Daniel H. Honemann

Members
  • Content count

    6,121
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About Daniel H. Honemann

  • Rank
    Fisherman

Profile Information

  • Location
    Timonium, Maryland

Recent Profile Visitors

3,040 profile views
  1. Nor do you see anything in that bylaw specifically saying that the votes are to be anonymous or that they are to be counted, but this is nevertheless the case. No, not if the bylaws require a ballot vote. That Q&A is very general in nature, and it is a mistake to read it as referring to a situation in which the bylaws mandate a ballot vote. But if it does, it makes no effort to negate the fact that the only way for the assembly to decide that the tellers need not give a full report, or account for every vote, would be to amend the bylaws. I doubt it, but even if so, it's irrelevant.
  2. What point of order? What has happened?
  3. Yes, it appears that your chairman was correct, since no main motion (except one that is privileged as described on pp. 227-230, which does not appear to be the case in this instance) can be made when any other motion is pending (RONR, 11th ed., p. 59).
  4. The bylaw provision in the sample bylaws which says that "The officers shall be elected by ballot ..." says that the vote totals are to be announced in the same place where it says that the votes are to be anonymous and are to be counted. As a consequence, no special rule of order can be validly adopted providing that the ballots shall be signed, or that they shall not be counted, or that the count shall not be announced to the assembly. These are all essential elements of what is meant by the phrase "elected by ballot".
  5. The conflicting bylaw provision is the provision that "The officers shall be elected by ballot ..." (I obviously have gotten used to repeating things. Back in the day I wouldn't have bothered. )
  6. I'm quite sure that the authorship team never discussed this question, but if it had, I think it would have concluded that there is no greater need to include a statement in RONR to the effect that announcement of the number of votes received by each candidate is an essential element of a ballot vote than there is to include a statement in RONR that it is improper to throw bricks at the presiding officer during a meeting. It's simply common sense (sometimes dressed up as general parliamentary law). And by the way, since J.J. has alluded to it rather obliquely, I don't think that any issue at all arose in this thread (in which the position taken by Josh Martin, Gary Novosielski, Bruce Lages, and the others who posted similar responses was then and is now correct) concerning a conflict between the awful special rule of order there proposed and an existing bylaw provision mandating a ballot vote.
  7. As far as the question being discussed in this thread is concerned, the parameter has long been firmly established. Nothing in any special rule of order which conflicts with a provision in the bylaws has any validity.
  8. Suffice it to say that none of what is cited here is relevant.
  9. I certainly agree that there is nothing in RONR specifically stating that, if the bylaws require the election of officers to be by ballot, the number of votes cast and the number of votes received by each candidate must be announced unless the bylaws specifically provide otherwise. If there were, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. What I am suggesting is that, as a matter of general parliamentary law, announcement of the number of votes cast and the number of votes received by each candidate is an essential element of a ballot vote, and that, absent such an announcement, a bylaws requirement that officers be elected by ballot (without qualification, as in the sample bylaws in RONR) will not have been complied with. If members are deprived of this information they are deprived of information which may be needed in order to determine whether or not there is some reason or basis for contesting the announced result, as described on pages 444-446. Now I know that you and a number of other highly respected members of this forum do not agree with me that this is so, and that’s okay. I didn’t expect anything else, since the opinion in the NP very clearly asserts that a special rule of order eliminating announcement of the vote totals will not conflict with a bylaws requirement that officers be elected by ballot.
  10. Yes, I gathered that this was the case, and I'm afraid it appears that there is no getting around the fact that repeated voting may be required in order to arrive at a decision. Under these circumstances, one would hope that the Delegates at your June meeting will recognize the necessity of arriving at this decision, and that they and the presiding officer will keep in mind the importance of voting (not abstaining) and that their votes may be changed before the result is announced (unless changing ones initial response to the roll call is also precluded by your rules, in which event it is obvious that you all really do like to make life difficult ).
  11. Oh, I suppose one might reasonably conclude that the manner of reporting how many votes were cast and how many votes each candidate received may be established by a special rule of order, but the response in the Q&A goes much further by asserting that a special rule of order may be adopted providing that the vote totals are not to be announced at all. I respectfully disagree. It think it is self-evident that reporting vote totals is an essential element of any requirement that a vote be counted.
  12. I gather that this Board, for some reason or other, is about to hold an election by roll call (RONR, 11th ed. p. 443) to chose a company to provide services to its community. If so, it appears that it will need to continue voting until a candidate receives the requisite number of votes.
  13. It may be worth remembering that we are here concerned solely with the question as to whether or not, in instances where the bylaws require that a ballot vote be taken (without qualification, as in the sample bylaws in RONR), a special rule of order can be validly adopted providing that the number of votes each candidate receives is not to be announced nor entered in the minutes. We are not concerned simply with a question as to whether or not adoption of a special rule of order will ever suffice for the imposition of such a rule.
  14. Oh, for heavens sake J.J., even in Q&A 212, General Robert refers to the bylaw in question as a "rule".
  15. This Q&A refers to an instance in which the bylaws provided not only that the officers shall be elected by ballot, but also that a plurality vote shall elect, and that the tellers shall report to the chair only the names of the persons receiving the highest number of votes. The response indicates nothing other than the fact that the society involved had the right to do what it did, and I agree that this is so. There is absolutely nothing in this Q&A which would lead one to believe that General Robert was saying that, if the bylaws did nothing but provide that the officers shall be elected by ballot, a special rule of order could be adopted providing that the tellers shall report to the chair only the names of the persons receiving the highest number of votes.