Improper Voting process

[Guest Libby Davis]

Vote held at regular monthly meeting.  Attendees were not polled during vote.  Chairman counted votes and 3 people that did not have voting privileges were counted.  Two people that were attending via zoom did not vote but Chairman counted their votes.  Discrepancy noted the next day via unofficial minutes and attention was called to problem.  What is the proper procedure to follow to correct vote.  Vote was 11-8.  

[Gary Novosielski]

The three people who were ineligible to vote--is it known how they voted?  It's clear that their votes could have affected the outcome of the vote.  Do we know whether or not they did?

If it can be definitely established that their votes did not affect the outcome, then the vote stands.  Otherwise the fact that it could have affected the outcome means that the vote was invalid, and a Point of Order should be raised at the next meeting.

[Guest Libby Davis]

The recording of the meeting was somehow lost.  Supposedly the chair has emailed each person and asked how they voted but since he was dishonest about the zoom votes I do not trust him.  I do not think it can be established that their votes did not effect the outcome.

[Gary Novosielski]

Yeah, that's not going to cut it.  You'd need clear and convincing proof, like for example a recorded roll-call vote, but of course that's not possible since the secretary would never call the name of anyone not entitled to vote. 

Get into the habit of raising a Point of Order as soon as you notice the rules not being followed.  Many situations cannot be remedied if a point of order was not raised in a timely manner.  Illegal voters are more of an exception.

[Josh Martin]

On 12/31/2022 at 5:19 PM, Guest Libby Davis said:

Vote held at regular monthly meeting.  Attendees were not polled during vote.  Chairman counted votes and 3 people that did not have voting privileges were counted.  Two people that were attending via zoom did not vote but Chairman counted their votes.  Discrepancy noted the next day via unofficial minutes and attention was called to problem.  What is the proper procedure to follow to correct vote.  Vote was 11-8.  

Assuming for the sake of argument that these facts are correct, it seems to me the vote should be declared null and void and held again. The manner in which to correct this is for a member to raise a Point of Order, followed by an Appeal if necessary.

"If one or more ballots are identifiable as cast by persons not entitled to vote, these ballots are excluded in determining the number of votes cast for purposes of computing the majority. If there is evidence that any unidentifiable ballots were cast by persons not entitled to vote, and if there is any possibility that such ballots might affect the result, the entire ballot vote is null and void, and a new ballot vote must be taken." RONR (12th ed.) 45:35

Edited January 1, 2023 at 07:20 PM by Josh Martin

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Nothing said this was by ballot, in fact they were not polled, it was just a counted vote.  Wouldn't an Point of Order have had to be raised at the time?  What is the basis for declaring it null and void?

[Josh Martin]

On 1/2/2023 at 5:23 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

Nothing said this was by ballot, in fact they were not polled, it was just a counted vote.  Wouldn't an Point of Order have had to be raised at the time? What is the basis for declaring it null and void?

There is a more general rule on this matter in 23:8 (that I was unfortunately not able to find for my earlier post), which does not refer to any particular manner of voting, and also explains why it is a continuing breach - because it violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law.

"If the announced result of a vote included votes cast in violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, such as votes cast by nonmembers or by absent members, or multiple votes improperly cast by a single member, a point of order can be raised so long as the decision arrived at as a result of the vote has continuing force and effect. If there is any possibility that the vote(s) would have affected the outcome, the results of the vote must be declared invalid if the point of order is sustained." RONR (12th ed.) 23:8

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Thank you I couldn't find it either.  appreciate the ref.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/2/2023 at 7:29 PM, Josh Martin said:

There is a more general rule on this matter in 23:8 (that I was unfortunately not able to find for my earlier post), which does not refer to any particular manner of voting, and also explains why it is a continuing breach - because it violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law.

"If the announced result of a vote included votes cast in violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, such as votes cast by nonmembers or by absent members, or multiple votes improperly cast by a single member, a point of order can be raised so long as the decision arrived at as a result of the vote has continuing force and effect. If there is any possibility that the vote(s) would have affected the outcome, the results of the vote must be declared invalid if the point of order is sustained." RONR (12th ed.) 23:8

From this it sounds like the counting of members who had actually abstained as having voted should also be added to the three non-member votes.

 

[Josh Martin]

On 1/2/2023 at 8:47 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

From this it sounds like the counting of members who had actually abstained as having voted should also be added to the three non-member votes.

I would think so, although I'm not sure it makes a difference. Since the vote was 11-8, the three non-member votes alone are sufficient to have affected the result.