Secret Ballot Recount Requested

[Guest karthakon]

We recently conducted an election by secret ballot for Board Officers. Our By-laws state that: 

The Officers and Directors of the Corporation shall be elected by plurality vote of the membership voting by secret, written
ballot. One ballot shall be available to each member household in the development at least
seven calendar days prior to the Election. All ballots must be returned to a sealed ballot box
by a specified date and time. Ties will be resolved in a manner determined by the currently
serving Board at the time of the Election.

An Election Committee was formed to conduct the election. The Committee proposed rules for the election that stated in part:

Identification envelopes will be checked off against the shareholder and nonmember lists. ENVELOPES MUST BE SIGNED TO BE VALIDATED. UNSIGNED IDENTIFICATION ENVELOPES WILL BE INVALIDATED.

The rule was not objected to when presented to the board although no vote was taken.

During the election we had 6 ballots that were declared illegal and not counted. 4 because the envelope was not signed and 2 because the ballot was not returned in the outer envelope. One of the contests was within one vote. The candidate that did not prevail has demanded a recount. No attempt was made to validate the votes since the rule was in place. We've recounted the legal ballots but should anything else be done about this candidate's objection?

 

[Joshua Katz]

Well, a recount won't really address this problem. That said, the rule in RONR calls for putting ballots in two envelopes and signing the outer envelope so that it can be determined that only valid members vote, yet the votes can be secret. 

[Richard Brown]

Agreeing with Mr. Katz, exactly what method of balloting was utilized? Were there dual envelopes – an outer envelope and an inner envelope which contains the ballot? That is the normal way of conducting an election by ballot conducted outside of a meeting. The outer envelope is signed by the member who is voting or at least contains his name, the inner envelope contains the ballot and is sealed and is removed from the outer envelope when the ballot is returned, and the member is noted as having voted. 

I suspect from what you said that the election was properly conducted and that the election results stand.
 

[Rob Elsman]

On 5/3/2024 at 3:15 PM, Guest karthakon said:

The rule was not objected to when presented to the board although no vote was taken.

What was the basis for the board's authority to make these kinds of rules?  Nothing in RONR (12th ed.) confers this authority.  So much of the original post is written in the agentless passive voice that I am having trouble figuring out who is doing what to whom.

[Drake Savory]

On 5/3/2024 at 2:15 PM, Guest karthakon said:

During the election we had 6 ballots that were declared illegal and not counted. 4 because the envelope was not signed and 2 because the ballot was not returned in the outer envelope.

What rules exactly did these ballots violate?  Is there any rule that requires envelopes to be signed or to be placed in the outer envelope?

[Richard Brown]

Initially, I thought a rule regarding signing ballots had been violated. However, upon rereading the original post, I agree with Mr. Savory that it is not clear that any rule was violated or that this “election committee“ had the authority to promulgate any such rule on its own or that the board itself approved the rule or even that it had the authority to do so.  An “instruction“ from a group of people not authorized to validly make a rule is not binding. 

However, if there was no way to verify that the unsigned ballots were submitted by members, rejecting those ballots may have still been appropriate.

[Joshua Katz]

Well, I'm confused. They don't require signed ballots, but they do vote outside of a meeting. Their parliamentary authority, presumably, is RONR. RONR has rules for conducting elections outside of meetings. The committee announced that those rules would be followed. No vote was taken because no vote would be appropriate on such an announcement. Then the election was conducted in accordance with RONR's rules. What am I missing?

[Richard Brown]

 

On 5/3/2024 at 7:35 PM, Joshua Katz said:

Well, a recount won't really address this problem. That said, the rule in RONR calls for putting ballots in two envelopes and signing the outer envelope so that it can be determined that only valid members vote, yet the votes can be secret. 

Actually, the rule in RONR section 45:60 calls for signing the INNER envelope, not the outer envelope, which seems counter-intuitive. Nonetheless, RONR does call for signing at least one of the envelopes.

 

On 5/4/2024 at 8:45 AM, Joshua Katz said:

Well, I'm confused. They don't require signed ballots, but they do vote outside of a meeting. Their parliamentary authority, presumably, is RONR. RONR has rules for conducting elections outside of meetings. The committee announced that those rules would be followed. No vote was taken because no vote would be appropriate on such an announcement. Then the election was conducted in accordance with RONR's rules. What am I missing?

I don't think you are missing anything.  I agree that the rules in RONR seem to cover the situation sufficiently, especially when considered along with the instructions from the committee for members to sign the envelope for the ballot to be valid. So, final answer, I agree that rejecting the ballots that were in unsigned envelopes seems appropriate. I'm not so sure about rejecting the ballots that did not have an outer envelope, especially if the inner envelope was signed.  The OP did not tell us whether those ballots were unsigned, just that they did not have an outer envelope.  I think that's a closer call that the assembly might have the right to decide.

