Vote

[Guest Scott]

I understand RONR would not support e-mail voting procedures (as I have read much on the topic in the discussion forums, awesome btw) but our by-laws were ammended to allow for such a procedure. The by-laws indicate that business can be conducted by e-mail vote as long as discussion on the question is not requested. The e-mail vote procedure also includes time frames by which votes must be cast and a policy to indicate that a "no reply" is considered an abstention. Here is the question: a vote is being carried 6 in the affirmative with 2 votes left to be cast. No matter how these votes are cast the vote will carry but one of the 2 remaining votes is calling for a meeting to discuss the motion. Is the motion considered passed as 6 votes have already been cast in the affirmative? The time limit for voting has not yet passed.

[Josh Martin]

Is the motion considered passed as 6 votes have already been cast in the affirmative? The time limit for voting has not yet passed.

It is ultimately up to your assembly to interpret its own customized rules. See RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 570-573 for some Principles of Interpretation. Personally, I would say no, unless your rule suggests otherwise. Nothing in RONR suggests that a vote should be cut short after the required number of votes has been reached.

[Scottalon]

It is ultimately up to your assembly to interpret its own customized rules. See RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 570-573 for some Principles of Interpretation. Personally, I would say no, unless your rule suggests otherwise. Nothing in RONR suggests that a vote should be cut short after the required number of votes has been reached.

Boo and Hiss. I was hoping beyond hope that there was something in here that would not waste the time to call the meeting, and meet. So 6 or 7 people could still vote yes and the one can still vote no. I do appreciate your opinion and incite and the confirmation of my worst fears. Forgive the sarcasm I truely appreciate the comments.

[Josh Martin]

Boo and Hiss. I was hoping beyond hope that there was something in here that would not waste the time to call the meeting, and meet. So 6 or 7 people could still vote yes and the one can still vote no. I do appreciate your opinion and incite and the confirmation of my worst fears. Forgive the sarcasm I truely appreciate the comments.

Well, I presume that part of the reason your organization permitted a single member to force the motion to be discussed at a meeting was the theory that the discussion might change some of the members' minds.

[Scottalon]

Your are exactly correct and the whole goal of RR and following is to uphold the integrity of the process. Our goal (even by e-mail) is to do the same. There are times when you just need to hear someone else confirm that you need to do what is right. Thank you again for your considerations.

[tctheatc]

I understand RONR would not support e-mail voting procedures (as I have read much on the topic in the discussion forums, awesome btw) but our by-laws were ammended to allow for such a procedure. The by-laws indicate that business can be conducted by e-mail vote as long as discussion on the question is not requested. The e-mail vote procedure also includes time frames by which votes must be cast and a policy to indicate that a "no reply" is considered an abstention. Here is the question: a vote is being carried 6 in the affirmative with 2 votes left to be cast. No matter how these votes are cast the vote will carry but one of the 2 remaining votes is calling for a meeting to discuss the motion. Is the motion considered passed as 6 votes have already been cast in the affirmative? The time limit for voting has not yet passed.

OK, so you've allowed and provided rules for e-mail votes. RONR can't interpret them; only you can.

But I can't help noting that it certainly seems to me, one wholly unqualified to interpret your rules, that discussion is requested, and your rules say if that is the case the business cannot be conducted. One of the basic fundamental principles of RONR is that business is conducted by the assembly at a meeting where discussion and deliberation take place. The purpose of a discussion/debate is so people can hear the arguments and make up their minds! How do you decide an issue not having heard all the facts and pertinent points? How does a group decide to conduct business as long as nobody insists on the decision being an informed one?

Your rules strike me as demanding that a decision be made without info.

Your desire to avoid a meeting/discussion when it's clearly called for indicates you want decisions to be made in the dark. Sorry, but this flies in the face of fundamental tenets of RONR.

Shoot, when someone seconds a motion, what are they saying? They're saying "let's put it on the floor and discuss it, then vote." Basic stuff. Might as well eliminate voting, too.

[Scottalon]

Whoa! TC back off a bit. Have you read all of the posts? The motion has been discussed agnosium but one of our members is not happy with the fact that they are not able to win the argument. They want to get everyone together and argue the point one more time. Let me be blunt so you can read between these lines also. Your opinion and judgement is not appreciated and keep your frowny face to yourself.

RONR does indicate that a member who feels their right to vote has been adbucted but whose vote would not effect the outcome does NOT have the right to recall the question. Disciplinary action based on the offense may be forthcoming but it does not invalidate the vote altogether. This was an important aspect to the original question.

[hmtcastle]

RONR does indicate that a member who feels their right to vote has been adbucted but whose vote would not effect the outcome does NOT have the right to recall the question.

