Improper election and post voided election processes

[Buffalo]

I am in a volunteer fire dept. and we use Robert’s rules of order. We had an election for line officers (chief, capt., etc.). A motion was made to reopen the nominations and a person was nominated from the floor right before the vote. However, when the motion was made, it was approved by a second but a majority vote was not taken to see if the motion would be accepted or not. Everyone forgot this rule, including myself and and the person was allowed to be nominated. This person who was nominated (technically illegally) ended up pulling enough votes that one person lost a capt. position by 2 votes. There were 3 spots available and now 5 people running. Then when the vote for lieutenant happened, this same person was again nominated illegally from the floor in the same process as he was for capt. The problem is that if he had not been nominated illegally, there were only 3 people left for the 3 lieutenant positions so 1 vote would have been cast for the 3 people and they would have assumed the lieutenant positions. However, since this other person was nominated, they ended up winning one of the spots instead after a vote. 
Here are my questions:

1. Since the motion was made to nominate from the floor but not voted on and approved by a majority, does this make it an illegal nomination? I have seen a lot of supporting material that says it is illegal. 
 

2. In this case, assuming it was an illegal nomination, would this person be voided from running?

3. If said person is now voided from nominations, and the elections for capt and lieutenant are also now voided, how would we proceed?
 

4. Would we go back to the original nominations since he was an illegal nomination? Would we have to void these 2 elections and then start all over including allowing a vote to be able run from the floor? 
 

5. If a quorum is not present for the special meeting to address the new elections, what would happen or what process would be followed?

Edited December 11, 2021 at 04:30 PM by Buffalo

[J. J.]

On 12/11/2021 at 10:06 AM, Buffalo said:

I am in a volunteer fire dept. and we use Robert’s rules of order. We had an election for line officers (chief, capt., etc.). A person was was nominated from the floor right before the vote. However, when the motion was made, it was approved by a second but a majority vote was not taken to see if the motion would be accepted or not. Everyone forgot this rule, including myself and and the person was allowed to be nominated. This person who was nominated (technically illegally) ended up pulling enough votes that one person lost a capt. position by 2 votes. There were 3 spots available and now 5 people running. Then when the vote for lieutenant happened, this same person was again nominated illegally from the floor in the same process as he was for capt. The problem is that if he had not been nominated illegally, there were only 3 people left for the 3 lieutenant positions so 1 vote would have been cast for the 3 people and they would have assumed the lieutenant positions. However, since this other person was nominated, they ended up winning one of the spots instead after a vote. 

 

There is absolutely no requirement in RONR for a vote to accept a nomination; such a vote would be dilatory.  Any member may nominate an eligible person and no second is required (46:6).

1.  No.  It violated no rules in RONR.

2.  No.  In ballot or roll call voting nominations are not even required (46:2).

3.  The elections are not void.

4-5 assume a false premise.

[Buffalo]

Here is what Robert’s rules states:

“Because members' rights are not infringed upon by reopening the nominations, this motion requires only a majority vote, and a voice vote is taken. To reopen the nominations, a member can make the motion when no one has the floor.”

So I respectfully disagree with your response. 

[Buffalo]

I updated my original question, I apologize that I originally left out the part that the nominations were reopened. 

[Atul Kapur]

On 12/11/2021 at 10:06 AM, Buffalo said:

However, when the motion was made, it was approved by a second but a majority vote was not taken to see if the motion would be accepted or not. Everyone forgot this rule, including myself

The time to correct this error was when it happened. Any point of order would have had to be made in a timely manner, in this case, that would be before any floor nomination was accepted. It is way too late to challenge it, now. So the floor nomination was valid and so was the election. So the specific answers are

1. No

2. The assumption is incorrect, so no.

3-5. Are not considered because of the answers to 1 and 2.

[Buffalo]

Thank you for weighing in. I found this though and it is why I am wondering if I can challenge. It was taken for parli.com

In Alice Sturgis’ book on Parliamentary Procedure, she outlines a more detailed procedure for challenging an election. (p. 151) 

"An election may be challenged only during the time that it is taking place or within a reasonably brief time thereafter. The grounds for challenging an election are usually that persons who are ineligible have voted, that procedures required for carrying out a fair election were not observed, that procedures or actions during the election were unauthorized or illegal, that there was gross negligence in conducting the election, or that the election requirements in the bylaws were not correctly interpreted or followed and that these violations could have changed the result of the election.

