Election gone awry

[Dominator]

Hypothetically, an election process for the board took place at the last meeting (35 or so people). The current President recused themselves from the chair so that they may take part in the nomination/voting process. The V.P. was made chair for the election for Presidential officer position.

One member was nominated. Immediately after, a member motioned to close nominations. Individuals were, in this occasion, raising their hands to be called on to place a nomination. There were still some members raising their hands to be recognized to place a nomination.

The motion to close nominations was decided as closed with a 14y -10-n vote. The only recognized nomination became the new President.

The current president argues they have been done an injustice because of some members possibly taking advantage of an inexperienced VP.

The president-elect argues that there is no injustice because they were the only nomination and was rightfully placed.

The meeting is since closed, however our bylaws allow members to appeal any action carried out by an officer through the next level highest board on the hierarchy of boards.

I know this situation is quite the mess of RONR use.

Is there any reasonable way to sort through this mess and have another election process be carried out? I'm guessing that the president will use the appeal section in the bylaws to try to get this mess somehow straightened. The president-elect was placed through acclimation so they've won the argument on that case, however the nomination procedure for the position itself was incorrectly carried out.

Who does justice side with and how should it be carried out? Another election after previous notice? The elected president gets the position?

They both want the position, so nobody is going to back away from their argument.

I would think that the bylaws appeal article would prevail over RONR. The appeal will be recognized. But then what if the board decides the election process was a failed one? Redo it? I just can't see a way to deal with this situation with fairness to both sides.

Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated.

[Mr. J!]

The current President recused themselves from the chair so that they may take part in the nomination/voting process.

The president should not have hesitated to preside simply because he intended to be a candidate.

The motion to close nominations was decided as closed with a 14y -10-n vote. The only recognized nomination became the new President.

A motion to close nominations requires a two-thirds vote.

However, the improper procedures you described in taking and closing nominations does not invalidate the election.

Strictly speaking, nominations are not required, and members are free to vote for any eligible person, nominated or not.

[hmtcastle]

A motion to close nominations requires a two-thirds vote.

Though such a motion is rarely appropriate (p.277).

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Hypothetically, ...

So this is all theoretical. Okay.

That takes out any wild card variables. Plain-vanilla scenario will get a plain-vanilla answer. I hope!

One member was nominated.

Immediately after, a member motioned to close nominations.

Nothing wrong so far.

Individuals were, in this occasion, raising their hands to be called on to place a nomination.

There were still some members raising their hands to be recognized to place a nomination.

If there were members still raising their hands, then I would have hoped that the assembly will allow those most anxious to nominate to get it out of their system, if only for courtesy sake.

The motion to close nominations was decided as closed with a 14 "aye" to 10 "no" vote.

The only recognized nomination became the new President.

Well! While that is not exactly considerate of them!

On the other hand, all that is necessary to close nominations is a two-thirds vote, per RONR, so a mere majority cannot close nominations. The motion To Close Nominations is in order.

But! Your chair erred, and allowed a mere majority to close nominations. That is sad to hear.

But despite the error, no point of order was raised in a timely manner. So the closing stands.

The current president argues they have been done an injustice because of some members possibly taking advantage of an inexperienced VP.

Yes, an injustice.

No, not a violation of the rules.

There is a difference between (a.) injustice, vs. (b.) violating a rule.

You can comply 100% with rules and still fail to achieve justice. (Watch LAW AND ORDER on television, or better, 60 MINUTES, if you don't believe me.)

The president-elect argues that there is no injustice because they were the only nomination and was rightfully placed.

The PE is correct that the nomination was rightfully placed. No doubt about that.

But I would think that quashing sincere, legitimate nominations from anxious members ought to be viewed ethically as an injustice, since it was unnecessary, and contrary to the description given in RONR regarding the relationship between (a.) those who wish to nominate, vs. (b.) those who wish to close nominations.

The meeting is since closed, however our bylaws allow members to appeal any action carried out by an officer through the next level highest board on the hierarchy of boards.

Okay. So you've got a customized procedure already in place.

What RONR has to say, when there is a customized procedure in place, becomes moot.

Is there any reasonable way to sort through this mess and have another election process be carried out?

I'm guessing that the president will use the appeal section in the bylaws to try to get this mess somehow straightened.

The president-elect was placed through acclimation so they've won the argument on that case, however the nomination procedure for the position itself was incorrectly carried out.

Too late to ask -- you have an appeal process built-in. Use it.

Who does justice side with and how should it be carried out?

Another election after previous notice?

The elected president gets the position?

RONR is not a book of ethics. It won't tell you what "justice" is, or how to achieve it. Get a philosophy book for definitions of "justice" and what theoreticians say about how to approach justice.

I would think that the bylaws appeal article would prevail over RONR.

Correct.

The purpose of an appeal process is to settle an issue one way or the other.

There is NO GUARANTEE that "justice" (whatever that turns out to be) will prevail.

I am glad this scenario is 100% hypothetical.

If it had happened in real life, the stock of prescription medicines like Prozac and Lithium would increase every election cycle.

