Abstention from Voting

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Since when does an election (a transaction of business) or any other vote (a transaction of business) not require a quorum in order to be legal?

It is possible.

When the POLLING PERIOD is set as its own event, such as the first Tuesday in November for U.S. public elections, THEN you won't need a quorum.

You will see this often in churches. -- The meeting is held on a Wednesday or Friday, and the assembly fixes the time and place for balloting to be after church services on Sunday. -- No quorum on Sunday, just pure voting.

Same for some conventions. -- The balloting for officers might be an all day affair, with the delegates on their own choice of time as to "when" to visit the polling room, and to deposit his ballot into the ballot box, or to hand his ballot to the chief teller.

I understand that high schools do a similar polling technique when they vote for the prom king & queen. -- Polling is extended, without a quorum ongoing.

So, there are exceptions. -- When the polling period begins or ends before/after the meeting of that day, or of the previous day.

[David A Foulkes]

It's the annual Members meeting. The only transaction of business on the agenda is an election of Directors. There are 870 Members. A mere quorum (87 Members) is present (able to vote) either in person or by proxy or by mail before the meeting is called to order. The presiding officer sees 5 Members who are present (able to vote) in person, and he sees 5 proxy holders in possession of proxies that enable their respective 5 Members to be present (able to vote) by proxy, and he sees 77 mailed ballots that enable their respective 77 Members to be present (able to vote) by mail, and determines that a quorum (87) of voting Members is present (able to vote) for the election either in person or by proxy or by mail, and he calls the Members meeting to order and proceeds to conduct the election.

The problem with 5.02b is it does not go into effect until the votes are counted, either in their entirety in the case of a failure of 10% of the voters casting votes, or at the moment in the counting at which the 10% requirement is met. Until then, during the nominations, and casting of votes, and counting of (at the very least) the first 9.999% of ballots submitted, there is no way to satisfy the 10% rule. Even if you count 9.999% of the ballots and they are all valid votes, there is still no way to be sure until that next ballot is unfolded whether you even have a quorum!!! And without a quorum, as I hope you know (and it looks like you do from this statement):

Since when does an election (a transaction of business) or any other vote (a transaction of business) not require a quorum in order to be legal?

, there is only so much you can "legally" do at a meeting, and most of it amounts to give up and go home.

So, until you open that one ballot that satisfies the 10% requirement, you are inquorate, and all actions taken so far (including the election) are null and void.

[Jim7]

Ah, c'mon, Gary. Share his pain. He's having to deal with a bylaw that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. For one thing, there is no such thing as an "eligible vote". Votes are not elect-able or choose-able; people are. And it's all downhill from there. We are reminded, though, how often it is that organizations that insist on writing their own rules of order get it all messed up.

Bylaws 5.02g says "at least 10% of the eligible voters" with an "ers," if that helps.

Jim

[David A Foulkes]

Bylaws 5.02g says "at least 10% of the eligible voters" with an "ers," if that helps.

Jim

Yeah, unfortunately, in your original post you left out the "r", and that got quoted a lot, and read a lot, and it sort-a got reinforced that way, you know? But you did correct it subsequently, and it is duly noted the votes are not eligible, the voters are.

[Dan Honemann]

Bylaws 5.02g says "at least 10% of the eligible voters" with an "ers," if that helps.

Jim

As was noted in your previous thread, the people you need to convince as to the correctness of your views on the meaning of your organization's bylaws are the members of your organization, not the parliamentarians who respond to questions here in this forum.

It's time for you to give up here, and work on your membership.

[Jim7]

The problem with 5.02b is it does not go into effect until the votes are counted, either in their entirety in the case of a failure of 10% of the voters casting votes, or at the moment in the counting at which the 10% requirement is met. Until then, during the nominations, and casting of votes, and counting of (at the very least) the first 9.999% of ballots submitted, there is no way to satisfy the 10% rule. Even if you count 9.999% of the ballots and they are all valid votes, there is still no way to be sure until that next ballot is unfolded whether you even have a quorum!!! And without a quorum, as I hope you know (and it looks like you do from this statement):

, there is only so much you can "legally" do at a meeting, and most of it amounts to give up and go home.

So, until you open that one ballot that satisfies the 10% requirement, you are inquorate, and all actions taken so far (including the election) are null and void.

The language says, "At least 10% of the eligible voters must cast a ballot or proxy in order to have a valid election of members of the Board of Directors."

If the presiding officer sees 87 (a quorum) mailed ballots, then he sees 87 voting Members present (able to vote) by mailed ballot. Based on that, he determines that a quorum (87) of voting Members is present (able to vote) by mailed ballot and he proceeds with the Members meeting and conducts the election of Directors (the transaction of business) at the Members meeting. The 87 mailed ballots are counted in the election, and winners of the election are determined, and the election is legal because at least a quorum (87) of the voting Members have participated in the election in the manner that they are entitled to vote.

You seem to be saying that if the last mailed ballot to be counted turns out not to be from a voting Member, then a quorum of voting Members has not been present (able to vote) AND actually voting by mailed ballot, and therefore the election is not legal. That's true.

But how is that any different than if 87 voting Members were counted as being present in person at the beginning of the Members meeting, hence the presence (the ability to vote) in person of a quorum (87) of voting Members, and the election is conducted with either all 87 Members or only some of them voting in the election (abstention is allowed in this instance), but one of those 87 voting Members turns out not to be a voting Member (for disciplinary reasons, or whatever), and therefore the election is not legal?

In both instances, the Members meeting proceeds and the election is conducted based on the assumption that the 87 mailed ballots (in the first instance) or the 87 Members (in the second instance) are what they appear to be.

Jim

[Jim7]

Yeah, unfortunately, in your original post you left out the "r", and that got quoted a lot, and read a lot, and it sort-a got reinforced that way, you know? But you did correct it subsequently, and it is duly noted the votes are not eligible, the voters are.

Sorry.

[Jim7]

As was noted in your previous thread, the people you need to convince as to the correctness of your views on the meaning of your organization's bylaws are the members of your organization, not the parliamentarians who respond to questions here in this forum.

It's time for you to give up here, and work on your membership.

Understood.

Thanks, everyone.

Jim