J. J.

1 hour ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

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.

I am speaking of the general case, and I see nothing that would prevent the the assembly from ordering a ballot vote, on a resolution, and from also ordering that the count not be reported.  That is not coming close to a ballot vote on an election, but is the general case.   Can you point to anything in RONR that indicates that?

Now, since you said, "No, not if the bylaws require a ballot vote," can you cite, in the sample bylaw, where it that states, clearly, that when a ballot is taken in the election, the vote totals must be announced?  I see nothing in the sample bylaws that says that clearly.  I am not saying, at this point, that because there is nothing that it is not the case, but only if the bylaws say, in so many words, that the count is required.  

3 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

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".

Well, the bylaw says, "The officers shall be elected by ballot to serve for one year or until there successors are elected, and their terms of office shall begin at the close of the annual meeting at which they are elected (p. 585, ll. 25-28)."   I see nothing in that bylaw specifically that says, "The vote totals shall be reported."   I am not saying that the requirement is in the bylaws, only that it is not specified in the clause that you quote.

As to the announcing of vote totals being an "essential element" to a ballot vote, I do not see that occurring in the general case.  The society could, as a motion related to methods of voting (p. 283, ll. 9-11), adopt the following motion, "The vote on this resolution shall be by ballot, but the actual vote count shall not be announced."  That is consistent with  PL, Q & A 195 (pp. 480).   I can think of at least one case where it could be desirable.

The information should at least be available to the members of the committee.  The committee can order that copies be given to each member of the committee, so I would suggest that copies be made, if they would prefer reading them directly.  It would be advisable to collect them afterward, if they are given out.

While do not necessarily recommend this, you could number each set, and have the members "sign out" the documents.  I will stress that this  would be optional and nowhere required in RONR.

1 hour ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

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.  )

Okay, where in that bylaw does it say, "It is required that the vote totals be announced?"

5 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

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.

No, that was not the opinion that I had referred to; the opinion, which I cited, was from 2003, not 2013.  I said that I thought there was a more recent opinion, that opinion plays no role in anything that I have posted. 

There is  the claim that announcing the vote is an "essential element," of a ballot vote.  I have seen nothing that would prevent a special rule from saying, "The vote totals on ballot votes shall not be announced."  RONR only requires a ballot vote, on the demand of one member, in one case (p. 668,  ll. 1-3) and such a rule would apply. The society may order a ballot, and such a rule would apply in those cases.   In fact, we can go back to Parliamentary Law and say that there is  no "essential element."  In theory, an assembly could, by majority vote, adopt a motion, "that the vote be taken by ballot, but that the vote totals not be announced," in cases where no  additional rules requiring a ballot, which is consistent with General Robert's answer in PL.

Dan, you said, "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."  In the sample bylaws, where do you think there is a conflicting bylaw provision? 

36 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

Maybe the RONR authorship team felt that having a rule providing for the omission of a proper tellers' report is such a dumb idea that it would be pointless to mention the type of rule needed to accomplish it.

Well, it stop anyone, ...... in 1923 or their about.

1 hour ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

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.

I agree; but this is not a bylaw provision.   RONR notes specifically notes that  there must be a ballot if the bylaws say there must be, to permit write-in votes (pp. 441-42).  RONR does not say that about announcing the count, or as a previous committee noted, about how partial abstentions are counted.  This leads to the interpretation, which is reasonable, that by requiring a ballot in the bylaws, only those rules that RONR says must be in the bylaws are required to be in the bylaws to be effective.  Now, that is an interpretation.

Another interpretation is that, by authorizing a ballot in the bylaws, all rules relating to a ballot must be placed in the bylaws (and in this case), the announcement of the result.

Okay, which interpretation is more likely.  Well, if all rules regarding ballots must be in the bylaws, why does specifying write-ins need to be mentioned specifically?   RONR establishes a class of things that must be in the bylaws to be binding; one of those things would have to be prohibition on write-in votes (pp. 441-2).  If all things related to a ballot were incorporated into the bylaws, that line would not need to be there.

There is something else.  The bylaws on p. 585 have provisions on nominations.  There are two things of interest there:

RONR notes that the chair "must call for further nominations from the floor (p. 435. ll 9-26)."  The sample bylaws have a provision, however, incorporating a requirement for nominations from the  floor (p. 585, ll. 22-24).  That  line (first included in 7th edition) does not need to be there, if the rules relating to nominations are incorporated into the bylaws.  The sole reason that I come up with is to prevent a special rule from removing nominations from the floor.  So either several generations of authors made a minor mistake in the sample bylaws, or a broad theory that, by mentioning something in the bylaws, it completely incorporates everything from RONR about the mentioned subject, is wrong.

