Yes/No Ballots — OK for Motions, but NOT in Elections
I’d like to discuss a peculiar incident in which an organization held an election at its Annual General Meeting for the Board of Directors using a ballot that gave members the option of voting ‘yes’ or ‘no’ for each candidate.
For and against options are ok for ballots on motions, but Robert’s Rules of Order says they are ‘improper’ in elections — see the 12th ed., 45:25 and 46:1. To vote against or defeat someone for office you need to vote for another candidate (either previously nominated or by write-in).
The reason? To avoid what Robert calls ‘the anomaly of an assembly refusing to elect anyone’. And that’s exactly what happened in this particular organization, where a motion at the AGM was moved and adopted to include what the mover actually called a ‘non-person option’ (!) on the ballots before voting.
This association, which has adopted Robert’s as its parliamentary authority, was not my client, but contacted me for informal advice afterwards. Without providing too much information, this is a national Canadian not-for-profit that advocates for, trains and licenses a profession in which there are strong differences of opinion on how to practice.
Yes, I realize this describes almost any professional association! In this case, unfortunately, the differences of opinion became a litmus test in the board elections. As it turned out, all of the board positions were filled at the AGM except for president; in that election, the ‘no’ votes outnumbered votes for the two nominated candidates by a huge margin.
The association happens to have a very robust and transparent nomination process, publicizing and calling for nominations well in advance of the AGM, posting candidate statements on a website, and allowing nominations from the floor. The ‘no’ camp, in other words, had lots of opportunity to nominate an alternative candidate for president.
Instead, when the AGM was over, members left without having elected a president, and with a board on which no one else wanted the job.
I was asked afterwards if the results could be challenged. Ordinarily, an election may be contested only by raising a point of order at the time, and none was raised at the AGM. But also, the Robert’s authors offer this official interpretation (#2006–5) on their website: “although … for/against ballots should not be used in an election, it sometimes happens. When voters are led to understand that they can vote against candidates in this fashion . . . [the votes must be accepted]’
In other words the (non) election would have to stand. The ‘non-person’ option should have been ruled out of order at the meeting, but the AGM’s ‘parliamentary advisor’ –who was not a professional parliamentarian– told the members it was acceptable. Thus, the organization was without a president until the next AGM.
Much worse though, in my opinion: this is absolutely no way to treat volunteers who, in good faith, step forward to offer their time and commitment to run for their association’s board, which probably, like many organizations, has trouble attracting candidates in the best of times. Making them undergo the humiliation of fellow members saying essentially ‘we’d prefer nobody instead of you’ is disrespectful, and just puts up another barrier discouraging members from nominating themselves.
Quite apart from depriving the association of a president, the serious impact on member engagement and future nominations can’t be underestimated.
This process also encourages critics and naysayers (who are present in all organizations) to sit on the sidelines and take anonymous pot-shots at others, without having to step up and publicly defend their positions in a contested election. If you are a member of an association and you don’t like how things are being run, you have an obligation not only to speak up, but to nominate yourself or someone else to offer an alternative choice.
The bottom line: Do not use election ballots that permit yes or no votes for candidates. Procedurally improper, this process risks:
· electing no-one;
· creating ill will;
· offending candidates who have been nominated; and
· adding an unnecessary disincentive for members thinking about volunteering.
The author is a Registered Parliamentarian based in Ontario, Canada. More information and resources are available at: MichaelMouritsen.ca.
Copyright © 2022 Michael Mouritsen — all rights reserved. Permission to quote from or reprint this article is granted (for educational, non-commercial purposes), provided full credit is given.
