Shmuel Gerber

Alien life form. They made a whole TV series about it.

We really don't know anything about the requirements for this meeting. Do the bylaws (or applicable law) even authorize the meeting to take place by videoconference? What, if any, rules are in place for such a meeting? There could be many problems trying to use Zoom for balloting. However, anonymity of the ballots does not need to be one of them. It looks like it can be done using multiple questions on a poll, with the advanced polling feature that allows short answers. Here is a hastily constructed example, with two voters participating. One voter votes for Candidate A on question 1 and leaves question 2 blank. The other one votes for "Other" on question 1 and writes in Joe Shmoe for question 2. (So, unfortunately, the vote is tied and there is no winner in this example.) When the poll opens, the voters would see something like the first image, and when the voting is done the host would see something like the second image. (Also unfortunately, the host can see the results as they come in, which means he or she can either close the polls on time or try to delay their closing, depending on the running totals.) The polling report would show something like the third image. If all the voters correctly filled in the ballots (i.e., answered question 2 if and only if choosing "Other" for question 1), then the results should be able to be determined from the quick report, unless a write-in candidate won. If the ballots are not filled in correctly, then the full report would have to be scrutinized. In this example, you can quickly see from the second image that 2 ballots were submitted; that 1 vote (50%) was cast for Candidate A in question 1; that 1 vote (50%) was cast for Other in question 1; and that the total number of voters who chose "Other" in question 1 (1) matches the total number that answered question 2 (also 1).

See also https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/216378603

I agree that unless measures are in place to protect the secrecy of the individual votes, then the poll cannot satisfy the requirement for taking a vote by ballot. However, Zoom does allow the creator of a poll to choose "Allow participants to answer questions anonymously", which means that anonymous responses will not contain the user's information in the polling report. See https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/213756303-Polling-for-meetings

The quote you provided does not seem to be from the current official edition. Please see https://robertsrules.com/books/ for information about getting the right book.

If the action you are referring to is censuring the member or initiating internal disciplinary proceedings within the club, then yes: "If there is an article on discipline in the bylaws, it may specify a number of offenses outside meetings for which these penalties can be imposed on a member of the organization. Frequently, such an article provides for their imposition on any member found guilty of conduct described, for example, as “tending to injure the good name of the organization, disturb its well-being, or hamper it in its work.” In any society, behavior of this nature is a serious offense properly subject to disciplinary action, whether the bylaws make mention of it or not." (RONR 12th ed. 61:3) The club can judge for itself whether the type of account makes any difference. If you are referring to legal action, you should consult an attorney.

The difference is that if item K is added to the agenda (as a general order), and the meeting is adjourned before item K is reached, then in a society that meets at no more than quarterly intervals, it will go over to the next meeting as unfinished business, to be taken up before the new business of the next meeting. If item K is not added to the agenda, then it can still be brought up by a motion under New Business at this meeting after the agenda has been completed, but it would not go over to the next meeting if the meeting is adjourned before the motion has been made. I don't think the fact that this particular society meets only once a year automatically changes every general order into new business. There is still a difference between adding an item to an agenda, and entertaining it as a motion after the agenda has been completed.

And yet again, Army just couldn't win.

Zoom has had built-in polling capability for meetings for quite some time. https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/213756303-Polling-for-meetings

Don't you mean why not not? 🙂

I understand there's another big game going on tonight, so let's try this one more time: GO ARMY, BEAT NAVY!

I think you meant "if it does not provide for new business". But anyway, adoption of an agenda does not prevent a member from making motions on additional topics after the agenda has been completed and before the meeting is adjourned.

