Filling Board Vacancies

[Mike McKinley]

Our By-Laws state that the Board of Directors (we are on HOA) will hold a secret ballot vote for a new members using a numerical system.  For example, it there are three candidates. each of the 6 directors will vote on a 3-2-1 basis (3 being the highest supporting vote).  It is extremely conceivable that we could have a tie vote total of 12 (three candidates each get 12 points).  A stalemate is conceivable and we have no provision to break a stalemate.  What are guidelines in case of a stalement?  Membership vote?

[Guest Puzzling]

8 minutes ago, Mike McKinley said:

Our By-Laws state that the Board of Directors (we are on HOA) will hold a secret ballot vote for a new members using a numerical system.  For example, it there are three candidates. each of the 6 directors will vote on a 3-2-1 basis (3 being the highest supporting vote).  It is extremely conceivable that we could have a tie vote total of 12 (three candidates each get 12 points).  A stalemate is conceivable and we have no provision to break a stalemate.  What are guidelines in case of a stalement?  Membership vote?

Your voting system differs from the RONR system (under RONR each voter can vote for upto the number of posts and the elected candidate needs to be mentioned on a majority of ballots, see the RONR chapter on elections for more details.

Your organization seem to have some form of preferential  Voting, there are many different systems of it (yours look like a Borda count) the whole voting methodology needs to be spelled out in your bylaws. (Just saying numerical system could also mean a single transferable vote system for example) 

Can you quote (not paraphrase) your bylaws?

Also have a look at the website of the homeowners protection bureau www.hopb.co  for more information on HOA regulations. 

 

[Josh Martin]

25 minutes ago, Mike McKinley said:

Our By-Laws state that the Board of Directors (we are on HOA) will hold a secret ballot vote for a new members using a numerical system.  For example, it there are three candidates. each of the 6 directors will vote on a 3-2-1 basis (3 being the highest supporting vote).  It is extremely conceivable that we could have a tie vote total of 12 (three candidates each get 12 points).  A stalemate is conceivable and we have no provision to break a stalemate.  What are guidelines in case of a stalement?  Membership vote?

If there is a tie, you keep voting again, and again, and again until someone is elected. The board will have to learn how to compromise. There is no tiebreaker procedure unless such a procedure is provided for in your rules.

I suppose the board could have the membership express its opinion on the matter by vote, but this would be purely advisory and would not be binding upon the board. If the bylaws provide that directors are elected by the board, then the board would still need to hold another vote. The membership's opinions on this matter might sway the minds of some board members, but ultimately board members are free to vote as they see fit.

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Mike McKinley said:

A stalemate is conceivable and we have no provision to break a stalemate.  What are guidelines in case of a stalement?  Membership vote?

You do have some other options, some of which may be limited or prohibited by the language contained in your bylaws.  One option, discussed in the footnote to Section 40:32, is to suspend the rules and do something such as removing the candidate (or candidates) with the lowest vote totals from subsequent ballots.  Those removed candidates remain eligible to be elected, however, and their names may still be written in, but the theory is that most members will limit their votes to those candidates who are actually listed on the ballot.  Another method is that the candidates may agree among themselves to  flip a coin or draw straws or use some other method  of chance to determine that one of them will voluntarily withdraw from the race. Note that this would have to be voluntary on the part of the candidates. 

Although not specifically mentioned in RONR, I believe it is also  acceptable for the assembly to suspend the rules and agree to eliminate one or more candidates from subsequent ballots by a similar method of chance, i.e., drawing straws, drawing cards, roll of a die, etc.  Again, any candidates so removed from the ballot do still remain eligible to be elected by virtue of write in votes (unless your bylaws prohibit write in candidates).

One additional option is to re-open nominations in the hope that a good compromise candidate will be nominated.

A search of this forum may find other methods of resolving a deadlock.

[Mike McKinley]

Thanks so much for responding!  Nice to have someone with your expertise comment.

Voluntary withdrawal could help but based upon the number voting process (4 candidates would each be ranked by the directors making the votes: 4,3,2,1), so it is very possible for all 4 candidates to have 15 total votes.  3 candidates could all get 12 votes and 2 candidates could all get 9 votes.  Since our By-Laws are silent as far as membership voting to fill a temporary position (we have about 1,000 eligible members), could we survey about 500 or so members for input as to their preference so that the existing 6 directors could get some membership direction?  Section 40:32 use?  Our members are mailed ballots for the annual election but to save the association money, we could blast email about 515 members for input.  I'll read closing 40:32.  Thanks again for guidance!

