Improperly elected board member

[Guest Maggie]

At our annual convention last year, a board member received 54 votes, but 55 were actually needed for election. Since there were 3 people running, and this member was so close (obviously had the plurality of votes), the chair declared him the winner. The member has been serving on the board for the entire year since then. I have heard that at our next convention, another member is planning to contest last year's election, saying that, since he didn't have a majority of votes, he should be "kicked out" of office, and the election held again. I think that it falls into the category of once something is done and put into action, it stays, even if it was done improperly at the beginning. Am I correct? Where would I find the citatation in RONR? Thanks.

[Trina]

At our annual convention last year, a board member received 54 votes, but 55 were actually needed for election. Since there were 3 people running, and this member was so close (obviously had the plurality of votes), the chair declared him the winner. The member has been serving on the board for the entire year since then. I have heard that at our next convention, another member is planning to contest last year's election, saying that, since he didn't have a majority of votes, he should be "kicked out" of office, and the election held again. I think that it falls into the category of once something is done and put into action, it stays, even if it was done improperly at the beginning. Am I correct? Where would I find the citatation in RONR? Thanks.

Yes, way to late to raise a point of order on this issue. A point of order could have been made at the time (that the member did not win election with 54 votes), but if the chair announced a winner, and no one said anything back then, that's the end of the story.

See RONR p. 430 for a description of when an election becomes final.

Also, see RONR p. 244 for descriptions of continuing breaches (violations which are serious enough that a point of order CAN be raised after the fact). The situation you describe doesn't fall into any of those categories.

[Guest Nancy N,]

PLease read Official Interpretation #18, at http://robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_18 . It's called "WHO CAN ORDER A RECOUNT," but it really does apply to Maggie's question.

[David A Foulkes]

Why is it a continuing breach if it is determined that illegal votes (that is votes cast by illegal voters) may have affected an election result, but not a continuing breach if the winner didn't attain enough votes to begin with? I'm puzzled how that's "okay" unless a point of order is raised in a timely fashion. It seems a chink in the armor of the revered fundamental principles of parliamentary law that such an error (and others) may be allowed just because no one stands up before adjournment and say "uh.... say, I think your math is a bit wanky there, Mr. Chairman."

[Trina]

Why is it a continuing breach if it is determined that illegal votes (that is votes cast by illegal voters) may have affected an election result, but not a continuing breach if the winner didn't attain enough votes to begin with? I'm puzzled how that's "okay" unless a point of order is raised in a timely fashion. It seems a chink in the armor of the revered fundamental principles of parliamentary law that such an error (and others) may be allowed just because no one stands up before adjournment and say "uh.... say, I think your math is a bit wanky there, Mr. Chairman."

I think because voting by illegal voters violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law (RONR p. 255 ll. 6-11), but bad math on the part of the chair does not. Maybe there's also an underlying thought that members should be able to police those counting or math errors on the spot (it's their responsibility to pay attention, after all), but wouldn't really be able to know, on the spot, that some non-members had turned in ballots...

edited: members should be able to tell, on the spot, as the chair is announcing the result, that a candidate didn't receive a required majority vote; I guess members would not actually have a way to know about counting errors on the part of the tellers, for example, in the case of a vote by ballot.

[Dan Honemann]

I think because voting by illegal voters violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law (RONR p. 255 ll. 6-11), but bad math on the part of the chair does not. Maybe there's also an underlying thought that members should be able to police those counting or math errors on the spot (it's their responsibility to pay attention, after all), but wouldn't really be able to know, on the spot, that some non-members had turned in ballots...

As I read the facts, this isn't a case of bad math. It's a case of the chair declaring a candidate elected who received a plurality of the votes cast but not a majority. This violates no fundamental principal of parliamentary law.

[hmtcastle]

PLease read Official Interpretation #18, at http://robertsrules....st.html#2006_18 . It's called "WHO CAN ORDER A RECOUNT," but it really does apply to Maggie's question.

"Who Can Order A Recount?" is Official Interpretation 2006-11.

[David A Foulkes]

As I read the facts, this isn't a case of bad math. It's a case of the chair declaring a candidate elected who received a plurality of the votes cast but not a majority. This violates no fundamental principal of parliamentary law.

Yes, but the allowance of a plurality vote must be prescribed in the bylaws. (RONR 10th Ed. p. 392 ll. 4-6) Admittedly, we don't know that such a bylaw exists for Maggie's organization, but in its absence it would seem to me that some sort of violation (whether it be of parliamentary law or simply RONR) has occurred.

I won't beat this horse further, as I seem to be the lone voice, but I am troubled by the concept.

[Dan Honemann]

Yes, but the allowance of a plurality vote must be prescribed in the bylaws. (RONR 10th Ed. p. 392 ll. 4-6) Admittedly, we don't know that such a bylaw exists for Maggie's organization, but in its absence it would seem to me that some sort of violation (whether it be of parliamentary law or simply RONR) has occurred.

I won't beat this horse further, as I seem to be the lone voice, but I am troubled by the concept.

I have no doubt but that a violation occurred, but it was a violation of a suspendible rule and the assembly, by its silence, in effect consented to the suspension.

[Trina]

As I read the facts, this isn't a case of bad math. It's a case of the chair declaring a candidate elected who received a plurality of the votes cast but not a majority. This violates no fundamental principal of parliamentary law.

The 'bad math' reference was in response to Mr. Foulkes' comment/question. It's true that the situation described in the original post sounded as though the chair realized that the announced winner had not quite reached the required majority vote, but declared him the winner anyway. The assembly had its chance to point out the error at the time, and did not do so.

Since there were 3 people running, and this member was so close (obviously had the plurality of votes), the chair declared him the winner

[hmtcastle]

Yes, but the allowance of a plurality vote must be prescribed in the bylaws.

I suspect it's the same as when a two-thirds vote is required but a motion is declared adopted on the basis of a majority vote. I never liked the "you snooze, you lose" rule but there it is.

[David A Foulkes]

I never like the "you snooze, you lose" rule but there it is.

Another fundamental principle of parliamentary law (undocumented).