Andrew Becker

Additionally, there's the aspect of notice -- we were not given notice (other than the words "electronic ballot") that a new voting method was being proposed -- but I didn't want my overly-contextual post to be bogged down with multiple questions, but rather get guidance on the most important question. Nobody suspected the Chair intended to use adoption of the agenda to also entail suspending the rules and adopting a new voting method, because we were not given notice (other than the words "electronic ballot") that a new voting method was being proposed, and not instructed on how to use the new method, until after the agenda was adopted (much less 7 days before the meeting). To be fair, the Chair also probably didn't realize that there would be a notice requirement to attempting to adopt a new voting method, or the need to amend or suspend standing rules, and the parliamentarian seemingly offered the interpretation that adopting the agenda did all that so they wouldn't have to back-track.

Well, we wanted to give the Chair some freedom (particularly before we knew that we'd always be using Zoom, and were uncertain about the capabilities of potential electronic mediums) to chose between the definitions of electronic voting methods we put in the standing rule for use during meetings: voice vote, visible division, or roll call. But "stating how the vote will be conducted" couldn't be interpreted to mean that the Chair could unilaterally adopt any other voting method, right? Rather, the Chair could decide: "I think this isn't controversial so let's start with a voice vote," or "I'm not sure about this one so let's go straight to a roll call." That's why we only defined electronic votes as votes conducted via those three methods -- so they'd be the only options the Chair could chose from. More importantly, the question is whether putting the words "electronic ballot" next to an item on the agenda can constitute a motion to suspend the rules and adopt a new electronic voting method, and whether the rules can be suspended by adopting that agenda despite not clearly indicating that it entails such a motion. That's a RONR issue, not dependent on our own rules.

I'm a member of my local County Democratic Party. We adopted a bylaws amendment and standing rules a year ago that allowed us to adapt our meetings to an online medium (we happen to use Zoom). Ever since the McGovern-Frazier DNC reform of 1971 (where they discovered that ballot-box stuffing at the county and state levels was widespread enough to change who the DNC nominated in 1968), no level of the Democratic Party has been allowed to use secret ballots. We instead use signed ballots or roll call votes when voice votes or a show of hands are not appropriate. However, due to concerns regarding the inability to audit electronic ballots or the ability to tamper with them, our standing rule for electronic meetings only allowed for absentee electronic ballots (such as an email vote) if the Central Committee (our general membership body) is not in session (in case we wanted to vote on whether we should use Zoom or another medium for electronic meetings, for example). Our standing rule also requires that the membership be given 7 days prior notice (along with the meeting agenda), instructing them how to access the electronic medium chosen to conduct the meeting in and instructing them how to access and participate in any voting method being used. This has not previously been a problem as we have, 'till this point, only used unanimous consent (which requires un-muting all members and waiting ten seconds), voice vote (although any single member can demand a division), or roll call votes. At our April general membership meeting, right after we adopted the meeting agenda, the Chair announced during the meeting that a new electronic balloting system was going to be used later during the meeting for our votes on endorsing candidates for officer positions of our State Democratic Party. I objected with this comment: “Where does the Standing Rules for Electronic Meetings allow for the use of electronic ballots? The Standing Rules only allow voice votes, unanimous consent, or roll call.” Our parliamentarian replied: “The standing rules can be suspended, and we just did.” The Parliamentarian further elaborated that since agenda item VI, 1, was written as: "Action Item: State Democratic Party Officer Endorsements...Electronic Ballot," the inclusion of the words "Electronic Ballot" constituted a motion to suspend the rules and to alter the method of voting. I objected that the agenda did not clearly state a motion to suspend the rules and alter the method of voting. It was neither clearly stated that it was a motion, nor did it clearly state what the effect of the motion was. My question: without clearly stating any motion, and without clearly signifying that a motion is included in the agenda as distributed, can adopting an agenda both suspend the rules and also alter the method of voting? For reference, our bylaws state: For reference, our standing rules state: