxy votes which changed the result of the election. The proxy votes cast by the ineligible candidate caused a current Board member to be elected instead of a floor nominated candidate. If the floor candidate had won and allowed to remain on the Board, several actions taken by the Board recently would not have occurred. 

Based on these additional facts, it appears that a Point of Order regarding the proxy votes will not be in order, since the bylaws do not require proxy holders to be members of the association. The fact that the bylaws state (quite correctly) that "only Members have the right to vote in-person or by proxy" is irrelevant. If a person is a proxy holder, the votes he casts by proxy are actually the votes of the members in question being cast "by proxy." The proxy holder is not, in fact, voting himself by casting the proxy votes.

I suppose there is still the issue that the person in question presumably also cast a vote on his own behalf, and this is problematic, however, that would only affect the validity of the election if a single vote would have affected the result.

I am also unclear how you are so certain whether certain things would or would not have changed the result of the election since we were previously told that the actual counts were never announced. Has something changed in that regard?

In any event, based on the facts provided, it appears that there are no grounds to challenge the elections of the other two board positions, however, the election of President could be challenged on the grounds that the person elected to that office was not, in fact, eligible for that office.

[Guest James Riley]

The ineligible candidate was to my understanding the top voted candidate, but that includes the proxy votes that the ineligible candidate cast for themself as well. The ineligible candidate cast proxy votes to bring the lowest floor (members present) voted candidate up to a level to secure a position on the Board as well. My thinking is that if the ineligible candidate had not been involved in the election then two of the three slots on the Board would have gone to other candidates that were running which was three others for a total of six candidates running. Maybe that does not matter in this realm and my mind is holding on to that as a reason to hold an entire new election. 

I've spoken with one of the vote counters so I have more information than before, but I would assume anything I hear at this point in terms of numbers of votes cast is hearsay since it's been a month since the election was held.