Alphabetical order

[Guest Ready to vote]

Our club has just sent out ballots for our 2020 election.  Our bylaws state "on or before October 15th, mail to each member in good standing a ballot listing all of the nominees for each position in alphabetical order".

Many years ago in a past election, ballots were sent out and the nominees were not in alphabetical order by last name.  The entire election had to be redone because of that error.  Every year since then the ballots have all had nominees listed in alphabetical order by last name.  This year the ballots were sent out but they were in alphabetical order by first name.  I am not sure if precedence matters, but I believe precedence has been set, last name alphabetical order.  Your comments would be appreciated.

[Joshua Katz]

1 hour ago, Guest Ready to vote said:

The entire election had to be redone because of that error. 

How was that decided?

[Richard Brown]

I cannot find a provision in  RONR requiring  that names on ballots be arranged in any particular order.   Apparently your rules do not require that either. The custom in most organizations that I am familiar with is that the names on ballots are usually  listed alphabetically by last name, but they are sometimes listed in a different order, with the order in which they were nominated being one of the methods. Some organizations list them randomly. A society should normally follow its established custom in matters such as this.

However, your bylaws do require that the ballots be mailed by a certain date, namely, October 15. Today is Oct 15. If the ballots are to be re-printed and re-mailed, there’s a question whether that deadline can be met. It could also cause great confusion to voters if they receive a second ballot in a few days when some may have already returned the first ballot received.

I think your best option in this case is to leave well enough alone for this election. The organization may then want to consider adopting a rule providing for the order of listing names on the ballots in future elections. I do not view what happened in this case as being sufficient for invalidating or rescheduling an election.

Edited to add: upon rereading the original post, it does say that the bylaws do say the names shall be listed in alphabetical order.  Normally that is probably construed as meaning they should be sorted by last name, but that is not an absolute requirement. Even acknowledging that the bylaws say the candidate shall be listed in alphabetical order, I think the listing them in alphabetical order by first name is not such a breach that would invalidate the election. That rule, even though in the bylaws, is in the nature of a rule of order In my opinion.

Edited October 15, 2020 at 05:26 PM by Richard Brown
Edited to add last paragraph.

[Guest Ready to vote]

Following our bylaws is an important part of being a club member to me.  The past problem with ballots not being in alphabetical order was a big enough problem that the club decided to redo the election.  Precedence was set many years ago (maybe 10 years or so).  Every year since then the ballots have had the nominees listed alphabetically by last name. 

John Doe

Jane Smith

Should the bylaws be more specific, yes I agree, but for now it states alphabetical order and we have made it a point to be sure the ballots have all had the names in alphabetical order, by last name as above.  This is the first year that the names are not presented that way since the Board re did the election.  It may seem like a small matter to some, but all the small matters add up to big problems.  I guess I am one that believes that lists by name alphabetically means last name first, not first name first.  I am just looking for opinions from others.  Not sure if it matters but our membership list is in alphabetical order of the last name.

[Atul Kapur]

Your bylaws are ambiguous enough that your organization will have to decide whether the alphabetical-by-first-name order meets the rule. That is done by raising a point of order that the ballots violate the bylaws at the first opportunity / meeting. If you disagree with the ruling on the point of order, then you may appeal from the decision of the chair.

The precedent you cite about re-doing the election is persuasive "that is, [it carries] weight in the absence of overriding reasons for following a different course—but [it is] not binding on the chair or the assembly." RONR (12th ed.) 23:16

Edited October 15, 2020 at 04:40 PM by Atul Kapur

[Joshua Katz]

34 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

Your bylaws are ambiguous enough that your organization will have to decide whether the alphabetical-by-first-name order meets the rule.

I don't see how. So far as I know, the bylaws say nothing about the order of names on the ballot.

[Weldon Merritt]

20 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

I don't see how. So far as I know, the bylaws say nothing about the order of names on the ballot.

How about this:

4 hours ago, Guest Ready to vote said:

Our bylaws state "on or before October 15th, mail to each member in good standing a ballot listing all of the nominees for each position in alphabetical order".

