Board members refuse to concede after a tie vote for president

[Tammie]

We are an intentional community of 7 memberships. Our bylaws call for "loose adherence of Robert's Rules". We had our annual elections this month. The current president arrived after the vote. The office went to his opponent with a vote of 3 - 2 with 1 abstaining. Upon the current president's arrival, the vice president informed him of the election results and asked for his vote. He voted for himself which created a tie. The member who abstained refused to cast a vote and we were left with a tie. The current president conceded reluctantly and left the meeting. Two days later he changed his mind and wants a special meeting for a run-off election. The vice-president and treasurer are backing him. Any advice on how to proceed? Thanks!

 

[Atul Kapur]

RONR (12th ed.) 45:56 says, "It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the right to vote is limited to the members of an organization who are actually present at the time the vote is taken in a regular or properly called meeting, although it should be noted that a member need not be present when the question is put."

Sounds like the vote was completed, 3-2 ("current president arrived after the vote")

See 45:9 regarding Time Limits on Efforts to Challenge, Retake, or Change a Vote.

[Weldon Merritt]

Seems like your problem stems in large part from your "loose adherence of Robert's Rules," whatever that means.

[Josh Martin]

On 10/11/2021 at 6:47 PM, Tammie said:

We are an intentional community of 7 memberships. Our bylaws call for "loose adherence of Robert's Rules". We had our annual elections this month. The current president arrived after the vote. The office went to his opponent with a vote of 3 - 2 with 1 abstaining. Upon the current president's arrival, the vice president informed him of the election results and asked for his vote. He voted for himself which created a tie. The member who abstained refused to cast a vote and we were left with a tie. The current president conceded reluctantly and left the meeting. Two days later he changed his mind and wants a special meeting for a run-off election. The vice-president and treasurer are backing him. Any advice on how to proceed? Thanks!

Based upon the facts provided, I concur with Dr. Kapur that the assembly erred in permitting the President to cast his vote when he arrived after the polls had been closed. Since it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the vote is limited to members who are present at the time of the vote, this constitutes a continuing breach. As a consequence, the proper result of the election was 3-2 in favor of the opponent, so no "run-off election" is necessary or appropriate.

Since your bylaws only require "loose adherence of Robert's Rules" (whatever that means), I suppose it will ultimately be up to the assembly itself to interpret this matter. I would think the procedure should play out as follows:

1) If possible under your rules (and if the members in favor of this can get enough support to do so), the members who wish to have a "run-off election" should call a special meeting for that purpose.

2) At the special meeting, a member who supports this action would move to have a "run-off election" for the office of President.

3) I'm not entirely clear on whether the new officers have taken office yet. In either event, since both the outgoing President and the newly elected President clearly have an interest not in common with other members in this matter, it seems clear that this person should relinquish the chair to the Vice President to chair the meeting.

4) A member may raise a Point of Order that the motion for a run-off election is not in order, since the new President was properly elected, the late vote should not have been counted, and an election which has been completed may not be reconsidered or rescinded.

5) The chair may rule the point "well taken," meaning the chair agrees, or "not well taken," meaning the chair disagrees. The chair should provide the reasoning for the ruling.

6) A member may Appeal from the decision of the chair. If seconded, the decision is then in the hands of the assembly. After debate, the assembly votes 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.

7) When all is said and done, the assembly will then either move on (since the motion for a run-off election will have been determined to be out of order) or the assembly will consider the motion for a run-off election and, if that motion is adopted, will proceed to conduct the run-off election.

In the event the "run-off election" is ultimately conducted, I would note that members may still vote for any eligible person. Members are not limited to voting for the top two candidates from the previous round, unless your bylaws so provide. Although since your bylaws again call only for "loose adherence of Robert's Rules," that may also be a question of interpretation.

[Tammie]

Thanks everyone. We appreciate your help!