Announcing ballot results

[Guest Don Scott]

In business meeting, voting on bylaws amendment is accomplished by ballot.  While business is conducted, ballots are counted.  Greater than two-thirds cast for passing the amendment.  Closed the meeting without announcing the result.  Harmless error?  Fatal?  Can it be cured? 

[Chris Harrison]

Though RONR doesn't specifically say so I would suggest that at the next meeting as soon as the minutes are approved that the Teller's Report be read and the Chair announce the result.  But stay tuned for other thoughts.

[Shmuel Gerber]

See the footnote on page 235 and the accompanying text.

[Guest Don Scott]

Okay, I have the footnote of p. 234 and the accompanying text.

 

Our board meets four times a year: spring, summer, fall, and winter.  The summer meeting is divided: we have a pre-convention meeting, then recess to attend convention, during which our business meeting is conducted, a quorum of association members present, then resume with the post-convention meeting.  Our next board will meet again at its fall meeting.

 

During the business meeting, the board put forth a duly noticed bylaws amendment, then a vote was conducted.  Ballots were then counted as the business meeting continued.  As it turned out, greater than two-thirds members cast in the affirmative, thereby passing the amendment.  Without announcing the result, the meeting was adjourned.  Later in the day, at the time and place noted in its agenda, the board resumed its summer meeting, completed its business, then adjourned, to meet again in the fall.

 

I'm looking for a definitive yes, announce the result at the fall meeting upon acceptance of the summer meeting minutes, or no, you must start the bylaws amendment process from the beginning -- or if neither is appropriate, what we must do at this point.

 

You're dealing with laymen here, and we're looking for step-by-step instruction.

 

Thanking you in advance - Don Scott

 

[Chris Harrison]

How do you know that "greater than two-thirds members cast in the affirmative"?  Was the Tellers Report read before the assembly but the Chair didn't officially announce the results or are you going off of what someone told you without having any sort of official documentation backing what they told you?  In either case did the Tellers Committee keep the ballots secure (so no one could have tampered with them)?  Regarding the Tellers Report and Tellers Committee see RONR pp. 414-419 for more details.

 

If there actually is a Teller's Report in existence and the ballots were kept secure I don't see why the Chair couldn't read the report and then announce the results at the next meeting after the minutes were approved (though the assembly could order a recount if they were so inclined).  If the ballots were kept secure but there was no official Tellers Report then the assembly should order a recount and then the results should be announced.  If the ballots weren't kept secure and there was no Tellers Report then I would think that the process would have to restart because there would be no actual proof of how the previous vote turned out (someone's "word for it" shouldn't be sufficient in this sort of case).  If there was a Tellers Report but the ballots weren't kept secure then it would be up to you all to determine whether the report is accurate (that someone who was in favor of the amendment didn't just create a report saying what they want the results to be)

[Gary c Tesser]

How do you know that "greater than two-thirds members cast in the affirmative"? ... If there was a Tellers Report but the ballots weren't kept secure then it would be up to you all to determine whether the report is accurate (that someone who was in favor of the amendment didn't just create a report saying what they want the results to be)

I am in awe (of all of this).

(Not sure I thoroughly agree.)

(Edited ~ 4 AM EDT)

[Gary c Tesser]

... With perhaps two quibbles. First, after a few readings of Guest Don Scott's post 4, with an eye/ear to its tenor, and to the nature of his questions that conclude the original post, I caution respondents not to overthink the issue. I suspect (Mr Scott, please weigh in on this) that neglecting t0 read of the tellers' report was inadvertent, and most importantly, that no one at the convention, and that no one since then, is suggesting impropriety, skullduggery, or heavens forfend another Spider-Man movie plot. That is, that everyone is confident in the tellers' honesty and competence, and that the announcement that the bylaws amendment passed is going unquestioned and unchallenged (O I forget which is which again) by all. That there are not hysterical and disgruntled e-mails and phone calls and angry letters (mailmen need something to work with these days) flying about the aether. That, in short, Guest Scott's concern is that the procedure that was followed, though flawed, is respectable if not admirable.

And then I suspect that Mr Scott's familiarity with his organization causes his glossing over a couple of specifics, and that consequently Chris Harrison has made a couple of faulty assumptions.