Likewise, the rule in RONR is that no nominee may be dropped.  If the rules relating to nominations is incorporated by RONR in a bylaw level rule, a special rule could not be adopted permit dropping.  Yet, since the 11th edition, a special rule may change that (p. 441, fn.). 

From what I can see is the very nature of a special rule.  It will "supersede any rules in the parliamentary authority with which they may conflict (p. 16, ll. 1-2)."   A special rule modifies what the parliamentary authority says (the exceptions being in the footnote) and can modify the what RONR says for terms in the bylaws.   It is the difference between "parliamentary law" and "parliamentary procedure."

While RONR may explain what could constitute a ballot vote, generally, the society, through its special rules, can decide what constitutes a ballot vote, provided RONR does not require that point to be in the bylaws.  It is only a question of if RONR reserves this for the bylaws, specifically.  It does not and that point is acknowledged.

17 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Suffice it to say that none of what is cited here is relevant.

It is to what is the current state of that admittedly nebulous body of rules called the general parliamentary law. 

In total honesty, if the authorship team wishes to set a parameter as to what a special rule can, or can't, do  they should.   They did in regard to plurality voting.  Note that I am referring to teams, literally, over decades, not individuals.

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

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.

As I noted here, in 1923, the General said it did not, to the point of claiming that the announcement of vote totals was within the control of the assembly (PL, p 480, Q&A 195).   I would also add, strongly, that is was 94 years ago, and that I do believe the general parliamentary law does evolve over time, so I would not necessarily find that overly persuasive.   In other words, I would not rely on an appeal to authority.  I do think that there are more recent examples.

As indicated previously, a prior research team, in 2003 (and I think on one more recent answer as well) noted that a special rule could be established to prohibit crediting a ballot where people have partially abstained in voting.  In other words, a special rule could be adopted to discount the votes of members who could vote for 3 members of a board, but only voted for one or two; it changed what counted as a vote.   Determining what is included in the teller's report, what actually is used in determining a majority, is much more likely to be intrinsic part of a ballot that simply announcing that total.  I could appeal to precedent, but I won't, as precedent  may be overturned.

I will, however, look at something the authorship team of 2011 chose not to do in writing the 11th edition.  They chose not to include an either specific or general rule that had the effect of changing that 2003 answer and state that a special rule could not modify how ballots were treated.  One member of the authorship team served on the research team that wrote the 2003 answer and another publicly disagreed with that position, so ignorance of it cannot be claimed. 

Perhaps it was something they left out as an oversight; if it was, they can fix it in the 12th edition.  Perhaps it is settled parliamentary law and this is in there because the authorship, collectively, thinks that permitting a special rule does have the ability to effect ballots in such a way.  Either way, it is the current standard of parliamentary law as of May 26, 2017. 

In either case, speaking personally and not speaking for the remainder of the team, I would prefer that the current research team let the authorship team determine where this will go in the future.  The authorship team has at least two signposts to point the way. 

12 minutes ago, flipper92 said:

A person is running for two positions in our ballot election next week. If he wins both positions, I understand he can just decide not to do one or the other. If that happens, does the second place winner in the position he rejected then automatically win that position? Our bylaws are silent on running/winning two positions. Thanks.

First, it is possible for a person to hold more than one office simultaneously.  Usually the bylaws prohibit it. 

If the member is elected to both, he would choose one and there would be an election for the one he declined (p. 440, ll. 19-27). 

The second place person never automatically gets the position.  As one of our long  time members has wisely noted, the person may have come in second for a reason. 

6 minutes ago, Guest Homeowner said:

Yes, proxies are authorized by the bylaws but do not address the one up for re-election being prohibited from collecting them.  We feel it's a blatant conflict of interest.

I would call it "campaigning."  There is no rule against it in RONR. 

6 hours ago, Guest Randall said:

For clarification, we presently have Comcast, whose contract runs out in two years this June. Atlantic Broadband is the competing company, and we do require a decision at the June meeting in favor of one company or another, as Atlantic Broadband requires a two-year period to lay cable if awarded the contract. I don't believe that it would be proper to ask Delegates representing their individual Associations to leave the Assembly for the vote should they be undecided and choose to abstain. We are always aware of the number of members present whenever a vote is taken. Those who are indifferent, would not attend the meeting. Sufficient abstentions would indicate that there is uncertainty as to which company to go with, and further discussion and opinions may be necessary before another vote is taken. Thank you for your comments. 

