Guest Melody Hoffman Posted December 16, 2011 at 06:56 PM Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 at 06:56 PM A secret ballot was conducted in Executive Session. The vote result will be published with the number of YES/NO votes outside Executive Session.Is it appropriate for one or more individual Directors to request that their YES/NO vote be recorded by Director name with the vote result? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted December 16, 2011 at 07:03 PM Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 at 07:03 PM If there is going to be a ballot then you would not list how members voted in the Minutes. You would require a recorded vote to do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted December 16, 2011 at 07:55 PM Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 at 07:55 PM If there is going to be a ballot then you would not list how members voted in the Minutes. You would require a recorded vote to do this.Well, you'd need a roll-call vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted December 16, 2011 at 08:01 PM Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 at 08:01 PM Is it appropriate for one or more individual Directors to request that their YES/NO vote be recorded by Director name with the vote result?No, it's not appropriate. For one thing, there'd be no proof that a director actually voted the way he says he did. A director could vote in favor of an unpopular motion (thinking it would be defeated anyway) then, surprised by its adoption, wants to go on record as having voted against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted December 16, 2011 at 11:10 PM Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 at 11:10 PM No, it's not appropriate. For one thing, there'd be no proof that a director actually voted the way he says he did. A director could vote in favor of an unpopular motion (thinking it would be defeated anyway) then, surprised by its adoption, wants to go on record as having voted against it.It is not inappropriate. A member may waive the secrecy of his own ballot (p. 316, ll, 1-2), Several members may choose to do so. The majority may grant permission to record how these members voted, similar to the signed ballot procedure.See, "On the Record," National Parliamentarian, Fourth Quarter, 2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted December 17, 2011 at 12:48 AM Report Share Posted December 17, 2011 at 12:48 AM It is not inappropriate. A member may waive the secrecy of his own ballot (p. 316, ll, 1-2), Several members may choose to do so. The majority may grant permission to record how these members voted, similar to the signed ballot procedure.See, "On the Record," National Parliamentarian, Fourth Quarter, 2000The citation refers to the motion to Reconsider, where the mover must have voted on the prevailing side, and in this relatively inconsequential instance is not required to prove how he voted primarily because it would be impossible to do so, and therefore impossible ever to reconsider a ballot vote. In fact, except for roll-call votes, it is difficult ever to prove how you voted on any question. Yes, others others may happen to recall hearing you reply or seeing you rise. Or they may not.I do not see this as persuasive with respect to some blanket right to "waive" secrecy by claiming to have voted a certain way, for the sole purpose of having this "fact" entered into the minutes. I believe this should not be permitted for exactly the same reason that in the former case it is permitted--i.e., because it is impossible to prove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted December 18, 2011 at 12:13 AM Report Share Posted December 18, 2011 at 12:13 AM The citation refers to the motion to Reconsider, where the mover must have voted on the prevailing side, and in this relatively inconsequential instance is not required to prove how he voted primarily because it would be impossible to do so, and therefore impossible ever to reconsider a ballot vote. In fact, except for roll-call votes, it is difficult ever to prove how you voted on any question. Yes, others others may happen to recall hearing you reply or seeing you rise. Or they may not.Yes, however, it does show that the right to secrecy in voting may be waived by the voter.I do not see this as persuasive with respect to some blanket right to "waive" secrecy by claiming to have voted a certain way, for the sole purpose of having this "fact" entered into the minutes. I believe this should not be permitted for exactly the same reason that in the former case it is permitted--i.e., because it is impossible to prove.The key is make the request before the casting of any ballots, in a similar method to using signed ballots, p. 429, ll. 21-26. It would be basically permitting some members to have how they voted in a ballot vote recorded in the minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 18, 2011 at 01:01 PM Report Share Posted December 18, 2011 at 01:01 PM Yes, however, it does show that the right to secrecy in voting may be waived by the voter.The key is make the request before the casting of any ballots, in a similar method to using signed ballots, p. 429, ll. 21-26. It would be basically permitting some members to have how they voted in a ballot vote recorded in the minutes.I agree with Messrs. Edgar and Novosielski. If a vote has been taken by ballot, the chair should