Quorum lost before ballot result is announced at a convention

[Wright Stuff]

To avoid a continued and unintentional hijack of a similarly named thread, I'll ask the question here. This question is not hypothetical. I observed it at a convention a couple of years ago.

If there is a ballot vote at an annual convention, and quorum is lost before the vote is finally counted, the results of the election cannot be announced at the convention. There will not and cannot be another convention for one year. This situation is not addressed in the organization's bylaws. Let me repeat: Having another convention is not an option. What is the proper course of action?

[Josh Martin]

On 2/29/2024 at 4:17 PM, Wright Stuff said:

To avoid a continued and unintentional hijack of a similarly named thread, I'll ask the question here. This question is not hypothetical. I observed it at a convention a couple of years ago.

If there is a ballot vote at an annual convention, and quorum is lost before the vote is finally counted, the results of the election cannot be announced at the convention. There will not and cannot be another convention for one year. This situation is not addressed in the organization's bylaws. Let me repeat: Having another convention is not an option. What is the proper course of action?

There is no other proper course of action under RONR. Under the rules in RONR, the results must be announced at a meeting with a quorum present. Period.

The organization is, however, free to adopt its own rules on this matter, which could provide that the results of a ballot vote may be announced in the absence of a quorum, or even that they may be announced by some method outside of a meeting. (Indeed, I am inclined that the latter of these is preferable, either instead of or in addition to announcing the results at the inquorate meeting - announcing the results to a nearly empty room doesn't accomplish much.)

It may also be advisable to adopt rules authorizing some other body to handle challenges to the results, since the convention will be unable to address such matters.

"Because the voting body itself is the ultimate judge of election disputes, only that body has the authority to resolve them in the absence of a bylaw or special rule of order that specifically grants another body that authority. Thus, for example, when an election has been conducted at a membership meeting or in a convention of delegates, an executive board, even one that is given full power and authority over the society's affairs between meetings of the body that conducted the election, may not entertain a point of order challenging, or direct a recount concerning, the announced election result. While an election dispute is immediately pending before the voting body, however, it may vote to refer the dispute to a committee or board to which it delegates power to resolve the dispute." RONR (12th ed.) 46:50

Since this relates to a convention, I am inclined to think such rules could be adopted in the convention standing rules, which seems like a workable solution in the interim, since I imagine amending the bylaws may take some time.

Edited February 29, 2024 at 10:33 PM by Josh Martin

[Wright Stuff]

On 2/29/2024 at 5:30 PM, Josh Martin said:

Since this relates to a convention, I am inclined to think such rules could be adopted in the convention standing rules, which seems like a workable solution in the interim, since I imagine amending the bylaws may take some time.

This organization has been experiencing many it-will-never-happen events for the last few years. The problem in this particular circumstance is that the standing rules for this convention did not exist prior to the occurrence of the problem. The question is, what now? The organization ultimately made up its own solution, which has severely fragmented the membership. Amending the bylaws is probably more difficult than amending the US Constitution. Adopting such a standing rule prospectively is a possibility, but doing so does not solve the lingering issue. And then there's the question of whether this problem constitutes a lingering breach. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/29/2024 at 5:17 PM, Wright Stuff said:

To avoid a continued and unintentional hijack of a similarly named thread, I'll ask the question here. This question is not hypothetical. I observed it at a convention a couple of years ago.

If there is a ballot vote at an annual convention, and quorum is lost before the vote is finally counted, the results of the election cannot be announced at the convention. There will not and cannot be another convention for one year. This situation is not addressed in the organization's bylaws. Let me repeat: Having another convention is not an option. What is the proper course of action?

Since you say that this happened a couple of years ago, it's obviously rather late to be discussing it now.  But for purposes of discussion, tell us what the bylaws say about officers terms in office and about filling vacancies in office.

 

[Josh Martin]

On 2/29/2024 at 4:42 PM, Wright Stuff said:

This organization has been experiencing many it-will-never-happen events for the last few years. The problem in this particular circumstance is that the standing rules for this convention did not exist prior to the occurrence of the problem. The question is, what now? The organization ultimately made up its own solution, which has severely fragmented the membership. Amending the bylaws is probably more difficult than amending the US Constitution. Adopting such a standing rule prospectively is a possibility, but doing so does not solve the lingering issue. And then there's the question of whether this problem constitutes a lingering breach. 

Have the terms of office for the persons elected at the convention in question expired?

Edited March 1, 2024 at 01:08 PM by Josh Martin

[Rob Elsman]

The rules regarding quorum cannot be suspended. RONR (12th ed.) 25:10. If it is true that the convention adjourned sine die and is not authorized to meet again, it seems there is no course of action to take under the rules of parliamentary procedure. Whether there might be a remedy at law, I cannot even guess.

All this goes to show that delegates to conventions have important duties to perform, and these duties ought not be abandoned without an important and urgent reason. Dereliction of duty is a punishable offense. It might be wise for the organization to determine, if it can, who left early and initiate disciplinary operations to investigate the reasons why each delegate abandoned his duties with the aim of punishing those who did not have a legitimate excuse.