[Dominator]

Like I said, boatload of errors in this situation

1) President had no need to recuse

2) Motion to close nominations needs 2/3rds vote

3) Motion to close nominations was out of order considering there were others seeking to make a nomination - especially being such a small assembly

4) Members don't have to wait for recognition of the chair to place a nomination - hands raised is irrelevant, though may be seen as custom.

5) Ballot votes can be placed on any eligible person, regardless of nomination, though sometimes impractical (I assume it would be in large assemblies)

It's a complex rules based versus ethics based argument, which can be tough.

How about a little more to this situation? The orgainization appointed parliamentarian was present as was the organization president. Neither of them said a word to correct the situation.

That's a good/bad faith situation on top of what I've already written. They may have been ignorant to what was going on, or they may have taken advantage.

If they did catch the current president with "pants down" so to speak, maybe that individual will learn to pay more attention come next election.

Even if the president-elect gets it, I would hope that the instance wouldn't happen again in the next election procedure.

Perhaps it's time to motion for a coin toss?

Thanks for all of your input on trying to decipher what to do with this puzzle. Any other input available would also be a help.

[Dan Honemann]

As has been noted, points of order concerning rule violations such as those that you mention should have been raised at the time the violations occurred; it's too late to raise them now.

Whether or not your bylaw provisions offer any assistance in this connection is something we can't help you with.

[Trina]

Like I said, boatload of errors in this situation

1) President had no need to recuse

2) Motion to close nominations needs 2/3rds vote

3) Motion to close nominations was out of order considering there were others seeking to make a nomination - especially being such a small assembly

4) Members don't have to wait for recognition of the chair to place a nomination - hands raised is irrelevant, though may be seen as custom.

5) Ballot votes can be placed on any eligible person, regardless of nomination, though sometimes impractical (I assume it would be in large assemblies)

It's a complex rules based versus ethics based argument, which can be tough.

How about a little more to this situation? The orgainization appointed parliamentarian was present as was the organization president. Neither of them said a word to correct the situation.

That's a good/bad faith situation on top of what I've already written. They may have been ignorant to what was going on, or they may have taken advantage.

If they did catch the current president with "pants down" so to speak, maybe that individual will learn to pay more attention come next election.

Even if the president-elect gets it, I would hope that the instance wouldn't happen again in the next election procedure.

Perhaps it's time to motion for a coin toss?

Thanks for all of your input on trying to decipher what to do with this puzzle. Any other input available would also be a help.

Even though there is no continuing breach in what you describe, it might be possible for the general membership to rescind the election if there is sufficiently widespread dissatisfaction with the fairness of the process. Whether this is possible would depend on the way the term of office is defined in your bylaws. See FAQ #20 -- http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#20 -- for further information.

The presence (and inaction) of the organization president and parliamentarian doesn't change what happened from a parliamentary point of view. The organization might wish to look for a more competent parliamentarian in the future.

As for the coin toss idea, that motion would be out of order, since the election DID take place, and the result was announced -- you can't undo that with a coin toss.

[Dan Honemann]

Even though there is no continuing breach in what you describe, it might be possible for the general membership to rescind the election if there is sufficiently widespread dissatisfaction with the fairness of the process. Whether this is possible would depend on the way the term of office is defined in your bylaws. See FAQ #20 -- http://www.robertsru...com/faq.html#20 -- for further information.

RONR (10th ed.) says, on pages 642-643, that an officer can be deposed from office "for cause - that is, misconduct or neglect of duty in office", in either of the ways thereafter described.

Although what does or does not constitute "cause" may generally be whatever the assembly decides constitutes "cause", I think it too much of a stretch to say that discontent with the manner in which the election was conducted can somehow be regarded as "misconduct or neglect of duty in office."

[Trina]

RONR (10th ed.) says, on pages 642-643, that an officer can be deposed from office "for cause - that is, misconduct or neglect of duty in office", in either of the ways thereafter described.

Although what does or does not constitute "cause" may generally be whatever the assembly decides constitutes "cause", I think it too much of a stretch to say that discontent with the manner in which the election was conducted can somehow be regarded as "misconduct or neglect of duty in office."

So, this particular use of a motion to rescind something previously adopted (i.e. rescinding an election) has unique limiting conditions? In other words, it can only be done if the assembly needs/wants to depose an officer for 'misconduct or neglect of duty in office'?

[hmtcastle]

So, this particular use of a motion to rescind something previously adopted (i.e. rescinding an election) has unique limiting conditions? In other words, it can only be done if the assembly needs/wants to depose an officer for 'misconduct or neglect of duty in office'?

It's a judgment call. One can drive just as big a truck through "misconduct or neglect of duty in office" as one can through "cause".

[Dan Honemann]

So, this particular use of a motion to rescind something previously adopted (i.e. rescinding an election) has unique limiting conditions? In other words, it can only be done if the assembly needs/wants to depose an officer for 'misconduct or neglect of duty in office'?

Yes, I suppose you could put it that way. Ordinarily, an election to office cannot be rescinded (p. 298, l. 1-8).

[Dan Honemann]

It's a judgment call. One can drive just as big a truck through "misconduct or neglect of duty in office" as one can through "cause".

This is a completely meaningless response, particularly when viewed in the context of the facts in this thread.