Election process has people ANGRY!

[KimK]

I am searching the archives and have spent some time reading but can't find the exact answer and I need to get out an email before people eat each other alive (sort of).

Our organization elects officers this evening.  None of the candidates have opposition.  However, there are 3 positions that no one is running for and several members that aren't happy with the candidate running for President and the candidate running for VP.  We vote by secret ballot for these positions every 2 years.  Our bylaws indicate that the candidate who receives the majority of votes of members present is the winner.

Our bylaws allow for members to run from the floor.  Our nominating committee asked that members wanting to run from the floor submit their info to the committee so the committee can ensure that they have the proper credentials to run (something that takes 2 minutes to determine) -- the credentialing process is NOT in our bylaws.  My questions are:

1. If there is only one person running for each office, do we still have to cast a ballot?
2. If the answer to the above is yes, and that one person doesn't get a majority vote, how many times do we have to continue voting? (our bylaws do not specify)
3. Since our bylaws have no specifications on WHEN a member can run from the floor, could a member decide to run from the floor this evening even though they did not provide their info to the nominating committee in advance as requested?

BONUS question:   Our bylaws state that members stop becoming members once their child turns 20.  Due to the issues some have with the current member running for president (who's children are still young), members have asked if a member with one year left could run (implying that one of them would run from the floor this evening).  There was a back and forth of semantics but our bylaws are clear that an elected officer serves a term of 2 years.  Yes officers have had to step down for emergency or other reasons, but to PLAN in advance to step down after a year appears to be a violation of the bylaws (which is a grieveable offense that could result in that  member losing their legacy status - something to pass on to their child who would then not have to go through the selection process to become a member -- which is a HUGE incentive in this organization). Our bylaws state: "Members with one year left in the chapter are eligible to run for office.  If elected, those members are expected to complete the 2 full terms of office, pay dues and assessments as required by all active members."  How should the group handle this if one of the members with one year left does run from the floor?  I suggested amending the bylaw to state the penalty of losing their legacy status unless the reason for leaving after 1 year is a verifiable emergency.

 

Sorry so long...one thing that makes me happy though is that members are actually finally reading the bylaws. 

[Atul Kapur]

11 minutes ago, KimK said:

1. If there is only one person running for each office, do we still have to cast a ballot?

If your bylaws require a ballot and do not provide an exception for the situation where there is only one candidate for a position, yes.

13 minutes ago, KimK said:

2. If the answer to the above is yes, and that one person doesn't get a majority vote, how many times do we have to continue voting?

Until you have a result where someone reaches the threshold required to be elected. ( BTW, it is unclear from your description whether the threshold is a majority of the votes cast or a majority of the members present at the meeting.)

15 minutes ago, KimK said:

3. Since our bylaws have no specifications on WHEN a member can run from the floor, could a member decide to run from the floor this evening even though they did not provide their info to the nominating committee in advance as requested?

If a member has the right to run from the floor in your bylaws, I do not see how a request from the nominating committee can restrict that right.

If the nominating committee only needs two minutes to verify that the person meets the requirements for the office, then the committee should request the two minutes that it will take to do so before the voting is held.

17 minutes ago, KimK said:

members have asked if a member with one year left could run

The quotation from the bylaws that you have provided seems to very clearly allow this. Further, it appears to   state that that member would complete their term, and not be required to resign after 1 year. Are you certain that you have quoted the bylaws correctly? You have said "2 full terms" when I expected it to say "2 full years."

Your comments that someone with only one year left of membership running for an office may be a violation of the bylaws is completely contradicted by the excerpt of the bylaws that you have quoted.

[KimK]

Thank you!  Sorry I was typing fast.  Plus I'm irritated at this sudden turn of events when members have had the slate since January, and that there are 3 positions open.

The threshold is majority of votes cast.

Our bylaws actually do NOT indicate the right to vote from the floor.  I had to go back and check.  This is just something that is done on the national level (we are a national org and I am referring to a local chapter) - so our local chapter follows suit.  It is in RRNO if I'm not mistaken??  I warned a member that someone could challenge the request of the nominating committee since it isn't listed that running from the floor requires 24 hours advance notice.

You're correct, I meant to type that 1 term = 2 full years.  The implication is that the member with one year left actually WANTS to leave after 1 year.  To stay would mean to have to continue to pay dues for that year.  Members are thrilled to "graduate out" (the term we use) because it's a pretty big rite of passage.  So if this member with 1 year left did win the election, according to our bylaws, they'd have to defer a year -- extremely undesirable and unheard of.  The fact that members are "fishing" around to see what would happen if this member won, then "graduated out" after a year, is what's irritating.  To even suggest that they would do that is, in my opinion, pre-planning to go against the bylaws in order to prevent the "undesired" original candidate from running.  Which is why I am proposing an amendment to include the loss of legacy penalty for any member that runs with the intention to leave after one year (unless a verifiable emergency).

 

 

[Dan Honemann]

RONR, 12th ed., 45:19-20, 46:18, 46:30, and 46:40 would seem to be relevant to the questions you are asking.

[KimK]

Thank you! 

 

I'm going to have Fear the Wrath of Kimberly on my mind this evening.

[Atul Kapur]

30 minutes ago, KimK said:

Which is why I am proposing an amendment to include the loss of legacy penalty for any member that runs with the intention to leave after one year (unless a verifiable emergency).

This can get very complicated, trying to prove intention. RONR Chapter XX deals with disciplinary procedures and you might want to review it before you consider proposing something that would start you down that long path.

[Rob Elsman]

It is a little late to be having a kerfuffle over elections procedures.  By this time, the society should have completed a thorough study of the rules mentioned by Mr. Honemann, above.  It should also have completed rehearsals for each person in his role, whether voter, usher, poll worker, teller, or president.

Because these things have not been completed well in advance of the elections, my guess is that the meeting will devolve into turmoil, confusion, anger, and disappointment.  There is likely very little that can be done now.  My best suggestion is that the society begin thinking about next year's elections as soon as possible to make sure that what is in store for this year's elections will not be repeated next year.

[Richard Brown]

49 minutes ago, KimK said:

While tonight‘s meeting might not be fun or anything close to an ideal meeting, I am not nearly as pessimistic about it as Mr. Elsman is. 

BTW, keep in mind that if things aren’t going well or there aren’t enough nominees or some positions don’t get filled, some or all of the elections can be postponed until your next meeting or an adjourned meeting  to be held anytime between tonight‘s meeting and your next regular meeting to finish the elections.

In the meantime, between now and tonight‘s meeting, review your bylaws to make sure you know what they say about elections, voting thresholds, etc.!
 

Edited to add: you might also want to review chapter XIV in RONR on nominations and elections starting at section 46 in the 12th edition. 

Edited March 30, 2021 at 04:35 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[KimK]

Thank you gentlemen! I will be more than prepared.