Improperly Conducted Election

[Guest Robert B. Fish]

The best course of action would be to have a professional parliamentarian look at the appropriate documents and advise you.

The principle here is that, if you can clearly establish that the number of illegal votes was sufficient to affect the out"

[Guest Dan Honemann]

If, as you say, you have no way of knowing who won offices due to illegal proxy votes, the vote is null and void and a new vote must be taken.

"

[Guest Trina]

Interesting -- Mr. Fish says throw out the results if it is clearly established that the number of illegal votes was sufficient to affect the outcome; Mr. Honemann says throw out the election if you can't clearly establish that the number of illegal votes"

[Guest Dan Honemann]

I think you are missing the difference in the responses.

Mr. Fish says that if the illegal votes may have affected the outcome they can throw out the election results.

I say they must. :-)

"

[Guest Trina]

> Mr. Fish says that if the illegal votes may have affected the outcome... <

But he didn't say 'if the illegal votes MAY have affected the outcome' -- it was 'if you can CLEARLY ESTABLISH that the number of illegal votes was sufficient to a"

[Guest Dan Honemann]

Oh, Trina, I'm quite sure that Mr. Fish accepts Andrea's assertion that they "have no way of knowing who won offices due to proxy votes", and will also agree that, in such a case, the vote is null and void.

"

[Guest Jo]

Strictly parliamentary question here: RONR p. 343, l. 33 - pg. 344, l. 3 states “Points of order regarding the conduct of a vote may be raised immediately following the announcement of the voting result-up until another member has been recognized an"

[Guest Dan Honemann]

It's (d), not (e), on page 244 which is the applicable exception in this instance."

[Guest Jo]

Ok, always trying to learn here ... in re-reading the original post, their bylaws prohibit proxy voting, so exception (a) would also be applicable?"

[Guest Dan Honemann]

No. "

[Guest Jo]

Ok, is that because the language in the bylaws would be considered a rule in the nature of a rule of order?"

[Guest Dan Honemann]

No."

[Guest JDStackpole]

And in case, Jo, you are flummoxed by the ever terse Dan, exception 244-a refers to the _adoption_ of a motion that is contrary to the bylaws, not the process by which such adoption takes place. Use of proxies, even though improper, would not generate a "

[Guest Jo]

He is a man of few words, isn't he? Perhaps you can clarify his answer to my secondary question to him concerning exception a which was is it not applicable because is is in the nature of a rule of order ... is that not what you meant by the 'process'?"

[Guest H.Wm.Mountcastle]

>>He is a man of few words, isn't he?<<

He's saving them for the 11th Edition."

[Guest John M.]

>>Perhaps you can clarify his answer to my secondary question to him concerning exception a which was is it not applicable because is is in the nature of a rule of order ... is that not what you meant by the 'process'?<<

The fact that"

[Guest Dan Honemann]

John, I don't know what Jo is getting at, but I'm reminded of threads in the past in which it has been asserted that, since rules in the bylaws which are clearly identifiable as being in the nature of rules of order can be suspended by a two-thirds vote ("

[Guest John M.]

>>it has been asserted that... if an organization puts a rule of order which embodies a fundamental principle of parliamentary law into its bylaws, that rule thus becomes a suspendible rule.

I trust you won't agree. :-)<<

I d"