 

[Joshua Katz]

Ah, somehow I missed that. Thanks.

[Gary Novosielski]

2 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I cannot find a provision in  RONR requiring  that names on ballots be arranged in any particular order.   Apparently your rules do not require that either.

They sure seem to.

 

25 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

I don't see how. So far as I know, the bylaws say nothing about the order of names on the ballot.

Except that they have to be alphabetical.  That's not nothing.

[Guest Ready to vote]

The previous Board set precedence when it redid the entire election because the names were not in alphabetical order of the last name.  A member complained and it was decided then to re do the election.  This has not been clarified in the bylaws yet as they have not changed since then.  Every year since then the ballots have all been sent out with nominees in last name alphabetical order.  I believe that where the bylaws are not clear it is up to the Board to make that decision.  They did and called for a new election last name alphabetized.  There has been no changes to the bylaws nor have any new decisions been made by any Board about this since then.      

[Josh Martin]

9 hours ago, Guest Ready to vote said:

Our club has just sent out ballots for our 2020 election.  Our bylaws state "on or before October 15th, mail to each member in good standing a ballot listing all of the nominees for each position in alphabetical order".

Many years ago in a past election, ballots were sent out and the nominees were not in alphabetical order by last name.  The entire election had to be redone because of that error.  Every year since then the ballots have all had nominees listed in alphabetical order by last name.  This year the ballots were sent out but they were in alphabetical order by first name.  I am not sure if precedence matters, but I believe precedence has been set, last name alphabetical order.  Your comments would be appreciated.

In my view, the conclusion that the ballot had to be redone because of this error was mistaken, although ultimately it will be up to the society to decide this matter.

The word for you are looking for is "precedent." The fact that the ballots have historically been listed alphabetically by last name is not a precedent in the parliamentary sense. A precedent is created by a ruling of the chair and by the decision of the assembly on any subsequent appeal. The fact that something has been done a particular way in the past is a "custom." RONR does provide that a custom should be followed in the absence of any rule to the contrary and unless the assembly orders otherwise, so I think it is correct that the ballots should have been in alphabetical order by last name.

It is not entirely clear to me, however, that this means the election should be redone. There apparently is a precedent set in the past that the election should be redone if the candidates are not in alphabetical order. The assembly may determine, however, that this election should not be redone, either because the facts of the case are slightly different (in that the candidates were in alphabetical order, albeit by first name) or because the precedent on this matter is mistaken.

If you feel the election should be ruled null and void on these grounds, you should raise a Point of Order to that effect at the next regular meeting of the membership or at a special meeting called for the purpose. The chair will rule on the point, subject to appeal, which would place the decision in the hands of the assembly.

6 hours ago, Guest Ready to vote said:

Following our bylaws is an important part of being a club member to me.  The past problem with ballots not being in alphabetical order was a big enough problem that the club decided to redo the election.  Precedence was set many years ago (maybe 10 years or so).  Every year since then the ballots have had the nominees listed alphabetically by last name. 

John Doe

Jane Smith

Should the bylaws be more specific, yes I agree, but for now it states alphabetical order and we have made it a point to be sure the ballots have all had the names in alphabetical order, by last name as above.  This is the first year that the names are not presented that way since the Board re did the election.  It may seem like a small matter to some, but all the small matters add up to big problems.  I guess I am one that believes that lists by name alphabetically means last name first, not first name first.  I am just looking for opinions from others. 

In my view, the error in this matter is not sufficient to declare the election invalid. I do not think the assembly's previous decision on this matter was correct, and even if it was, I think the argument for invalidating the election is even weaker here, since listing the names in alphabetical order by first name conflicts with a custom but does not, in fact, conflict with the written rule in the bylaws. I do not think that the words "listed alphabetically," in and of themselves, unambiguously means "listed alphabetically by last name." I completely agree that the names should have been listed alphabetically by last name due to the custom on this subject, but this is not, in my view, sufficient grounds to invalidate the election.

If you feel otherwise, you are free to raise a Point of Order on this matter, followed by an Appeal if necessary.