When an election is challenged, an investigation is usually made by the board of directors or by a committee selected by them, or by the elections committee. The board or committee reports its recommendation to the meeting or convention for final decision. If the meeting or convention is no longer in session, the board of directors decides the matter and takes whatever action seems best. The board must report its action to the members.

When an election is challenged while it is in progress, it continues unless a decision is reached to stop the election and declare it void. If it is challenged after it is completed, the officers chosen at the election take office and remain in office until a decision on the challenge is reached.

If it can be proved that enough illegal votes were cast so that the results of the election could have been changed, the election should be voided. If illegal votes cast or illegal practices engaged in could not have changed the results of the election, the fact that there were illegal votes or practices does not void the election."

[Buffalo]

I also saw in another place that as long as an election is challenged before the officers officially take there seat, then a challenge can happen. In this case, the officers don’t start until January 1st. 

[Joshua Katz]

On 12/11/2021 at 1:35 PM, Buffalo said:

In Alice Sturgis’ book on Parliamentary Procedure, she outlines a more detailed procedure for challenging an election. (p. 151) 

 

Your organization, as I understand it, has adopted RONR as its parliamentary authority. Other parliamentary authorities may be useful to look at if RONR does not answer a specific question, and they'd be persuasive although not binding. In this case, though, RONR provides an answer, so what is in other parliamentary authorities is of no moment.

[Weldon Merritt]

J.J. and Dr. Kapur have given you the correct answers. The quote from Alice Sturgis is irrelevant; your parliamentary authority is RONR, not Sturgis. 

[Buffalo]

Ok. So even though the reopening of the floor was done wrong, the fact that the election was held means there can be no recourse? Is it a “too bad, so sad” type of moment? How would Robert’s rules of order address this situation?

I also want to thank everyone for their input. This is very educational. 

[Atul Kapur]

You have been told how RONR advises you to address this situation: make a point of order at the time of the error. You obviously don't like the answer that several of us have given, but that doesn't change the answer.

This is getting tedious because you have given no indication that the error affected the rights and ability of the meeting to elect who they wanted. Nor have you given any indication that the majority would have voted against re-opening nominations; in fact, from the election results we see that a majority favoured the elected candidate over the previously nominated ones so, presumably, were happy to re-open nominations and would have voted to do so. As stated in RONR (12th ed.) 23:4 (emphasis added):

Quote

In ordinary meetings it is undesirable to raise points of order on minor irregularities of a purely technical character, if it is clear that no one’s rights are being infringed upon and no real harm is being done to the proper transaction of business.

and, as you recognized in an earlier post, "members' rights are not infringed upon by reopening the nominations" 

Further, your quotation of Alice Sturgis, while not relevant to your organization, shows you have misread or ignored the first paragraph, which repeats that the challenge of an election can take place "only during the time that it is taking place or within a reasonably brief time thereafter," and goes on to state the various grounds for a challenge, none of which apply to your situation. The fairness of the election was not affected by the error and the error does not rise to the level of "gross negligence."

Edited December 11, 2021 at 10:26 PM by Atul Kapur
Added underlined clause to connect earlier statement of OP to RONR quote

[Joshua Katz]

On 12/11/2021 at 2:33 PM, Buffalo said:

Is it a “too bad, so sad” type of moment?

To generalize a bit, the rule from RONR is that all errors need to be pointed out in a timely manner. But what is "timely" depends on the type of error. To generalize even more, all errors must be pointed out while ongoing. In this case, the motion was to (I think) reopen nominations, which required a majority vote. The chair, in effect, declared it adopted without a vote. That was an error, and a point of order was timely while it was going on. But once nominations were made, that was no longer the ongoing business, and the assembly had basically acquiesced in nominations being open. So yes, it is too late to challenge it, and became too late once nominations were made. 

 

[J. J.]