Well, that's not exactly correct.

[Dan Honemann]

Whoa! TC back off a bit. Have you read all of the posts? The motion has been discussed agnosium but one of our members is not happy with the fact that they are not able to win the argument. They want to get everyone together and argue the point one more time. Let me be blunt so you can read between these lines also. Your opinion and judgement is not appreciated and keep your frowny face to yourself.

RONR does indicate that a member who feels their right to vote has been adbucted but whose vote would not effect the outcome does NOT have the right to recall the question. Disciplinary action based on the offense may be forthcoming but it does not invalidate the vote altogether. This was an important aspect to the original question.

At the outset you said "The by-laws indicate that business can be conducted by e-mail vote as long as discussion on the question is not requested." This seems to say that if there is any discussion, no vote may be taken by e-mail.

I'm afraid that you are the one who ought to back off a bit.

[Scottalon]

Well, that's not exactly correct.

Mountcastle - I was hoping you would way in. Please enlighten me and again I will say for everyone who is reading, the goal here is not to "get away with anything." It is simply to do what is correct in an efficient manner. We have the straw poles, we know what is going to happen, we will do what is right, but please people have some common sense is my thought.

Don't misunderstand my stance either, all input and feedback is most welcomed and appreciated, but there is no need for ridiculous accusations.

[Scottalon]

At the outset you said "The by-laws indicate that business can be conducted by e-mail vote as long as discussion on the question is not requested." This seems to say that if there is any discussion, no vote may be taken by e-mail.

I'm afraid that you are the one who ought to back off a bit.

So what is the correct procedure as I fear the wrath of Dan? Did the motion occur, do the 6 votes count, don't they count, at the meeting do the 6 members have to attend that voted yes or do their votes count via proxy, (but wait RONR does not really account for proxy votes either)? It is a mess and we are a bit consumed with time restraints. The vote is to confirm the request to hire a new employee. Time is of the essence here for many reasons. Please hear me intention - it is my desire to uphold the integrity of the process and the organization. To give adequate consideration to all members and their opinions - but I am working in a structure and a set of rules that I did not create but have been asked to interpret and handle. This is the situation when organizations seek shortcuts and want to cut corners and until it can be corrected and straightened out we have to operate within them. So, I am seeking the most wonderful inputs and suggestions from some of the most insightful people I have heard from anywhere, just cut me an ounce of grace.

[Josh Martin]

Whoa! TC back off a bit. Have you read all of the posts? The motion has been discussed agnosium but one of our members is not happy with the fact that they are not able to win the argument. They want to get everyone together and argue the point one more time. Let me be blunt so you can read between these lines also. Your opinion and judgement is not appreciated and keep your frowny face to yourself.

Nothing in your previous posts indicated that the motion has been discussed at all, let alone discussed ad nauseum, so I don't see why you question whether TC has read the previous posts. All the same, I still presume that part of the reason your organization permitted a single member to force the motion to be discussed at a meeting was the theory that the discussion might change some of the members' minds. Simultaneous aural communication can make a substantial difference in the deliberative process. Whether or not it will do so in this instance remains to be seen.

Well, that's not exactly correct.

Eh, the terminology isn't perfect, but I think the meaning is clear. It is correct that if a member's right to vote has been violated but his vote could not have affected the result, there is no continuing breach.

RONR does indicate that a member who feels their right to vote has been adbucted but whose vote would not effect the outcome does NOT have the right to recall the question. Disciplinary action based on the offense may be forthcoming but it does not invalidate the vote altogether. This was an important aspect to the original question.

I don't believe Official Interpretation 2006-6 is as relevant to the original question as you think. It is always out of order to violate a member's right to vote (short of a clause in the Bylaws or disciplinary procedures), even if their vote could not affect the result. OI 2006-6 just discusses what to do after the fact, in case a member is improperly deprived of the right to vote. Furthermore, I think the salient point to this question is an individual member's right to demand that the motion be discussed at a meeting, not the issue of the member's right to vote. OI 2006-6 played no part in my answer to the question.

We have the straw poles, we know what is going to happen, we will do what is right, but please people have some common sense is my thought.

You know your organization better than I do, and I have no reason to question your prediction (which may well be right in this instance). But based on my own experience in deliberative assemblies, I would be cautious of the notion that anyone ever knows what is going to happen in a deliberative assembly.

[hmtcastle]

Eh, the terminology isn't perfect, but I think the meaning is clear. It is correct that if a member's right to vote has been violated but his vote could not have affected the result, there is no continuing breach.

I was under the impression that if, for example, proper notice of an election wasn't provided thereby violating even a single member's right to vote, then a continuing breach exists. By I'm happy to be disabused of that notion.

