Election irregularity?

[Maureen WM]

Dear everyone,

I have a situation to share and then look forward to your opinions.

Part 1: An individual (Person A) wrote an email that falsely represented the actions and character of an individual (Person C) who is a candidate in a university election. The email was sent to a known voter (Person D) in the election. The election is over tomorrow.

Does Person A sending the email to the known voter (Person D) constitute an election irregularity?

Part 2: The same email was intended for a larger audience when it was first written. Person D forwarded it to three other voters in the election.

Does Person D sending the email to the other voters constitute an election irregularity?

Thanks for your input.  Does anyone have any suggestions for next steps?

M

 

 

[Guest Zev]

6 hours ago, Maureen WM said:

Does Person A sending the email to the known voter (Person D) constitute an election irregularity?

In my opinion, no. Person A may have performed an act that the other members of the university perhaps consider dishonorable or that may violate other university regulations and may result in disciplinary action against Person A either before or after the election.

6 hours ago, Maureen WM said:

Does Person D sending the email to the other voters constitute an election irregularity?

Same answer as above but in this case it is Person D.

Please stand by for possibly other opinions.

[Guest Puzzling]

6 hours ago, Maureen WM said:

Dear everyone,

I have a situation to share and then look forward to your opinions.

Part 1: An individual (Person A) wrote an email that falsely represented the actions and character of an individual (Person C) who is a candidate in a university election. The email was sent to a known voter (Person D) in the election. The election is over tomorrow.

Does Person A sending the email to the known voter (Person D) constitute an election irregularity?

Part 2: The same email was intended for a larger audience when it was first written. Person D forwarded it to three other voters in the election.

Does Person D sending the email to the other voters constitute an election irregularity?

Thanks for your input.  Does anyone have any suggestions for next steps?

M

 

 

What has happened is not nice. And after investigation could lead to disciplinary action against person A (if he is a member) and person D. 

Other than that maybe a statement can be given prior to the election removing the allegations  from person C.

But that is I think all that can be done.

I don't think it should stop the election.

 

[Dan Honemann]

7 hours ago, Maureen WM said:

Dear everyone,

I have a situation to share and then look forward to your opinions.

Part 1: An individual (Person A) wrote an email that falsely represented the actions and character of an individual (Person C) who is a candidate in a university election. The email was sent to a known voter (Person D) in the election. The election is over tomorrow.

Does Person A sending the email to the known voter (Person D) constitute an election irregularity?

Part 2: The same email was intended for a larger audience when it was first written. Person D forwarded it to three other voters in the election.

Does Person D sending the email to the other voters constitute an election irregularity?

Thanks for your input.  Does anyone have any suggestions for next steps?

M

 

 

In neither of these cases is any rule in RONR being violated. These actions are not violations of any rule of parliamentary procedure.

 

 

 

[Richard Brown]

I agree completely with the response above by Dan Honemann and wonder why neither of the other two responses addressed that issue, which was the actual question asked. What we were told happened violates no rule in RONR and is certainly no violation of the election procedures in RONR.  

if the members of this organization believe that what happened is unbecoming a member of the organization or brings discredit upon the organization, that is a different matter entirely but was not the question asked. The question asked was: “Does Person A sending the email to the known voter (Person D) constitute an election irregularity?“

The answer is an unequivocal “no”. 

[Josh Martin]

10 hours ago, Maureen WM said:

Part 1: An individual (Person A) wrote an email that falsely represented the actions and character of an individual (Person C) who is a candidate in a university election. The email was sent to a known voter (Person D) in the election. The election is over tomorrow.

Does Person A sending the email to the known voter (Person D) constitute an election irregularity?

No.

10 hours ago, Maureen WM said:

Part 2: The same email was intended for a larger audience when it was first written. Person D forwarded it to three other voters in the election.

Does Person D sending the email to the other voters constitute an election irregularity?

No.

10 hours ago, Maureen WM said:

Does anyone have any suggestions for next steps?

The actions which were taken would in no way affect the validity of the election (and violate no parliamentary rule), so no "next steps" may be taken in that regard.

Some other next steps which would be taken would be to grant a question of personal privilege to permit Person C to address the charges against their character. Disciplinary action could also be taken against Person A and/or Person D, if the assembly so desires.

"Questions of personal privilege—which seldom arise in ordinary societies and even more rarely justify interruption of pending business—may relate, for example, to an incorrect record of a member’s participation in a meeting contained in minutes approved in his absence, or to charges circulated against a member’s character." RONR (12th ed.) 19:7

"If there is an article on discipline in the bylaws (56:57), it may specify a number of offenses outside meetings for which these penalties can be imposed on a member of the organization. Frequently, such an article provides for their imposition on any member found guilty of conduct described, for example, as “tending to injure the good name of the organization, disturb its well-being, or hamper it in its work.” In any society, behavior of this nature is a serious offense properly subject to disciplinary action, whether the bylaws make mention of it or not." RONR (12th ed.) 61:3

27 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

I agree completely with the response above by Dan Honemann and wonder why neither of the other two responses addressed that issue, which was the actual question asked. What we were told happened violates no rule in RONR and is certainly no violation of the election procedures in RONR.  

if the members of this organization believe that what happened is unbecoming a member of the organization or brings discredit upon the organization, that is a different matter entirely but was not the question asked. The question asked was: “Does Person A sending the email to the known voter (Person D) constitute an election irregularity?“

The answer is an unequivocal “no”. 

Ultimately, three questions were asked in the original post. The first two asked whether either of these instances constitutes an "election irregularity." This term is not used in RONR, but I understand it to mean a violation of procedure which may affect the validity of the election. I concur that the answer to this is an unequivocal "no."

The third question asked rather vaguely what "next steps" might be taken. While there are no next steps in regard to the election (other than to announce the results), the assembly does have some options in regard to next steps concerning the comments.

Edited April 6, 2021 at 12:59 PM by Josh Martin

[Joshua Katz]

On 4/6/2021 at 8:29 AM, Richard Brown said:

The answer is an unequivocal “no”. 

I might add that this is called "politics." It's not a nice way of doing politics, perhaps, but it is common in our coarsening world, and has forever been a part of politics anyway, running through cane attacks on the Senate floor, all the way back to poisoning philosophers who question the powers of politicians, and stabbing politicians in the back over conflicts about military powers.

[Maureen WM]

Thank you very much for your comments.