Not disclosing the voting results for each candidate

[Guest Robert J]

At a political party convention, there were some secret ballots held between multiple candidates for who would take positions on the executive body. The incumbent president who chaired the convention wasn't running for another term, so a new president was eagerly anticipated. 

Every delegate got a booklet at the beginning of the convention from the front desk where our credentials were checked and the booklet also contained ballots we would be using for the executive elections. We wrote down who we wanted on the ballot and some people with boxes came around and had us put the ballots in the boxes. 

The candidates had their own scrutineers, it wasn't that I was thinking the vote tally was a fraud, but I did want to know how many votes were cast for whom/. Under the RONR, we have the unqualified right to this (45:37-45:40) which expressly states the entire vote tally must be entered into the minutes, and that under no circumstances may it be left out, even if it is to, mistakenly, not upend the feelings and emotions of anyone who lost the vote. The party has an irritating habit of not releasing the vote tallies precisely because some of them seem to have stomachs weak enough to not want to know the precise numbers, even though I note it is critical to actually challenging anyone currently in office to know if they actually are 

The only way this seems that this should be able to be bypassed is if the party constitution itself was amended, or a special rule of order was enacted. That needs either a 2/3 vote of those present and voting, with notice, or a majority of the entire membership sans notice. Given this was a convention I suspect that a majority of the entire delegates registered actually might have been there and given the hand count I suspect that I might have lost had someone actually decided to ask for a motion to create a special rule of that nature, but A it would need to be published as one of the party's rules, and B, you can't just create a special rule like that in the middle of the proceedings while talking about something else. After the results were announced I went to the microphone, got recognized, and quoted verbatim 45:37-45:40, with special emphasis on the part that expressly says that the feelings are irrelevant to the rule that says they must put the tally into the published results, and said that I want a point of order regarding the tally to be published.

40      The tellers’ report is entered in full in the minutes, becoming a part of the official records of the organization. Under no circumstances may this be omitted in an election or in a vote on a critical motion out of a mistaken deference to the feelings of unsuccessful candidates or members of the losing side.

Robert, Henry M.. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th edition (p. 537). PublicAffairs. Kindle Edition. 

The chair for some reason didn't rule on the point of order but whispered to the parliamentarian and just said that they were going to suspend the rules (that motion passed by a sufficient number that I don't doubt the supermajority was obtained) which just needs a two thirds vote and also has no bearing outside of that particular meeting, but I also am skeptical that a suspend the rules thing could countermand a rule of this nature not actually pertaining to how you deal with just the meeting being carried out the way you could suspend the rules at the convention to make someone else hold the chair and preside but that they are trying to put an embargo on information reported outside of the scrutineers which all the members of the party should have the right to know via getting copies of the minutes. 

And probably most damning for what the president tried to do: the part about suspending the rules says expressly:

7. Usually requires a two-thirds vote (see below, however). In any case, no rule protecting a minority of a particular size can be suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as the minority protected by the rule.

Robert, Henry M.. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th edition (p. 359). PublicAffairs. Kindle Edition. 

The minutes and knowing their content would be a right that literally every single member has, to know the results of an election. Unless you literally had unanimous consent, of the entire membership of the entire party, I don't think the president was right here. 

This year there is going to be another convention and I am not in the mood to be off guard again. 

[Atul Kapur]

If, as you say, there were clearly more than two-thirds who voted in favour of suspending the rules, it seems highly unlikely that you would have gotten a majority to support your appeal, which would have been the step after the chair ruled against your point of order.

On 1/21/2024 at 9:13 PM, Guest Robert J said:

The minutes and knowing their content would be a right that literally every single member has, to know the results of an election.

That's a huge leap in logic - too big to be valid.

Edited January 22, 2024 at 07:42 AM by Atul Kapur

[Josh Martin]

On 1/21/2024 at 11:13 PM, Guest Robert J said:

At a political party convention, there were some secret ballots held between multiple candidates for who would take positions on the executive body. The incumbent president who chaired the convention wasn't running for another term, so a new president was eagerly anticipated...

The only way this seems that this should be able to be bypassed is if the party constitution itself was amended, or a special rule of order was enacted. That needs either a 2/3 vote of those present and voting, with notice, or a majority of the entire membership sans notice. Given this was a convention I suspect that a majority of the entire delegates registered actually might have been there and given the hand count I suspect that I might have lost had someone actually decided to ask for a motion to create a special rule of that nature...

The chair for some reason didn't rule on the point of order but whispered to the parliamentarian and just said that they were going to suspend the rules (that motion passed by a sufficient number that I don't doubt the supermajority was obtained) which just needs a two thirds vote and also has no bearing outside of that particular meeting, but I also am skeptical that a suspend the rules thing could countermand a rule of this nature...