On 12/11/2021 at 4:13 PM, Joshua Katz said:

To generalize a bit, the rule from RONR is that all errors need to be pointed out in a timely manner. But what is "timely" depends on the type of error. To generalize even more, all errors must be pointed out while ongoing. In this case, the motion was to (I think) reopen nominations, which required a majority vote. The chair, in effect, declared it adopted without a vote. That was an error, and a point of order was timely while it was going on. But once nominations were made, that was no longer the ongoing business, and the assembly had basically acquiesced in nominations being open. So yes, it is too late to challenge it, and became too late once nominations were made. 

 

Further, if this by ballot, nominations are not needed at all, so some error cannot invalidate an election. 

[Josh Martin]

On 12/11/2021 at 9:06 AM, Buffalo said:

1. Since the motion was made to nominate from the floor but not voted on and approved by a majority, does this make it an illegal nomination? I have seen a lot of supporting material that says it is illegal. 

RONR does not use the term "illegal" in this context, but the nomination was not in order, if that's what you mean.

On 12/11/2021 at 9:06 AM, Buffalo said:

2. In this case, assuming it was an illegal nomination, would this person be voided from running?

No, for two reasons. First, a Point of Order regarding a violation of the rules generally must be raised at the time of the breach.

Second, even if the member had not been nominated at all, RONR provides that members may vote for any eligible person, whether that person has been nominated or not. So the fact that the nomination was improper is really not a big deal. The election remains valid.

"The general rule is that if a question of order is to be raised, it must be raised promptly at the time the breach occurs." RONR (12th ed.) 23:5

"Strictly speaking, nominations are not necessary when an election is by ballot or roll call, since each member is free to vote for any eligible person, whether he has been nominated or not." RONR (12th ed.) 46:2

Questions 3-5 are moot, since the election is valid.

On 12/11/2021 at 12:35 PM, Buffalo said:

Thank you for weighing in. I found this though and it is why I am wondering if I can challenge. It was taken for parli.com

What is said in Sturgis is not relevant to your situation since RONR is your society's parliamentary authority and RONR has its own rules on this matter, but in any event, this is not sufficient grounds to challenge the election under RONR, and I am doubtful it is grounds to challenge the election under Sturgis either.

The rules in RONR on this matter are found in RONR (12th ed.) 46:48-50.

On 12/11/2021 at 12:38 PM, Buffalo said:

I also saw in another place that as long as an election is challenged before the officers officially take there seat, then a challenge can happen. In this case, the officers don’t start until January 1st. 

I don't know where you saw that, but this statement is incorrect, at least so far as RONR is concerned. The time at which the officers take office is immaterial. A Point of Order generally must be raised at the time the breach occurs. In the case of a continuing breach (which is not the case here), the Point of Order can be raised any time during the continuance of the breach, which would be for the entire term of office.

On 12/11/2021 at 1:33 PM, Buffalo said:

Ok. So even though the reopening of the floor was done wrong, the fact that the election was held means there can be no recourse? Is it a “too bad, so sad” type of moment?

Yes, there is no recourse at this time, and it is a "too bad, so sad" situation.

Situations like this are precisely why the timeliness rule exists - to avoid having to redo things because of minor technicalities.

On 12/11/2021 at 1:33 PM, Buffalo said:

How would Robert’s rules of order address this situation?

By everyone moving on with their lives and trying to do it right next time.

Edited December 12, 2021 at 04:44 PM by Josh Martin

[Buffalo]

I want to thank everyone who contributed to this discussion. To the people that said I was just looking for an answer because I didn’t like what I was hearing, this is not true. This is a forum for discussion and I that’s all I was doing. I had many questions since this seemed to be a unique situation and I am somewhat new to Robert’s rules. But again, thank you to everyone who weighed in. It was greatly appreciated and very enlightening. This is truly a great forum with many smart people, so thank you. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/11/2021 at 11:19 AM, Buffalo said:

Here is what Robert’s rules states:

“Because members' rights are not infringed upon by reopening the nominations, this motion requires only a majority vote, and a voice vote is taken. To reopen the nominations, a member can make the motion when no one has the floor.”

So I respectfully disagree with your response. 

More to the point, if no Point of Order was raised at the time, the lack of a vote is no longer at issue.  Since no one objected, it could be argued that the motion to reopen nominations was agreed to by unanimous consent.

Nothing you have presented would suggest that the election results are faulty in any way.