[Scottalon]

Nothing in your previous posts indicated that the motion has been discussed at all, let alone discussed ad nauseum, so I don't see why you question whether TC has read the previous posts. All the same, I still presume that part of the reason your organization permitted a single member to force the motion to be discussed at a meeting was the theory that the discussion might change some of the members' minds. Simultaneous aural communication can make a substantial difference in the deliberative process. Whether or not it will do so in this instance remains to be seen.

Eh, the terminology isn't perfect, but I think the meaning is clear. It is correct that if a member's right to vote has been violated but his vote could not have affected the result, there is no continuing breach.

I don't believe Official Interpretation 2006-6 is as relevant to the original question as you think. It is always out of order to violate a member's right to vote (short of a clause in the Bylaws or disciplinary procedures), even if their vote could not affect the result. OI 2006-6 just discusses what to do after the fact, in case a member is improperly deprived of the right to vote. Furthermore, I think the salient point to this question is an individual member's right to demand that the motion be discussed at a meeting, not the issue of the member's right to vote. OI 2006-6 played no part in my answer to the question.

You know your organization better than I do, and I have no reason to question your prediction (which may well be right in this instance). But based on my own experience in deliberative assemblies, I would be cautious of the notion that anyone ever knows what is going to happen in a deliberative assembly. They have a tendency to surprise.

This are excellent posts and valuable. The President of our organization has asked me to deem the motion passed regardless of the last two votes, which would violate their rights as members. If he forces this issue I did not want to face a new vote plus the turmoil and disciplinary actions this might create. I believe cooler heads and calmer spirits are prevailing and the insights and discussion of this forum has provided me with enough intellectual support to determine our next steps.

[Josh Martin]

I was under the impression that if, for example, proper notice of an election wasn't provided thereby violating even a single member's right to vote, then a continuing breach exists. By I'm happy to be disabused of that notion.

You are entirely correct that failure to provide proper notice will result in a continuing breach, but that is a separate issue. As I understand it, OI 2006-6 is referring to a situation in which a member is present (and received proper notice), but his right to vote is denied (perhaps because the member is mistakenly believed to be ineligible to vote).

[Scottalon]

You are entirely correct that failure to provide proper notice will result in a continuing breach, but that is a separate issue. As I understand it, OI 2006-6 is referring to a situation in which a member is present (and received proper notice), but his right to vote is denied (perhaps because the member is mistakenly believed to be ineligible to vote).

Mostly off topic: but how does one become as familiar and comfortable with RR and continuing as one should be, needs to be? How do I grow in my understanding?

[Josh Martin]

Mostly off topic: but how does one become as familiar and comfortable with RR and continuing as one should be, needs to be? How do I grow in my understanding?

Well, for the average member, reading RONR In Brief in its entirety should be more than enough. If you desire more familiarity, you may wish to tackle the full text (I wouldn't read more than one or two sections a day). After that, this forum does wonders for keeping your skills sharp. Joining a unit in the National Association of Parliamentarians or American Institute of Parliamentarians can also be helpful.

[Scottalon]

Josh as to the question: Nothing in your previous posts indicated that the motion has been discussed at all, let alone discussed ad nauseum, so I don't see why you question whether TC has read the previous posts. I asked if TC had read the previous post because I thought I had been clear in all posts that my desire is to do what is correct and not violate a members right to vote. I didn't quite appreciate the accusation of trying to be "in the dark" and eliminating voting all together. That's why the question was asked in the first place. At 6 yes and 0 no if we don't carry this motion out correctly we are essentially nullifying the procedure and that isn't good. On the other hand, if there was something about this goofed up process that I was not understanding that would bring this to a satisfactory conclusion that would be great as well. I'm not a big fan of frowny faces either.

[Gary Novosielski]

I understand RONR would not support e-mail voting procedures (as I have read much on the topic in the discussion forums, awesome btw) but our by-laws were ammended to allow for such a procedure. The by-laws indicate that business can be conducted by e-mail vote as long as discussion on the question is not requested. The e-mail vote procedure also includes time frames by which votes must be cast and a policy to indicate that a "no reply" is considered an abstention. Here is the question: a vote is being carried 6 in the affirmative with 2 votes left to be cast. No matter how these votes are cast the vote will carry but one of the 2 remaining votes is calling for a meeting to discuss the motion. Is the motion considered passed as 6 votes have already been cast in the affirmative? The time limit for voting has not yet passed.

It looks like you answered your own question.

Obviously when discussion is held, minds might change, and people might change their votes. That's undoubtedly why the request is being made.

[tctheatc]