4 hours ago, Guest Ready to vote said:

The previous Board set precedence when it redid the entire election because the names were not in alphabetical order of the last name.  A member complained and it was decided then to re do the election.  This has not been clarified in the bylaws yet as they have not changed since then.  Every year since then the ballots have all been sent out with nominees in last name alphabetical order.  I believe that where the bylaws are not clear it is up to the Board to make that decision.  They did and called for a new election last name alphabetized.  There has been no changes to the bylaws nor have any new decisions been made by any Board about this since then.      

In addition to the comments above, I would note that the board has no authority to invalidate an election by the membership, unless the bylaws specifically grant the board this authority. So I don't know that the "precedent" on this subject counts for much based on these additional facts, since the decision was made by a body which lacked the authority to make it. If the election is to be ruled null and void, this must occur at a meeting of the membership, not the board.

"Because the voting body itself is the ultimate judge of election disputes, only that body has the authority to resolve them in the absence of a bylaw or special rule of order that specifically grants another body that authority. Thus, for example, when an election has been conducted at a membership meeting or in a convention of delegates, an executive board, even one that is given full power and authority over the society’s affairs between meetings of the body that conducted the election, may not entertain a point of order challenging, or direct a recount concerning, the announced election result. While an election dispute is immediately pending before the voting body, however, it may vote to refer the dispute to a committee or board to which it delegates power to resolve the dispute." RONR (12th ed.) 46:50

7 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Edited to add: upon rereading the original post, it does say that the bylaws do say the names shall be listed in alphabetical order.  Normally that is probably construed as meaning they should be sorted by last name, but that is not an absolute requirement. Even acknowledging that the bylaws say the candidate shall be listed in alphabetical order, I think the listing them in alphabetical order by first name is not such a breach that would invalidate the election. That rule, even though in the bylaws, is in the nature of a rule of order In my opinion.

I would add to this that RONR does not in fact say that there is a continuing breach if any violation of the bylaws has occurred (unless it conflicts with a rule in the nature of a rule of order). Rather, it states that there is a continuing breach if "a) a main motion has been adopted that conflicts with the bylaws (or constitution) of the organization or assembly" (unless the main motion conflicts with a rule in the nature of a rule of order). So in the case of an election, there would be such a breach if the election itself violated the bylaws - that is, if an ineligible candidate was elected. If an election occurs in which the candidates are not in the correct order, this is not a main motion that has been adopted which conflicts with the bylaws. Therefore, it seems to me that this violation does not fall under exception a whether or not the rule is in the nature of a rule of order.

The other grounds for a continuing breach are as follows:

"b) a main motion has been adopted that conflicts with a main motion previously adopted and still in force, unless the subsequently adopted motion was adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend the previously adopted motion,

c) any action has been taken in violation of applicable procedural rules prescribed by federal, state, or local law,

d) any action has been taken in violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law (25:9), or

e) any action has been taken in violation of a rule protecting absentees, a rule in the bylaws protecting the secrecy of the members’ votes (as on a ballot vote), or a rule protecting a basic right of an individual member (25:7, 25:10–11)." RONR (12th ed.) 23:6

It seems clear that b, c, and d are not applicable here. A precedent is not a main motion, so the precedent concerning the previous election (even to the extent it is correct and applicable) does not suggest that exception b is applicable here. There is no suggestion that any violation of federal, state, or local law has occurred. The order of candidates on the ballot is not a fundamental principle of parliamentary law.

So the only remaining argument would be that the rule regarding ballot order somehow protects absentees or a basic right of an individual member (since I certainly don't think it protects secrecy), and I personally do not find such an argument to be terribly persuasive.

Edited October 15, 2020 at 10:39 PM by Josh Martin

[Guest Ready to vote]

Thank you all for your opinions.  I am not sure I was clear on what I was looking for.  I was not asking if the election should be done over.  I believe that for whatever reason the previous Board voted to have the ballot redone set precedence.  It has been followed since then as that was what the Board decided on.  I was asking if the decision by the previous Board to redo the election and place the nominees in alphabetical order by last name should be the way the ballots are formatted until such time as the bylaws are changed or clarified or a new vote is taken to change the last vote.