If I understand the question would be, "to contract with Atlantic Broadband to provide service beginning in June of 2019."  If that decision is no, then you do not award the contract to Atlantic Broadband.  At that point, why is this a choice between Comcast and Atlantic Broadband? 

Further, is there some rule that says that says you must choose to have a provider?  I'm not arguing that it isn't a good idea to have a provider; I'm just asking if there is some rule requiring it. 

14 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

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.

 

Well, the question was if a special rule could be adopted to prohibit if the count, "be announced and recorded in the minutes."  The announcement is by the chair and would include the result of the tellers' report being read.  There is no suggestion that the vote would not be counted, to be clear.

In authorizing a ballot in the bylaws for an election, RONR specifies that there are certain things must be put in the bylaws.  For example, as noted in the opinion, a special rule could not be adopted to prohibit write-in votes in the case of elections, nor to, in any way, to cause the choice of a specific member to be revealed.  Now, I think that committee would agree that those were examples and not a conclusive list of everything that requires bylaw authorization.   For example, I suspect that the committee would agree that in an election of officers as special rule could not be adopted to permit a plurality vote that is not a majority to elect officers (p. 405, ll, 2-6); if they didn't agree on that point, and it came before a committee, there would have been at least one dissent. 

There is, however, no rule in RONR that says, in effect, that if you authorize a ballot vote to elect officers, then you must announce that result, unless the bylaws say you don't.  As noted in the opinion, there are rules that say, in effect, that you must permit (and credit) write-in votes in elections unless the bylaws say you don't (pp. 441-2).

1 hour ago, Ann Rempel said:

RONR, 11th ed., p. 418, lines 26-31: The tellers' report is entered in full in the minutes, becoming a part of the official records of the organization. Under no circumstances should this be omitted in an election or in a vote on a critical motion out of a mistaken deference to the feelings of unsuccessful candidates or members of the losing side. 

While I think all parties agree that this is the rule.  The question is if a special rule of order, properly adopted by the assembly, can supersede this.

I would suggest that this opinion be read in light of what was listed as Q & A 26, in 1st Quarter, 2003, National Parliamentarian (pp 5-7).   That opinion dealt with the ability of a special rule to prohibit "bullet" voting, when a ballot was required for election for multiple positions, e.g. several board positions.  I believe there was an intervening opinion to the same effect.  

[Shmuel, many years ago, we had a discussion of if a quorum could be established by a special rule; you may not remember it.  My conclusion is, and was, that, if RONR is the parliamentary authority, the quorum requirement can only be placed in the bylaws.  My answer here is based on the same principle.]

23 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

Sneaky... but it would work only if the folks stepping out did not break the quorum requirement for the number of members present and staying in the room to vote.  And with a roll call vote the (possible) lack of a quorum would be self evident.

 

Well, if the majority do not want either choice, they may stay. 

I would probably teat it as a yes/no roll call for each company.  If no company gets a majority, then the assembly does not want the service.  Members may change their votes on hearing that the choice will be between one of these companies and no company; one member may change their vote to permit reconsideration of the other company.

I would, not, however, treat  this as an election.  In that case, the option of not electing anyone is usually not there.  Here the assembly may properly choose not to contract with any company. 

It could be suggested that those who have no preference step out of the room during the roll call.

Yes, if the officer doesn't attend the meeting where the action is taken. 

29 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Oh, for heavens sake J.J., even in Q&A 212, General Robert refers to the bylaw in question as a "rule". 

Because it could have been adopted as a rule.   As I said, it is subtle.   He referred to things that had to be in the bylaws as a bylaw (or a provision of a constitution).   He referred to things that could have been established by a lesser source as a rule.   I have not looked through the other sections, but it is this section.

If there is a desire to identify a requirement that the totals of a ballot (or roll call) election must be in the bylaws, I think it would have to be address as an election by plurality was, starting in the 7th edition. 

36 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

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. 