It's difficult to answer such questions in the abstract, and I agree that the case for a majority vote is a bit stronger where the bylaws say something like "These bylaws may be amended at any regular meeting, provided that the amendment has been submitted in writing at the previous meeting," where the drafters evidently expressed a requirement as to what procedure is necessary for the adoption of a bylaw amendment and omitted any special voting threshold. As opposed to the situation in this topic, where the bylaws simply say something such as "The board shall have power to adopt amendments to the bylaws," providing no requirements at all as to either notice or the vote. (I'm making up my own example of the wording because it has not been provided in this topic by the OP.) I should add that I don't want to give the impression that @Josh Martin's interpretation is unreasonable or clearly erroneous. I said, "I'm not sure what your basis is for saying that an ordinary majority vote without previous notice is sufficient when the bylaws require neither a majority vote nor any other specific vote," but presumably he was relying on the rule that "the basic requirement for approval of an action or choice by a deliberative assembly, except where a rule provides otherwise, is a majority vote" (44:1). So if you interpret the rules in RONR regarding the vote and notice requirements for bylaw amendment to be completely inapplicable unless "the bylaws contain no provision for their amendment", then what is left is the ordinary majority vote requirement without any previous notice needed. I find that conclusion unsatisfactory because that would leave RONR in the position of not specifying any vote requirement at all in the case of a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted in an assembly as applied to bylaws (35:2(7)) that contain some provision relating to their amendment but do not give any notice or vote requirement. But I suppose that is the authorship team's problem and not Mr. Martin's. 🙂

Presumably the budget covers a one-year period, so whatever is not covered by a particular annual budget before its adoption at the regular time will have been covered by the previous budget. But if the organization agrees that the current bylaw provision is not suitable, it can amend the bylaws.

I don't think it is clear-cut as that; otherwise your answer would not differ so greatly from the one given by Mr. Honemann earlier in this topic. If the bylaws contain some provision regarding their amendment but don't say what notice and vote are required, then the question remains what those requirements are. I think Tomm is correct to look to RONR for those requirements, and specifically to look at the requirements for a motion to amend the bylaws rather than just motions in general. I'm not sure what your basis is for saying that an ordinary majority vote without previous notice is sufficient when the bylaws require neither a majority vote nor any other specific vote. The wording in 57:1 is perhaps more on point in such a case than in other places in the book: "Special requirements for this motion’s adoption should be specified in the bylaws, and they should always include at least notice and a two-thirds vote, which (with a vote of a majority of the entire membership as an allowable alternative) are the requirements for its adoption if such specification in the bylaws is neglected" Of course there may be bylaws that are worded in a way that strongly implies a majority vote would be sufficient, but I'm discussing this in terms of general rules. A similar discussion arose in this topic: https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/36268-motion-to-amend-bylaws/

What do the bylaws say about the board's ability to amend the bylaws?

No. The whole purpose (or the main purpose) of receiving and discussing a report in a deliberative assembly is to enable the body to intelligently take action on the topic. A similar question is addressed in Robert's Rules of Order with respect to the standard order of business: "A motion arising out of an officer’s, a board’s, or a committee’s report is taken up immediately, since the object of the order of business is to give priority to the classes of business in the order listed." RONR (12th ed.) 41:14

Perhaps Mr. Elsman's reasoning is as follows: When a vote is taken by a method other than roll call or signed ballot — which the assembly generally has the option of ordering, but in this case chose not to — there is a reasonable expectation on the part of the members that their individual votes will not be recorded. Therefore, while a member may request the privilege of having his or her own vote or abstention recorded in the minutes, a motion to request that someone else's vote be recorded is out of order, even by a suspension of the rules. I'll have to think about whether I agree with this, but the reasoning seems pretty solid to me. 🙂

Thank you. Regarding its use for voting, what advantages would you expect for Polly over using Zoom's built-in polling feature?

This has nothing to do with parliamentary procedure. But ... I do not think you are correct. The rule relates to which kinds of petitions can be circulated, not whether particular members can circulate them.

That's true. However, under RONR the board does not need to share its own minutes with the membership unless ordered to do so.

In think that would have been a pretty safe bet regardless, seeing as how R.W's profile location is given as Montreal. 🙂

I'm curious as to what voting software you had in mind.

No. The minutes of the regular meeting should be approved at the next regular meeting, not at the called (special) meeting.

Well, you could always buy some books. 🙂