[Josh Martin]

1 minute ago, Guest Ready to vote said:

Thank you all for your opinions.  I am not sure I was clear on what I was looking for.  I was not asking if the election should be done over.  I believe that for whatever reason the previous Board voted to have the ballot redone set precedence.  It has been followed since then as that was what the Board decided on.  I was asking if the decision by the previous Board to redo the election and place the nominees in alphabetical order by last name should be the way the ballots are formatted until such time as the bylaws are changed or clarified or a new vote is taken to change the last vote.

The board lacked the authority to make its decision to have the ballot redone. It is, of course, too late to do anything about an election from ten years ago at this point, but it must be understood that the board's improper decision sets no precedent whatsoever.

Nonetheless, the ballots should indeed be placed in alphabetical order by last name unless and until the rules are amended to provide otherwise or a motion is adopted by the assembly ordering otherwise. This has nothing to do with the board's improper decision on this matter ten years ago, but instead has to do with the custom on this matter, since the ballots have historically had the candidates listed in alphabetical order. When a custom is in effect and the custom does not conflict with a written rule, the custom should be followed unless the assembly chooses to do otherwise in a particular instance.

"In some organizations, a particular practice may sometimes come to be followed as a matter of established custom so that it is treated practically as if it were prescribed by a rule. If there is no contrary provision in the parliamentary authority or written rules of the organization, such an established custom is adhered to unless the assembly, by a majority vote, agrees in a particular instance to do otherwise." RONR (12th ed.) 2:25

[Guest Ready to vote]

I do have another question.  In some of the above opinions, it was noted that the Board did not have the authority to redo the election from the beginning.  I am not sure I understand why.  New ballots were sent out and the members were notified of the error.  I thought that when the bylaws are not clear it is up to the Board to make the decision on what was meant as long as it does not conflict with the bylaws.  In this case the ballots were redone as the bylaws were not clear.  No ballots were received before the conflict was brought up and the election was continued with new ballots that had all the same information but the names were alphabetized by last name.  

[Josh Martin]

1 minute ago, Guest Ready to vote said:

I do have another question.  In some of the above opinions, it was noted that the Board did not have the authority to redo the election from the beginning.  I am not sure I understand why.  New ballots were sent out and the members were notified of the error.  I thought that when the bylaws are not clear it is up to the Board to make the decision on what was meant as long as it does not conflict with the bylaws.  In this case the ballots were redone as the bylaws were not clear.  No ballots were received before the conflict was brought up and the election was continued with new ballots that had all the same information but the names were alphabetized by last name.  

If the membership is voting, it is an election of the membership. As a result, it is up to the membership to make any decisions regarding the validity of the election, unless the bylaws specifically provide otherwise.

"Because the voting body itself is the ultimate judge of election disputes, only that body has the authority to resolve them in the absence of a bylaw or special rule of order that specifically grants another body that authority. Thus, for example, when an election has been conducted at a membership meeting or in a convention of delegates, an executive board, even one that is given full power and authority over the society’s affairs between meetings of the body that conducted the election, may not entertain a point of order challenging, or direct a recount concerning, the announced election result. While an election dispute is immediately pending before the voting body, however, it may vote to refer the dispute to a committee or board to which it delegates power to resolve the dispute." RONR (12th ed.) 46:50

[Richard Brown]

9 minutes ago, Guest Ready to vote said:

In some of the above opinions, it was noted that the Board did not have the authority to redo the election from the beginning.  I am not sure I understand why.  New ballots were sent out and the members were notified of the error.  I thought that when the bylaws are not clear it is up to the Board to make the decision on what was meant as long as it does not conflict with the bylaws. 

 It is because a board has only that power granted to it in the bylaws. A board is normally subservient to the membership. Since this was an election that the membership would be voting on, it would be up to the membership, not the board, to correct any error because a board has only that power granted to it in the bylaws.  There is a possibility that your bylaws do give the board such extensive powers, but the board would not have that power unless the bylaws grant it.

edited to add: unless your bylaws provide otherwise, it is up to the membership, not the board, to interpret and determine the meaning of the bylaws.

