jggorman

Great info, thanks everyone!

Mr. Brown, your response was very helpful because my request was mostly based on the guidance I read in RONR 11th on citing. So I will get the 12th digitally and may decide to hold off on an extra print copy. Thanks so much!

I want to get a digital/ebook version of RONR (12th) that provides page numbers of hardcopy version. I want to be able to search and find something and then know what page the same section is in the hardcopy/print version of the book. This would be helpful in communicating a page numbers among people who vary between digital and hardcopy versions. However, past experience has shown me that ebooks generally don't have page numbers that are the same as hardcopies. Has anyone found a solution or specific source for the 12the edition that solves this issue specifically with page numbers?

Gary, these ballots have multiple positions like our state ballots do. There is nothing in them indicating a team of candidates. I realize that without considering our bylaws, Robert's Rules is clear. However, I am not sure I agree with comments made so far that a "ballot cast" is the same as a "vote cast" when plain language bylaws are considered. I have read Robert's Rules and in various places it speaks of a "ballot" as a thing that is submitted for the purpose of votes before these votes are known. At the time they are cast into a location, they are spoke of as a "ballot." Having a choice of abstention is as I have heard put "an oxymoron." Nevertheless, I am not sure that the inclusion of something like a choice of "Abstention" on a ballot renders it no longer a ballot, even if it is not a vote counted. It may still be a ballot cast as far as the writers of our bylaws intended. The words "abstention" or "votes" do not appear in our bylaws in our Article on our election process; only "ballots cast." While Robert's Rules are clear, they recognize repeatedly that an organization's documents supersede Robert's Rules. In fact, in our case, without the bylaws defining the majority as "ballots cast" a person could win with a single vote. All sorts of problems could arise. The possibility exists that the authors of our bylaws intended it to taken something like "all those voting and present" or simply "all those present." In my opinion, just because we made the mistake of going to an electronic election (not in our bylaws btw) and also making the mistake of allowing abstention as a choice on the ballot, does not necessarily mean we should invalidate our bylaws or assume that the authors meant "votes cast" when they wrote "ballots cast." Indeed, both terms were available for use and again "votes" never appears once in the entire article on elections. I think the best thing for us to do is to bring this to the body and vote on an interpretation of our bylaws and amend the bylaws as soon as possible for clarity.

Yes, Bruce has it. I am not sure where I saw the term, I spelled it incorrectly with two 't's and may have used the term erroneously. The word is used when several positions or questions are "slated on ballot" and of course used when referring to a "slate" of candidates running together.

Thanks for answering this question both of you. Atul, what you indicated was especially helpful and made perfect sense to me when I reread that section. It stands to reason that a slatted ballot can and should be considered separately for each question or position. I guess I got caught up in the singular grammar of the word "ballot" and failed to recognize the relevance or meaning of the passage in Robert's Rules. Lesson learned, thanks to you both.

My first inclination BTW was differentiate "votes cast" with "ballots cast" as our bylaws indicates "ballots" and never once mentions votes. However, given the clarification that a slatted ballot is separable, Bruce's explanation is also clear that an abstention—even if indicated on a ballot—should not be counted as a "ballot cast" as it means to abstain from voting and should also be taken to mean abstaining from casting a ballot in this case. Part of what I am taking away from this is that votes cast and ballots cast essentially mean the same thing. So it makes no difference that our bylaws indicate "ballots cast," they might have as well said "votes cast."

Our organization's bylaws indicate that candidates must receive "a majority of the ballots cast" in order to be elected (those exact words). Our election is done with a slated ballot for multiple officer positions. In this case, can a candidate win with only a majority of votes counted for either of two candidates not including any abstentions in one of the officer positions when that number is less than 50% +1 of the total number of ballots cast with abstentions included?

Everything below this line is intended to clarify my question above and probably isn't necessary to read.

Given the language in our bylaws and that the ballot is slatted, does it make any difference if abstentions (a choice on the ballot added for each position) were the cause of the majority of votes cast for one of the positions being slightly lower than the majority of ballots cast? To clarify any answer people may offer, can abstentions for only one of the officer positions be omitted in the determining the number of "ballots cast" on a election of multiple officer positions in a slated ballot?