Assuming the constitution requires a ballot vote for these elections, I agree with you that the rules cannot be suspended so as to prevent the reading of the tellers' report and the inclusion of the tellers' report in the minutes. And in fact, I'm not even certain a special rule of order would be sufficient - I think only amending the constitution would suffice. The reason for this is that announcement of the results is an "essential element" of a ballot vote, and that excluding this element would conflict with the constitution's requirement for a ballot vote. RONR is clear that a requirement for a ballot vote in the bylaws cannot be suspended.

"However, a rule in the bylaws requiring that a vote—such as, for example, on the election of officers—be taken by (secret) ballot cannot be suspended so as to violate the secrecy of the members' votes unless the bylaws so provide (see also Voting by Ballot, 45:18–24)." RONR (12th ed.) 25:7

In the alternative, however, if a lower level rule requires a ballot vote, or if the assembly simply chose to take a ballot vote, then I think the rules could be suspended in this matter.

This is, however, a question on which a number of experienced and reasonable parliamentarians have reached different conclusions. For further discussion of this subject, I would refer you to the following discussions. The second of these may be of particular assistance, as the facts involved are quite similar. In fact, I wonder if it was the same organization (or perhaps the fact that your first name and last initial are the same is a coincidence).

https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/30139-what-constitutes-a-ballot-vote/

https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/40158-not-releasing-the-teller-report/

I will note, however, that as a practical matter, the convention itself is the judge of its rules, and it certainly does seem likely from the facts presented that the convention would have upheld the chair's interpretation, no matter how much I may disagree with that interpretation. And there is no further recourse on this matter so far as RONR is concerned. Anything further would need to be found in your organization's bylaws, or in applicable law.

Edited January 22, 2024 at 01:58 PM by Josh Martin

[Dan Honemann]

I suppose that it will come as no surprise that I am in agreement with what Mr. Martin has said in his response, but I would also caution that, as Dr. Kapur has indicated, what is said in the last sentence of 25:2(7) is inapplicable.  

On one occasion (reported in PL, p. 488, Q&A 212), General Robert himself was presented with a situation in which a society's bylaws actually provided that "The tellers shall report to the chair only the names of the persons receiving the highest number of votes."  While recognizing that the society had a right to adopt such a bylaw (something with which we will all agree), General Robert went on to say:

"I have never before heard of any society’s taking such a step. It puts the society absolutely in the power of the tellers as far as the election is concerned, and if the tellers are unprincipled and in collusion, the election would be a farce. As the object of your by-law is to prevent anyone from knowing what candidates were voted for, and how many votes were cast for each, there is no possible way to detect fraud or to correct errors."

If Guest Robert J. is faced with the same situation at this years convention as he was at the last, I strongly suggest that he once again raise a point of order regarding this egregious violation of the rules in RONR, and be prepared to appeal from the ruling of the chair if necessary.

 

 

 

[J. J.]

On 1/22/2024 at 8:58 AM, Josh Martin said:

Assuming the constitution requires a ballot vote for these elections, I agree with you that the rules cannot be suspended so as to prevent the reading of the tellers' report and the inclusion of the tellers' report in the minutes. And in fact, I'm not even certain a special rule of order would be sufficient - I think only amending the constitution would suffice. The reason for this is that announcement of the results is an "essential element" of a ballot vote, and that excluding this element would conflict with the constitution's requirement for a ballot vote. RONR is clear that a requirement for a ballot vote in the bylaws cannot be suspended.

"However, a rule in the bylaws requiring that a vote—such as, for example, on the election of officers—be taken by (secret) ballot cannot be suspended so as to violate the secrecy of the members' votes unless the bylaws so provide (see also Voting by Ballot, 45:18–24)." RONR (12th ed.) 25:7

 

This, the last line, gives me the answer.  If the rules surrounding a ballot may be suspended without violating the secrecy of a ballot, there would be no violation.  It could be possible to suspend the rules, prior to the election, without violating the secrecy of the members' votes. 

Edited:   I will add that, in this case, it was not done prior to the election and objecting to it could violate the secrecy of the members' votes. 

Edited January 22, 2024 at 11:28 PM by J. J.

[Richard Brown]

On 1/22/2024 at 10:31 AM, Dan Honemann said:

. . . I would also caution that, as Dr. Kapur has indicated, what is said in the last sentence of 25:2(7) is inapplicable.  

Wasn't it the OP, Guest Robert J, who said that?  I don't see where Dr. Kapur said it.  Also, Dr. Kapur seemed to expressly disagree with the OP's position that the rule protects a minority of one.

[Dan Honemann]

On 1/22/2024 at 12:13 AM, Guest Robert J said:

The minutes and knowing their content would be a right that literally every single member has, to know the results of an election. Unless you literally had unanimous consent, of the entire membership of the entire party, I don't think the president was right here. 

 

On 1/22/2024 at 2:42 AM, Atul Kapur said:

That's a huge leap in logic - too big to be valid.