voting by mail - quorum & announcing result

[paulmcclintock]

Assume a society's bylaws prescribe RONR as its parliamentary authority and also says "elections shall be by mail ballot in November; a plurality shall elect."

 

(1) Is there a minimum number of ballots that must be returned (sort of a "quorum") for a vote by mail if the bylaws are silent on the subject?

 

RONR doesn't seem to address this for voting by mail, but a quorum for an in-person meeting is the number that needs to be present (implicitly to have the opportunity to vote), and that with that quorum present, a vote of 1-For-and-zero-against adopts an ordinary main motion, and an election with 1-For-candidate-A-and-no-votes-for-anyone-else elects candidate A, regardless of how many may abstain.

 

Since ballots are mailed to ALL members in a vote-by-mail scenario, it seems to me that ALL members have the opportunity to vote, and if only one does vote, the vote is valid, regardless of how many abstain and don't return ballots or return blank ballots.

 

I can't find this discussed in RONR or Parliamentary Law and just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something in this line of reasoning.

 

(2) If the bylaws simply authorize voting by mail without specifying how the vote results are to be announced, is the vote not effective until the next in person meeting at which the results are announced, or can the secretary or president distribute the results to all members in a letter or newsletter or email or website and thereby make the results final?  Can tradition and other factors help determine how this is answered, such as, the electing body is the full membership and they never meet, but do all their business by mail (elections, bylaw amendments primarily), with the board and committees the ones that meet in person.

 

I think I've seen discussion on this sometime recently with respect especially to the issue of challenging the announced result of the vote, but I've forgotten where it was discussed.

 

[George Mervosh]

Paul, I think the answer to your first question is clearly, no, and an interesting discussion on announcing the results of a mail vote is found here http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/19703-announcing-results-of-vote-by-mail/   But #2 might warrant more to answer all of your questions.

[Guest Edgar]

(sort of a "quorum") 

 

Sort of like an "interim" president?

 

It's either a quorum or it ain't and, in this case, it ain't.

[paulmcclintock]

George, thanks for the link to the other topic.  That was the one I was thinking of.  I'll review it's arguments.

 

Edgar, of course it isn't a quorum, but the notion that there must be a minimum response seems to many to be akin to a quorum requirement.  Quorum is defined of course only for in-person meetings, and sets the minimum for those present rather than those participating by voting, and if a minimum were set for number of non-blank mail ballots returned, then that would relate to the number participating.  Thus it isn't a terribly similar concept, but it is a slightly similar concept.  I simply wanted a short way in the topic title to suggest the content of the question, and hoped "quorum" would achieve that.

[Dan Honemann]

Assume a society's bylaws prescribe RONR as its parliamentary authority and also says "elections shall be by mail ballot in November; a plurality shall elect."

 

(2) If the bylaws simply authorize voting by mail without specifying how the vote results are to be announced, is the vote not effective until the next in person meeting at which the results are announced, or can the secretary or president distribute the results to all members in a letter or newsletter or email or website and thereby make the results final?  Can tradition and other factors help determine how this is answered, such as, the electing body is the full membership and they never meet, but do all their business by mail (elections, bylaw amendments primarily), with the board and committees the ones that meet in person.

 

 

Well, I'm generally reluctant to respond to bylaw interpretation questions, but if, as you say, "the bylaws simply authorize voting by mail without specifying how the vote results are to be announced", and "the electing body is the full membership and they never meet, but do all their business by mail", then I surely hope that it will not be necessary to have the results of the election announced at "the next in person meeting" in order to be effective.   

[Gary c Tesser]

Well, I'm generally reluctant to respond to bylaw interpretation questions,

Yeah, me too.