[Joshua Katz]

On 5/4/2024 at 7:55 AM, Richard Brown said:

I'm not so sure about rejecting the ballots that did not have an outer envelope, especially if the inner envelope was signed. 

Okay, that makes sense. Such a person has, at worst, made it easier for someone to know their vote, but there's no risk of the vote being from a person not qualified to vote.

[Guest Karthakon]

The vote was intended to be secret. The outer envelopes were signed.  The inner envelopes were not signed. It looks like the Robert's Rules were misread on that point.

At any rate, we have 4 unsigned outer envelopes and 2 unsigned inner envelopes. The 2 inner envelopes were returned without an outer envelope. The 4 outer envelopes have the name of the member on them and a space to be signed which is blank. Then inner envelopes have no identifying information. None of these envelopes have been opened so we don't know who the votes are for. The election committee stated ballots returned without a signed outer envelope would not be counted. The committee and the Board believed that was in compliance with Robert's Rules. Elections for our organization have been run this way since 2016. We've never had anyone contest the results before.

[Joshua Katz]

Inner/outer aside, I would take the position that all 6 unsigned envelopes are not counted.

[Guest karthakon]

Thanks, that's what we're going with. We did recount the ballots in the presence of the person that demanded the recount and it came out the same. The person was not shown the uncounted envelopes. We only allow the election committee to handle the ballots. The person that did not prevail intends to bring the matter before the The Secretary of State of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I'm not sure what will come of that, but I expect any response to take a while. The newly elected Board is scheduled to be formally announced at our annual meeting of all members in a little over a week and the new Board will have their first meeting a week after that.

[Richard Brown]

On 5/4/2024 at 3:05 PM, Joshua Katz said:

Inner/outer aside, I would take the position that all 6 unsigned envelopes are not counted.

And I concur with that, Mr. Katz.  All of the additional information has sufficiently clarified things for me.

[Rob Elsman]

The interval of time within which to contest an election is very quickly coming to a close.  Unless there is some issue at law that we don't know about, I think this is a wrap--it's in the books.

[Drake Savory]

On 5/4/2024 at 2:02 PM, Guest Karthakon said:

At any rate, we have 4 unsigned outer envelopes and 2 unsigned inner envelopes.

Then that's more information than the OP.  I read the original as the 2 were signed (in the absence of saying unsigned as you explicitly did for the other 4) and that they were declared invalid simply by lacking the outer envelope.  Then I concur all 6 are invalid.

 

On 5/3/2024 at 2:15 PM, Guest karthakon said:

The rule was not objected to when presented to the board although no vote was taken.

Just curious.  Was this done through unanimous consent or was it more of the committee saying that's what they want to do and the board members were more meh, sounds good to me.

[Guest karthakon]

It was the second one. "committee saying that's what they want to do and the board members were more meh, sounds good to me." The election committee didn't propose any change, the rules they presented were the same as we've used in the past.

[Rob Elsman]

It is far too late in the game for those who are on the losing side to start guerilla warfare over the results of the election because of some perceived procedural deficiency.  The time to work out any procedural kinks was long before the contest even became a topic.  Perhaps the group had a crummy election.  Without adequate study or training long beforehand, I can certainly see how that might have happened.  The thing is, the next election will be as crummy as this one if the organization does not rectify the root cause through appropriate training and rehearsal.

[Drake Savory]

On 5/5/2024 at 12:46 PM, Guest karthakon said:

The election committee didn't propose any change, the rules they presented were the same as we've used in the past.

Then here is a question for the group.  The Election Committee presents rules suitably general that they can be used for any election.  For example rather than saying "Voting shall occur April 1, 2024 to April 14, 2024." it is written "Voting shall occur during the first two weeks of April."  The assembly adopts those rules.  Are they now standing rules for all future elections unless rescinded or amended?

[karthakon]

Our By Laws say the following on how we conduct elections:

"The Officers and Directors of the Corporation shall be elected by plurality vote of the membership voting by secret, written ballot. One ballot shall be available to each member household in the development at least seven calendar days prior to the Election. All ballots must be returned to a sealed ballot box by a specified date and time. Ties will be resolved in a manner determined by the currently serving Board at the time of the Election."

The rules regarding the ballots are how we've been keeping the ballot secret and making sure only qualified members of the corporation can vote. The By-laws don't explicitly tell how we should do that. Should the By-Laws be amended to be more specific on that point?

[Gary Novosielski]

No, just follow the procedure outlined in RONR 12th ed. 45:60-61.