Mr. Scott: Please tell me (and the rest of the Internet, following along in awe) if these assumptions, interpretations, and inferences are true:

1. The membership has only one business meeting each year (whether this session consists of one meeting or more than one does not matter), held at its annual convention (possibly in more than one meeting of that session).

2. The board meets right before the convention, and adjourns (or "recesses," as Mr Scott says and Robert's Rules does not, although he may be going by the US Congress's usage describing its summer vacation, in which case plaudits to him for keeping up with civil affairs unlike most of his fellow citizens who only watch Fox news) to meet right after the membership's annual convention; and then, at that adjourned meeting right after the convention, resumes and concludes its business for the summer, probably taking into account whatever happened at the convention (if they know what's good for them, like me sometimes).

3. This year's convention is come and gone.

4. The ballot box, secured or not, is in the custody of the board; and the tellers' report, or the tellers' documentation of their tally (tabulating lists, initialed or not; memos, lunch orders, &c -- everything) is in the board's hands.

5. The board approves the membership convention's minutes at its fall (board) meeting. (And that the membership has authorized the board to approve the convention's minutes.)

6. Perhaps most important: as I said before, that no one is screaming foul.

Mr Scott, I don't think we here at the world's premier Internet parliamentary forum are qualified to give you a categorical (or "definitive," as you would have it, though by now at 5 AM I'm not sure which is which) yes or no, from the perspective of Robert's Rules. Note that the list of intolerable violations on p. 445, while not exhaustive, doesn't mention this circumstance. I'd lean towards yes, you should accept the results as valid: see p. 446, lines 4 - 13, about the finality of an election (though this is not one, except in the antient sense), particularly at an annual convention.

(Mr Gerber, how would you adapt p. 235 to the current circumstances?)

[Gary c Tesser]

... I forgot to mention: so I disagree with Chris Harrison's "someone's "word for it" shouldn't be sufficient in this sort of case." I think it should, in this case.

[Guest Guest]

Yes, Mr. Tesser, all your assumptions are correct.  Our president simply closed the meeting, having inadvertently failed to announce the results of the ballot.  If announcing the result at our next board meeting following the reading of the minutes will cure the error, then we're all in.  Our intent is simply to remain in accord with the rules.

[Dan Honemann]

Just to be clear, was it the full membership, at its annual meeting, that voted on the bylaw amendment, and then this annual meeting adjourned without the result of the vote on the amendment having been announced by the chair?

[Gary c Tesser]

Who's Guest_Guest?

[Guest Don Scott]

Yes, full membership at its annual meeting.  It occurred as Mr. Honemann stated.

 

Guest_Guest was and is in this instance Don Scott. Don't know why it doesn't reflect my name.

[Gary c Tesser]

Just to be clear, was it the full membership, at its annual meeting, that voted on the bylaw amendment, and then this annual meeting adjourned without the result of the vote on the amendment having been announced by the chair?

Thanks, Dan, that was supposed to by my #4(a). This:

During the business meeting, the board put forth a duly noticed bylaws amendment, then a vote was conducted. Ballots were then counted as the business meeting continued.

was glaringly unspecific. I was distracted by not wanting to offend Chris H who is a hellion when roused.

[Gary c Tesser]

...Guest_Guest was and is in this instance Don Scott. Don't know why it doesn't reflect my name.

Yeah, it does that sometimes.I' m told that Post #100,000 gets a silver Porsche so the Internet-server company is having fits and wants to put it off as far as they can. Ms Evans doesn't get back to me about this though.

[Dan Honemann]

I suggest you take a careful look at what is said on page 446 of RONR, 11th ed. Although what is said there deals specifically with an election, I think it applies with equal force to a vote which has been taken on a motion.

[Guest Don Scott]

No one has disputed the validity of the vote, and we don't anticipate anyone disputing the result.  We simply did not announce the result.  The board wants to announce the vote in accord with RONR and is looking for guidance.

 

Again, this is Don Scott.

[Dan Honemann]

Nothing in RONR gives an organization's board the authority to announce the result of a vote taken during a meeting of the full membership. Such an announcement must be made by the presiding officer at a membership meeting.