invalid vote

[Guest Prez]

There is a vote out to our membership right now that the Board of Directors may want to invalidate. The ballots were sent to all members for submission no later than a defined time and date, however new information critical to the vote was not made available to the members (through no fault of the Board) until after the ballots were sent. Therefore, some members may have voted already without the benefit/knowledge of this new info. There is an independent auditor counting the ballots and the Board has instructed him to seal the results without telling anyone the vote totals until we sort this out.

Can the Board invalidate the vote since there is some feeling that the results are tainted and if so, should it be done with or without the knowledge of the results?

[Weldon Merritt]

I will assume that your bylaws allow voting by mail (and if they do not, the vote is invalid anyway for that reason alone). So with that assumption, there is nothing in RONR that would give your board the authority to invalidate the voting, regardless of the reason thay may want to do so. If any such authority exists at all, it would have to be in your bylaws.

[David A Foulkes]

This clearly demonstrates RONR's position that voting take place at in-person meetings where all voters will be privy to all the information (shared during debate, including adopted amendments to the motion) before they begin voting so that each member is as fully informed as all the other. I suspect you know this, and also that your membership is spread out enough that in-person meetings are unlikely, if not impossible, to hold.

There are many issues that come with your situation (has a quorum been established, how is debate handled, and more) that your rules need to clearly address them to avoid any problems.

I believe, as I understand it, that you are faced with continuing the vote with the results as may be. If the motion is defeated, no problem (sort of). If it is adopted, a motion to Rescind, or Amend Something Previously Adopted, could be considered to rectify the undesirable situation resulting from adoption of the motion.

Stay tuned for more from the regular crew here.

[hmtcastle]

Therefore, some members may have voted already without the benefit/knowledge of this new info.

It's not at all unusual for some voters to know more than others. Those who, for example, wait until the polls are almost closed may have the "benefit" of viewing exit polls.

My advice would be to complete the voting. Then, as Mr. Foulkes suggested, if it's something the membership wants to re-visit, they can almost certainly do so. If you wait until everyone knows everything, you'll be waiting a very long time.

[robert conway]

And if the vote is being tainted, because chairman of the Tellers is returning unsigned ballots to voters. Asking for the voting member to sign the ballot and return to be counted B/4 the deadline?

I would think this would invalidate, by solicitation of a signature after the vote was cast.

Is anything in RONR this liberal?

[hmtcastle]

And if the vote is being tainted, because chairman of the Tellers is returning unsigned ballots to voters. Asking for the voting member to sign the ballot and return to be counted B/4 the deadline?

I'm afraid it's not particularly helpful to keep raising multiple issues on individual topics. This topic started out being about new information that became available during the time the polls were open. Now you raise the issue of signed ballots.

If there are multiple problems with the election, pick the worst one and raise a point of order. You'll find some sympathy here but that's not this forum's primary purpose.

Further, it's unrealistic to expect anyone to remember issues from one topic to another (though, remarkably, some do). In other words, each topic should be self-contained.

And, now that I look at it, this topic wasn't even started by you. Or at least not by the same name. If "marly" is not "Prez", "marly" should start a new topic (or continue an old one).

[robert conway]

I'm afraid it's not particularly helpful to keep raising multiple issues on individual topics. This topic started out being about new information that became available during the time the polls were open. Now you raise the issue of signed ballots.

If there are multiple problems with the election, pick the worst one and raise a point of order. You'll find some sympathy here but that's not this forum's primary purpose.

Further, it's unrealistic to expect anyone to remember issues from one topic to another (though, remarkably, some do). In other words, each topic should be self-contained.

And, now that I look at it, this topic wasn't even started by you. Or at least not by the same name. If "marly" is not "Prez", "marly" should start a new topic (or continue an old one).

[robert conway]

Sorry, I will re post. marly