[Wright Stuff]

On 2/29/2024 at 7:21 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Since you say that this happened a couple of years ago, it's obviously rather late to be discussing it now.  But for purposes of discussion, tell us what the bylaws say about officers terms in office and about filling vacancies in office.

 

I will post that information on my return from hosting a convention.

[Wright Stuff]

On 3/1/2024 at 8:08 AM, Josh Martin said:

Have the terms of office for the persons elected at the convention in question expired?

They have not. One correction, too. It was only a year ago. It seems like two years.

[Howard Roark]

I remember this rule regarding announcement of results, but strangely cannot find the reference for it in RONR.  Can anyone here provide the citation?  Thanks!

EDIT: nevermind; I found it: 21:6.

Edited March 1, 2024 at 09:07 PM by Howard Roark

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/1/2024 at 3:45 PM, Howard Roark said:

I remember this rule regarding announcement of results, but strangely cannot find the reference for it in RONR.  Can anyone here provide the citation?  Thanks!

See 45:37-39

[Howard Roark]

I see that 45:37-39 provides the form for announcement of the results, but does not require that the announcement actually take place.

Also, I was mistaken on 21:6 - that paragraph states that the motion to adjourn IS in order if all the ballots have been collected and before the results have been announced.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/1/2024 at 4:13 PM, Howard Roark said:

I see that 45:37-39 provides the form for announcement of the results, but does not require that the announcement actually take place.

Shirley, you can't be serious.  😑 While there is a special form in the case of an election, the announcement of results is required after a vote on a question of any kind. [4:25]   

 

[Josh Martin]

On 3/1/2024 at 3:13 PM, Howard Roark said:

Also, I was mistaken on 21:6 - that paragraph states that the motion to adjourn IS in order if all the ballots have been collected and before the results have been announced.

Yes, and what is said there is correct. But if this occurs, this then means that the results will need to be announced at a future meeting. See the footnote to 21:6.

"When much time may be consumed in counting ballots, it is generally better to take a recess, but the assembly can adjourn if it has previously appointed a time for the next meeting. In any case, the result of the ballot vote should be announced as soon as business is resumed." RONR (12th ed.) 21:6n5

I am not aware of any explicit statement that the announcement of the result of a vote must occur at a meeting where a quorum is present. But it seems this is a necessary and logical conclusion of the following rules:

• All business can only be conducted at a meeting, unless the bylaws provide otherwise.
• Further, all business (with the exception of certain procedural matters) can only be conducted while a quorum is present.
• The announcement of the results is business, as it is a necessary step in the processing of a motion.

As a consequence, it seems to me there need not be an explicit rule that the results of a ballot vote need to be announced at a meeting with a quorum present. On the contrary, like all other business, this must occur at a meeting with a quorum present unless there is a rule providing otherwise - which there is not.

Edited March 1, 2024 at 10:29 PM by Josh Martin

[Howard Roark]

On 3/1/2024 at 3:27 PM, Josh Martin said:

• The announcement of the results is business, as it is a step in the processing of a motion.

Ah, yes, I see.  That is the crux of the matter.

Does it seem, though, that this can lead to serious abuse?  For example, a malicious incumbent chair (and I've seen many) could:

• Attempt to delay announcing the result until quorum is lost -- and by doing so earn himself another year in office.  I suppose a point of order and appeal could counter that tactic if the membership is knowledgeable enough or a floor parliamentarian is present. 
• Or, this malicious chair, knowing the result but before announcing it, could direct his supporters to depart and thus deny quorum.  (In fact, this may not even be necessary: at many conventions, a large proportion of members depart immediately after casting their final vote.)

[Josh Martin]

On 3/1/2024 at 4:48 PM, Howard Roark said:

Ah, yes, I see.  That is the crux of the matter.

Does it seem, though, that this can lead to serious abuse?  For example, a malicious incumbent chair (and I've seen many) could:

• Attempt to delay announcing the result until quorum is lost -- and by doing so earn himself another year in office.  I suppose a point of order and appeal could counter that tactic if the membership is knowledgeable enough or a floor parliamentarian is present. 
• Or, this malicious chair, knowing the result but before announcing it, could direct his supporters to depart and thus deny quorum.  (In fact, this may not even be necessary: at many conventions, a large proportion of members depart immediately after casting their final vote.)

I would first note, that in any event, the rule in RONR is what it is. To the extent an organization wishes for a different rule on this matter, it will need to provide as much in its own rules.

As to the situations you describe, certainly, we can imagine any number of scenarios where a rule could go wrong, particularly when the organization is of such a nature where it cannot be assumed that most of the members are behaving in good faith.

But I would suggest that to permit the results to be announced (and binding) in the absence of a quorum, or outside of a meeting, also potentially causes problems. The announcement of the results is not necessarily just a formality. A Point of Order or a motion for a recount could be raised at that time.

So I would suggest that if this is anticipated to be a problem in an organization, the organization is free to adopt its own rules on this matter, but it may also be advisable to adopt rules authorizing some other body to handle challenges to the results, since the convention will be unable to address such matters.