[Guest Puzzling]

Still puzzling what your bylaws say about elections in general,  as I wrote before the whole voting methodology needs to be spelled out in your bylaws. I assume you could use the same procedure for temporary position (with voting by the boardmembers)

I am against only asking the members who use email to vote, it is excluding a specific group of absentees. RONR forbids straw polls.

I don't understand what you mean by section 40:32 it is not a section from RONR.

 

[Josh Martin]

6 hours ago, Mike McKinley said:

Voluntary withdrawal could help but based upon the number voting process (4 candidates would each be ranked by the directors making the votes: 4,3,2,1), so it is very possible for all 4 candidates to have 15 total votes.  3 candidates could all get 12 votes and 2 candidates could all get 9 votes.  Since our By-Laws are silent as far as membership voting to fill a temporary position (we have about 1,000 eligible members), could we survey about 500 or so members for input as to their preference so that the existing 6 directors could get some membership direction?  Section 40:32 use?  Our members are mailed ballots for the annual election but to save the association money, we could blast email about 515 members for input.  I'll read closing 40:32.  Thanks again for guidance!

Yes, this could be done. The board could use the opinions of the membership solicited in this manner as a guide. The input of the membership would not be binding in this matter.

3 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

I am against only asking the members who use email to vote, it is excluding a specific group of absentees.

Since this is not an actual vote by the membership, it doesn't matter, at least from a parliamentary perspective. There may well be concerns of fairness, but that is for the organization to determine for itself.

3 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

RONR forbids straw polls.

During a meeting, yes. There is nothing preventing the polling of any group of people outside the context of a meeting.

3 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

I don't understand what you mean by section 40:32 it is not a section from RONR.

The OP was quoting Mr. Brown, who must have made a typo. I believe he was referring to the footnote to 46:32.

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

The OP was quoting Mr. Brown, who must have made a typo. I believe he was referring to the footnote to 46:32.

Yes, I was indeed referring to the footnote to 46:32. Thank you for catching the typo!  I just tried to correct it, but the system will not let me because the comment was made too many days ago.

BTW, I was using the hardcopy version when I made that reference. I’m on my cell phone now and just checked it in the Kindle version and find that it is awfully easy to overlook the footnotes and the problem is compounded by the fact that the Kindle version puts the footnotes at the end of a chapter instead of at the bottom of the page on which they appear. I hope in the next edition the information in that footnote will be moved into the text of that section rather than a footnote at the end of the chapter.  That is an important footnote and It is far too easy to overlook important information that is contained in footnotes in the Kindle version.

Edited April 9, 2021 at 01:26 PM by Richard Brown

[Guest Puzzling]

There are some problems with that footnote. While it suggests that a special rule of order may be adopted so that the nominee with the fewest votes is dropped, that rule should also prevent write in candidates.  (Or make votes for them illegal votes) 

Also I  am wondering because it is about a right of a nominee (and of the voting members) should it not be in the bylaws? 

(In my opinion special rules of order may not take away rights)

[Richard Brown]

39 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

There are some problems with that footnote. While it suggests that a special rule of order may be adopted so that the nominee with the fewest votes is dropped, that rule should also prevent write in candidates.  (Or make votes for them illegal votes) 

If the bylaws provide for a ballot vote, and do not prohibit write in votes, then write in votes cannot be prohibited by means of a special rule of order  or by suspending the rules. That’s why the footnote says you can adopt a motion or special rule of order to remove names from the ballot, but you cannot use that method to make people ineligible for election.

[RSW]

On 4/9/2021 at 10:03 AM, Richard Brown said:

That’s why the footnote says you can adopt a motion or special rule of order to remove names from the ballot, but you cannot use that method to make people ineligible for election.

I'm a member of an organization that has this provision right in the bylaws - the candidate with the lowest number of votes gets dropped from the ballot, and the vote is re-taken. Repeat as necessary until somebody actually gets a majority. If this problem is anticipated, it might be a good idea to bring up amending the bylaws so that the situation doesn't actually occur.