The word "rule," as opposed to a bylaw.   At least in that section, the General would make that distinction between a rule and a provision of the constitution.  He did not say that the "bylaw" could do it.  He  also referred to a rule as something that could, at the time be accomplished by a special rule of order.  I will note the  General made the distinction in Questions 189, 192,  198, 177, 178.    When he notes that something must be in the bylaws, he does not refer to that as being a rule.   When he refers to something that does not have to be in the bylaws, he  says rules (e.g. Q. 198).

It is subtle, but it is there. 

I would also note Question 195, where the General  states that the report of the tellers should account for every vote, "unless the assembly decides otherwise."  As special rule would be the assembly deciding otherwise.

Again, that is 1923, and things change,  but I see nothing in thecurrent text that would suggest the assembly could not suppress vote totals.  

30 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

The member can wait until an actual nomination from the floor is actually ruled out of order. Indeed, it is not possible to raise a Point of Order before the meeting begins.

I'm not clear on how this has anything to do with the agenda.

I disagree with the interpretation, but it is certainly the case that it is ultimately up to the organization to interpret its own bylaws.

Not disagreeing, it might be a legitimate interpretation of the bylaws that only this committee can nominate.

Unless there was statement to the effect in the bylaws that only people approved by this committee are eligible for election, it would be possible to vote for someone not nominated, if the vote is by ballot or roll call. 

While discussing a bylaw provision, PL notes that, "Your society has a right  to adopt a rule allowing the tellers nothing but the names of the successful candidates, though I have never before heard of any society taking such a step (p. 488, Q & A 212, emphasis added)."  He further notes the inadvisability of adopting such a rule (though I think both the current edition of RONR and Q & A 47 are even more stringent in that regard.).

The distinction that this  would be a special rule, as opposed to a bylaw, is made a he refers to something that, at the time, could done by a special rule, electing officers by plurality.

While I will note, as above, that there have been some changes since General Robert wrote PL, I still cannot find anything that could prohibit the a special rule from permitting the the chair to only state the result, but not the total. 

29 minutes ago, Scorpion said:

Yes.

I thought I had made that clear when I said: 

"In my opinion, whenever a rule requires that a vote be counted (such as a rule requiring a ballot vote), the reporting of that count is an essential element of such a vote, and an integral part of the chair's announcement of the result of such a vote." 

A rule requiring a roll-call vote is certainly a rule requiring that the vote be counted.

And by the way, you can tell I'm in my office because my computer here always logs me in as Scorpion. Sorry about that.

  It does require that the vote be counted; the rule does not prohibit counting, but it would prohibit announcing of the numbers of the result and putting the count into the minutes.   The count would be known by the chair, the tellers, and the secretary (the rule would not remove the requirement that the sheet, a report from a committee, be kept). 

I would go a bit further and suggest that a special rule could eliminate the requirement that the chair announce the result within a meeting (by having it take place outside of the meeting).

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

 

 

The question then, as Shmuel has noted, is one of understanding what, exactly, constitutes a "ballot vote". In my opinion, whenever a rule requires that a vote be counted (such as a rule requiring a ballot vote), the reporting of that count is an essential element of such a vote, and an integral part of the chair's announcement of the result of such a vote. 

I have to disagree, and would ask you his question.  If the bylaws specified a roll call vote, would it be an "essential element" that the vote total be read.   Assume that this group uses the bylaws in RONR, with the sole difference being that, instead of the word "ballot" on p. 585. ll. 26  is replaced with the word "roll call."   Would that, in your opinion, constitute a rule that could not be superseded by a special rule?

Is it possible that an adjourned was set at the call of the chair. 

One of my problems with extending the definition of ballot into announcing the results is found on p. 585, ll. 22-24. 

If that line were not in these set of bylaws, RONR (p. 435, ll. 19-23) would require nominations from the floor for the organization using the sample bylaws.  Putting that line in there doesn't make any sense, unless it was to prevent a special rule from superseding the requirement to permit floor nominations in RONR.  Just saying "nominations" in the bylaws is not enough to prevent a special rule for modifying that requirement to take nominations from the floor.

Another problem that I have is that the rule is a modification to the rules in RONR about what the chair announces and what is recorded in the minutes.  It does not change the rule that "officers shall be elected by ballot."

To perhaps give the converse, suppose that another assembly adopted a special rule "that the number of blank ballots be included in the tellers' report, announced by the chair, and recorded in the minutes."  That would vary from the RONR, but only those rules relating to the tellers' report, what the chair announces, and what is recorded in the minutes.  Would that rule then be superseded by the "officers shall be elected by ballot" clause in the bylaws?