not entertain any request, whether or not made in the form of a motion, to have the minutes reflect how one or more members voted (or abstained from voting).If balloting has not yet begun, and voting by ballot was ordered by a vote of the assembly and not required by one of its rules, a motion can be made to reconsider the vote by which the ballot vote was ordered. If this motion is adopted, then upon reconsideration a vote by roll call or by signed ballot may be ordered instead, but certainly no request or motion is in order to have some votes taken by one method while the rest are taken by some other method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted December 18, 2011 at 07:10 PM Report Share Posted December 18, 2011 at 07:10 PM I agree with Messrs. Edgar and Novosielski. If a vote has been taken by ballot, the chair should not entertain any request, whether or not made in the form of a motion, to have the minutes reflect how one or more members voted (or abstained from voting).If balloting has not yet begun, and voting by ballot was ordered by a vote of the assembly and not required by one of its rules, a motion can be made to reconsider the vote by which the ballot vote was ordered. If this motion is adopted, then upon reconsideration a vote by roll call or by signed ballot may be ordered instead, but certainly no request or motion is in order to have some votes taken by one method while the rest are taken by some other method.Why could that not be a request, with some members voluntarily signing their ballots and having how they voted recorded?There is no disagreement that they could not request that after the ballot was cast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted December 19, 2011 at 02:17 PM Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 at 02:17 PM Yes, however, it [p. 316, ll, 1-2] does show that the right to secrecy in voting may be waived by the voter.Yes, but it's about as convincing that guy who's always "waiving the secrecy" that he's actually a CIA agent, because he thinks helps him get girls.The key is make the request before the casting of any ballots, in a similar method to using signed ballots, p. 429, ll. 21-26. It would be basically permitting some members to have how they voted in a ballot vote recorded in the minutes.That might work. So, would it require 2/3 or would a majority do, do you think? It seems a little squirrely to be considered just a regular motion regarding voting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted December 19, 2011 at 04:43 PM Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 at 04:43 PM Yes, but it's about as convincing that guy who's always "waiving the secrecy" that he's actually a CIA agent, because he thinks helps him get girls.Well, maybe voting that way will help him get girls. That might work. So, would it require 2/3 or would a majority do, do you think? It seems a little squirrely to be considered just a regular motion regarding voting.If there is no rule or motion regarding how the vote is taken, I think this would be a majority (p. 283, ll. 9-11). Even if there is a rule, the member may still waive the secrecy of his own ballot. I think the recording of it would be by majority vote. If there was a previously adopted motion related to this balloting, it would have to be reconsidered (or possibly R/ASPA if a main motion).Keep in mind that any of these things would have to be done prior to balloting. I've interpreted the question to asking about doing this prior to the balloting, not after voting has taken place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hunt Posted December 19, 2011 at 08:08 PM Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 at 08:08 PM I would go with 2/3rds since it isn't one of the forms of voting mentioned by the rules. As a result, I think it would require suspension of the rules.EDIT: I do agree that it should be allowed as a suspension of the rules, as I cannot see any fundamental principle or basic right that a partially-secret vote would violate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted December 19, 2011 at 09:30 PM Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 at 09:30 PM I would go with 2/3rds since it isn't one of the forms of voting mentioned by the rules. As a result, I think it would require suspension of the rules.EDIT: I do agree that it should be allowed as a suspension of the rules, as I cannot see any fundamental principle or basic right that a partially-secret vote would violate."Unusual voting methods" may be ordered by a majority vote (p. 283, ll. 9-11). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 19, 2011 at 09:48 PM Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 at 09:48 PM "Unusual voting methods" may be ordered by a majority vote (p. 283, ll. 9-11).Yes, but not one method for some members and another method for others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted December 19, 2011 at 09:59 PM Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 at 09:59 PM ...The key is make the request before the casting of any ballots, in a similar method to using signed ballots, p. 429, ll. 21-26. It would be basically permitting some members to have how they voted in a ballot vote recorded in the minutes.I believe this was meant to be a reference to p. 420. