Elections

[Guest rachel]

Nominations took place in April. then nominations were to be closed. Only one person ran for a position. The next meeting was to vote but said person couldn't be there along with some others. (Vocal voting) Right before the vote a man said following Robert's rules last minute nominations could be made. This was deliberately done so the votes were unfair but no way of proving it. Is this allowed? Bylaws do not say whether or not it's allowed just says nominations closed but also states we follow Robert's rules. 

[Joshua Katz]

If the bylaws are silent, nominations may be reopened, and indeed nominations from the floor are in order. I personally also don't see anything unfair about a nomination at the "last minute."

[Guest Rachel]

On 6/9/2024 at 9:15 PM, Joshua Katz said:

If the bylaws are silent, nominations may be reopened, and indeed nominations from the floor are in order. I personally also don't see anything unfair about a nomination at the "last minute."

The issue we see is that people nominated weren't present along with some others and thought since it was closed and only 1 nomination it was a done deal. The other guy knew some were missing and motioned to open nominations knowing all his friends came to this one and only meeting so it just seems snake-like to do in my opinion. 

[Joshua Katz]

I think opinions can differ on that point. My opinion would be that nominees and their supporters should be aware that nominations can be reopened. But either way, it sounds like politics to me, and RONR does not prohibit politicking. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/9/2024 at 9:23 PM, Guest Rachel said:

The issue we see is that people nominated weren't present along with some others and thought since it was closed and only 1 nomination it was a done deal. The other guy knew some were missing and motioned to open nominations knowing all his friends came to this one and only meeting so it just seems snake-like to do in my opinion. 

There is no requirement that someone must be present to be nominated or elected.

And it is standard procedure to open nominations from the floor prior to the election.

If people didn't attend, and got outfoxed by those who did, well, as Woody Allen said, "Eighty percent of life is showing up."

[Atul Kapur]

On 6/9/2024 at 7:00 PM, Guest rachel said:

Bylaws do not say whether or not it's allowed just says nominations closed but also states we follow Robert's rules

Robert's says nominations are re-opened before the vote. Your bylaws may overrule that and say nominations close at the prior meeting without being reopened at the meeting where the elections are held.

We would need to see the exact wording of that part of your bylaws to help advise if that is the case. 

In either case, it's almost certainly too late to change or invalidate the results of the election. 

[Josh Martin]

On 6/9/2024 at 8:00 PM, Guest rachel said:

Nominations took place in April. then nominations were to be closed. Only one person ran for a position. The next meeting was to vote but said person couldn't be there along with some others. (Vocal voting) Right before the vote a man said following Robert's rules last minute nominations could be made. This was deliberately done so the votes were unfair but no way of proving it. Is this allowed? Bylaws do not say whether or not it's allowed just says nominations closed but also states we follow Robert's rules. 

It is correct that last minute nominations can be made, unless the bylaws specifically provide otherwise. So whether this was done deliberately or not, I don't see anything "unfair" in what occurred.

"Note that the chair must call for further nominations at the session at which the election is held even if nominations from the floor were called for at a previous session." RONR (12th ed.) 46:18

Furthermore, even if nominations are closed, write-in votes are in order.

"On a ballot vote in an election or other vote involving multiple possible choices, members are able to write in or fill in a vote for any eligible person or choice and are not confined to voting for or against candidates that appear on the ballot." RONR (12th ed.) 45:18

"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

On 6/9/2024 at 8:23 PM, Guest Rachel said:

The issue we see is that people nominated weren't present along with some others and thought since it was closed and only 1 nomination it was a done deal. The other guy knew some were missing and motioned to open nominations knowing all his friends came to this one and only meeting so it just seems snake-like to do in my opinion. 

Well, now they know better for next time. What happened was democracy in action.

The lesson to take away from this is that an election is never a "done deal."

Edited June 10, 2024 at 12:31 PM by Josh Martin

[Rob Elsman]

I do not take the lesson away.  In fact, in my opinion, parliamentary law militates against any action that is "...never a 'done deal'".  This applies especially with respect to elections, since the instability caused by any appearance that the election continues at length to be contestable can do real damage to the society as a whole.

[Josh Martin]

On 6/10/2024 at 8:03 AM, Rob Elsman said:

I do not take the lesson away.  In fact, in my opinion, parliamentary law militates against any action that is "...never a 'done deal'".  This applies especially with respect to elections, since the instability caused by any appearance that the election continues at length to be contestable can do real damage to the society as a whole.

I appreciate the clarification. What I meant to say was that an election is never a done deal until the election is over, but I can see how what I said might be interpreted as saying that the election is never a done deal, period, which I agree is something much different.

[Rob Elsman]

Thank you, too, for the clarification.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/10/2024 at 5:45 PM, Josh Martin said:

I appreciate the clarification. What I meant to say was that an election is never a done deal until the election is over, but I can see how what I said might be interpreted as saying that the election is never a done deal, period, which I agree is something much different.

...an interpretation ripped from the headlines. 🫢