"Because the voting body itself is the ultimate judge of election disputes, only that body has the authority to resolve them in the absence of a bylaw or special rule of order that specifically grants another body that authority. Thus, for example, when an election has been conducted at a membership meeting or in a convention of delegates, an executive board, even one that is given full power and authority over the society's affairs between meetings of the body that conducted the election, may not entertain a point of order challenging, or direct a recount concerning, the announced election result. While an election dispute is immediately pending before the voting body, however, it may vote to refer the dispute to a committee or board to which it delegates power to resolve the dispute." RONR (12th ed.) 46:50

[J. J.]

On 3/1/2024 at 5:48 PM, Howard Roark said:

. 

• Or, this malicious chair, knowing the result but before announcing it, could direct his supporters to depart and thus deny quorum.  (In fact, this may not even be necessary: at many conventions, a large proportion of members depart immediately after casting their final vote.)

Even without a quorun present, it is possible to schedule an adjourned meeting (40:7). 

[Wright Stuff]

On 2/29/2024 at 7:21 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Since you say that this happened a couple of years ago, it's obviously rather late to be discussing it now.  But for purposes of discussion, tell us what the bylaws say about officers terms in office and about filling vacancies in office.

Terms in office:

In every odd-numbered year, the Convention shall elect a Chairman and a Vice-Chairman who shall serve for a term of two years or until their successors are elected.

Vacancies in office: 

i.                     A vacancy in the office of Chairman shall be filled by the next ranking Committee member until the Executive Committee elects a successor. The order of rank shall be Vice-Chairman, Secretary. A meeting of the Executive Committee shall be called within 60 days of the vacancy for the purpose of electing a Chairman.

 ii.                    A vacancy in the office of Vice-Chairman shall be filled at a meeting of the Executive Committee which shall be called within 60 days of the vacancy.

In the situation I'm referencing, there was not an election of the Vice Chair because quorum was lost. The Vice-Chair position was not vacated, so it was not possible to fill the position pursuant to the vacancy provision. 

[Josh Martin]

On 3/3/2024 at 10:13 PM, Wright Stuff said:

In the situation I'm referencing, there was not an election of the Vice Chair because quorum was lost. The Vice-Chair position was not vacated, so it was not possible to fill the position pursuant to the vacancy provision. 

So to be clear, the previously elected Vice Chair is still serving?

On 3/3/2024 at 10:13 PM, Wright Stuff said:

Terms in office:

In every odd-numbered year, the Convention shall elect a Chairman and a Vice-Chairman who shall serve for a term of two years or until their successors are elected.

Vacancies in office: 

i.                     A vacancy in the office of Chairman shall be filled by the next ranking Committee member until the Executive Committee elects a successor. The order of rank shall be Vice-Chairman, Secretary. A meeting of the Executive Committee shall be called within 60 days of the vacancy for the purpose of electing a Chairman.

So I suppose that technically, a member could raise a Point of Order that the Chairman was not validly elected due to the absence of a quorum at the convention when the results were announced. Except to the extent the bylaws provide otherwise, however, such a Point of Order could only be raised at the next convention of the body in question. (It should also be noted that a Point of Order concerning the lack of a quorum requires clear and convincing proof that a quorum was not present, which may be difficult to obtain for a convention which occurred a year ago).

Assuming that, following the chair's ruling and any subsequent appeal, the convention does make the determination that the election is invalid, the convention would then proceed to complete the incomplete election in the office of Chair from the convention held the previous year.

It may well be, however, that in the circumstances it is best if everyone agrees to just let sleeping dogs lie.

In any event, after that is all settled, the convention should also proceed to complete the incomplete election in the office of Vice Chair from the previous convention.

Edited March 4, 2024 at 04:26 PM by Josh Martin

[J. J.]

On 3/4/2024 at 11:25 AM, Josh Martin said:

So to be clear, the previously elected Vice Chair is still serving?

So I suppose that technically, a member could raise a Point of Order that the Chairman was not validly elected due to the absence of a quorum at the convention when the results were announced. Except to the extent the bylaws provide otherwise, however, such a Point of Order could only be raised at the next convention of the body in question. (It should also be noted that a Point of Order concerning the lack of a quorum requires clear and convincing proof that a quorum was not present, which may be difficult to obtain for a convention which occurred a year ago).

Assuming that, following the chair's ruling and any subsequent appeal, the convention does make the determination that the election is invalid, the convention would then proceed to complete the incomplete election in the office of Chair from the convention held the previous year.

It may well be, however, that in the circumstances it is best if everyone agrees to just let sleeping dogs lie.

In any event, after that is all settled, the convention should also proceed to complete the incomplete election in the office of Vice Chair from the previous convention.

It could make the announcement at the new meeting, if the ballots were secured. 

[Josh Martin]

On 3/4/2024 at 3:51 PM, J. J. said:

It could make the announcement at the new meeting, if the ballots were secured. 

Yes, that would also be an easy solution to the problem.

I'm somewhat doubtful, however, that the ballots have been kept securely preserved for a year.