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted December 19, 2011 at 10:08 PM Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 at 10:08 PM Yes, but not one method for some members and another method for others.Amen. This method of voting could also have the (perhaps unanticipated) consequence that those members who are supposedly voting by secret ballot have the secrecy of their votes compromised because of how the vote comes out. Say that members A and B and C have received permission to vote by signed ballot in order to place their votes on record, and the other 7 members of the assembly are supposedly voting by secret ballot. The motion happens to be adopted by a vote of 7 to 3. A, B, and C all voted 'no' -- which is now on the record. What just happened to the secrecy of the votes cast by the other 7 members? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted December 20, 2011 at 12:23 AM Report Share Posted December 20, 2011 at 12:23 AM Yes, but not one method for some members and another method for others.Why not, if it is voluntary? It would permit members to record their votes, but not require it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted December 20, 2011 at 12:25 AM Report Share Posted December 20, 2011 at 12:25 AM Amen. This method of voting could also have the (perhaps unanticipated) consequence that those members who are supposedly voting by secret ballot have the secrecy of their votes compromised because of how the vote comes out. Say that members A and B and C have received permission to vote by signed ballot in order to place their votes on record, and the other 7 members of the assembly are supposedly voting by secret ballot. The motion happens to be adopted by a vote of 7 to 3. A, B, and C all voted 'no' -- which is now on the record. What just happened to the secrecy of the votes cast by the other 7 members?What would prevent them from holding up their ballots so that all could see or snapping a photo of their marked ballots with their cell phone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted December 20, 2011 at 12:40 AM Report Share Posted December 20, 2011 at 12:40 AM Why not, if it is voluntary? It would permit members to record their votes, but not require it.What would prevent them from holding up their ballots so that all could see or snapping a photo of their marked ballots with their cell phone?I think that Mr. Honemann is talking about a somewhat different issue. Certainly nothing in RONR prohibits members from voluntarily disclosing their ballots. The issue is that a motion to have some members vote by one method and other members vote by another method is not in order, regardless of whether one of those methods is by ballot. It would be equally out of order to adopt a motion to, for instance, take a rising vote and then record only the negative votes in the minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted December 20, 2011 at 05:17 AM Report Share Posted December 20, 2011 at 05:17 AM A secret ballot was conducted in Executive Session. The vote result will be published with the number of YES/NO votes outside Executive Session.Has the secrecy been lifted or was the vote specifically not secret? The proceedings of an executive session are secret and are not to be divulged. The details of the tellers' report would not be excluded from this secrecy, simply because the vote was taken by secret ballot. Is it appropriate for one or more individual Directors to request that their YES/NO vote be recorded by Director name with the vote result?Yes, it's inappropriate, because it can't be done. In a secret ballot, no vote is counted as being cast by a particular member, so no director actually voted in the manner that would be recorded in accordance with the request. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted December 22, 2011 at 03:09 AM Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 at 03:09 AM It's worth noting that in public elections, one of the design criteria for balloting is that, upon leaving the polling place, the voter should have no tangible proof of how he voted. Certainly, he is free to tell everyone how he voted, but cannot prove it in any documentary way.The reason, of course, is to discourage selling of votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Britton Posted December 22, 2011 at 04:34 PM Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 at 04:34 PM A secret ballot was conducted in Executive Session. The vote result will be published with the number of YES/NO votes outside Executive Session.My suggestion is unless voted otherwise, the association's board should limit what it reports out of the executive session to the results of the vote. Example:"While in executive session, the Association voted to terminate the employment of their Executive Humorist, Gary Tesser."And, the details of other things, such as an incidental motion to conduct the vote by secret ballot (or roll call) should perhaps be left to the details of the Executive Session Minutes. The actual details of how something occurred or revealing how an individual director voted on their secret ballot perhaps would result in a breach of the "secret" session, unless the board itself later vote to lift that vail.Also, the reading of the executive session minutes of the subordinate assembly (Board) would be subject to an order of the by the full assembly at their meeting any subsequent meeting (by a 2/3rds vote without notice). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.