Edited October 15, 2020 at 08:38 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[Josh Martin]

4 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

 It is because a board has only that power granted to it in the bylaws. A board is normally subservient to the membership. Since this was an election that the membership would be voting on, it would be up to the membership, not the board, to correct any error because a board has only that power granted to it in the bylaws.  There is a possibility that your bylaws do give the board such extensive powers, but the board would not have that power unless the bylaws grant it.

edited to add: unless your bylaws provide otherwise, it is up to the membership, not the board, to interpret and determine the meaning of the bylaws.

I think that both the board and the membership could have a role in interpreting the bylaws as a general matter, although the membership's interpretation would prevail in the event of conflicting interpretations. I agree, however, that only the membership can correct an error in an election where the membership is the voting body.

[Richard Brown]

1 minute ago, Josh Martin said:

I think that both the board and the membership could have a role in interpreting the bylaws as a general matter, although the membership's interpretation would prevail in the event of conflicting interpretations. I agree, however, that only the membership can correct an error in an election where the membership is the voting body.

I agree. 

[Guest Ready to vote]

Got it!!  I understand now.  Sorry it took so long, but I now understand and it makes sense.  Thank you all for your patience.  I believe it would be easier to just ask the membership to vote on more precise wording in the bylaws for the election process.

[Gary Novosielski]

7 hours ago, Guest Ready to vote said:

I believe that where the bylaws are not clear it is up to the Board to make that decision. 

But the rules in RONR say that where the bylaws are not clear, it is up to the membership to decide their meaning.  And in this case they are clear, and call for the names to be listed in alphabetical order.

The only question is whether breaking that rule counts as a breach that is so bad that it warrants a new election.  I don't think that it does.  But if it's already been done, let it be.

Edited October 16, 2020 at 01:49 AM by Gary Novosielski

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I don't think the wording of listing in alphabetical order is unclear at all, and first names would not count, because first names can be fluid.  Some people don't actually know other people's legal first name because they don't use it.  This hit home to me when I was on a credentialing committee and had to look up the voter registration for someone I know as Marc.  I could not find a Marc.  I found a Loren of that last name.  I never knew that Loren was Marc's legal first name.  So with first names there is a question of what name to use... legal, customary, nickname?

 

Besides that point, I agree with everyone else.

[Nathan Zook]

On 10/15/2020 at 6:40 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

I don't think the wording of listing in alphabetical order is unclear at all, and first names would not count, because first names can be fluid.  Some people don't actually know other people's legal first name because they don't use it.  This hit home to me when I was on a credentialing committee and had to look up the voter registration for someone I know as Marc.  I could not find a Marc.  I found a Loren of that last name.  I never knew that Loren was Marc's legal first name.  So with first names there is a question of what name to use... legal, customary, nickname?

 

Besides that point, I agree with everyone else.

My wife would suggest that last names are fluid. 

Beyond that, while I would agree that alphabetic by last name is more common for people, lexicographic ordering is more common in general.  As such, this does feel ambiguous.

 

As to the rule itself, I think that reverse-alphabetic by last name is a FAR more appropriate way to list candidates.

 

[Richard Brown]

4 minutes ago, Nathan Zook said:

As to the rule itself, I think that reverse-alphabetic by last name is a FAR more appropriate way to list candidates.

I once had a client named Zurga  who would definitely agree with you!  

Edited October 20, 2020 at 02:03 AM by Richard Brown
Added text to the smiley face

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Richard Brown knows that when I do the roll call votes (I am a Secretary) I alternate.  It keeps everyone on their toes!

[J. J.]

1 hour ago, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

Richard Brown knows that when I do the roll call votes (I am a Secretary) I alternate.  It keeps everyone on their toes!

There was a minor article on how to call a roll with a different order each time.  It was "The 'Ferndale Roll Call' Procedure," Parliamentary Journal, April 2007.  IIRC, there was a draft of special rule that can be used.