Guest CHM Posted June 8, 2011 at 04:04 AM Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 at 04:04 AM Board members are concerned about voting 'publicly' due to a couple of board members who have made it clear they will tell others in the community how each director voted. Must the board vote by hand or aye/nay OR could we vote via ballot where each director gets a ballot every time a motion is made? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted June 8, 2011 at 07:02 AM Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 at 07:02 AM Unless the board is bound by superior rules, it can decide to use a (secret) ballot vote any time it chooses to. I have a feeling -- don't hold me to this, it's 3 AM -- that the board can decide to use ballot voting for its entire meeting (by, I'm blue-skying and thin-icing, a 2/3 vote). If the board is authorized to adopt its own rules, it can adopt a special rule of order requiring ballot votes all the time; if it does not have that authority, it can ask its parent body to adopt such a rule for it.[Edooted to insert "all the time" before the semicolon.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hunt Posted June 8, 2011 at 09:07 AM Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 at 09:07 AM Board members are concerned about voting 'publicly' due to a couple of board members who have made it clear they will tell others in the community how each director voted. Must the board vote by hand or aye/nay OR could we vote via ballot where each director gets a ballot every time a motion is made?The normal procedure is to vote by voice or possibly by show of hands, but a motion can be made to take any vote by ballot (RONR page 273). The rules could also be suspended by a two-thirds majority to take all votes at a given meeting by ballot (or something similar), and a special rule of order could be adopted, with its usual rules, that provides for vote by ballot in some or all circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Carme Angulo Posted June 8, 2011 at 10:01 AM Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 at 10:01 AM Our Classified Union Board is meeting today to adopt a new Agreement with our School District, and also to elect a President and Secretary, that have been vacated as of May 15, 2011....though directly involved with the negotiations of this new Agreement with our School. I've already verified that their seats are vacated and that they should not have been involved with negotiations at all. Our VP should have stepped up as President until this election process today, and been the only one along with our Treasurer involved with negotiations for our Agreement. Sorry for this lengthy questions. At this elections meeting, should their be a ballot box for all members to use as well as a Non-Union person to verify the vote? As the vacated President didn't follow protocol of our Constitution and By-Laws, and is running again as President I'm worried that they can read who's ever name they want when they open those ballots...sorry to say, but they would do this if they could....our Constitution and By-Laws say nothing about this and refer to Roberts should things like this occurr....could you please provide me with the correct way to hold this election .... I have the ballot box ready lololol help Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted June 8, 2011 at 10:16 AM Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 at 10:16 AM Carme:Please re-post your question as a new topic (just copy/paste) and more folks will pay attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted June 8, 2011 at 12:02 PM Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 at 12:02 PM [Edooted ...]Well, you did say it was 3am, after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hunt Posted June 8, 2011 at 06:39 PM Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 at 06:39 PM Our Classified Union Board is meeting today to adopt a new Agreement with our School District, and also to elect a President and Secretary, that have been vacated as of May 15, 2011....though directly involved with the negotiations of this new Agreement with our School. I've already verified that their seats are vacated and that they should not have been involved with negotiations at all. Our VP should have stepped up as President until this election process today, and been the only one along with our Treasurer involved with negotiations for our Agreement. Sorry for this lengthy questions. At this elections meeting, should their be a ballot box for all members to use as well as a Non-Union person to verify the vote? As the vacated President didn't follow protocol of our Constitution and By-Laws, and is running again as President I'm worried that they can read who's ever name they want when they open those ballots...sorry to say, but they would do this if they could....our Constitution and By-Laws say nothing about this and refer to Roberts should things like this occurr....could you please provide me with the correct way to hold this election .... I have the ballot box ready lololol helpIf you're conducting a vote by ballot, there should be a declaration of the total votes cast and for whom. While RONR doesn't specifically provide for members getting access to the ballot box, there's no real reason other than the amount of time taken why a member shouldn't be allowed to personally review the ballots. In any case, I believe it would be in order for a majority to order a public count of the ballots, which would not take too long if the assembly is fairly small. Normally the vote count is conducted by tellers appointed by the chair. You could, of course, suspend the rules, which requires a two-thirds majority, but would allow you to specifically manage it or even appoint an alternate chair to handle the election (who need not be an actual member of the assembly). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted June 8, 2011 at 09:07 PM Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 at 09:07 PM While RONR doesn't specifically provide for members getting access to the ballot box, there's no real reason other than the amount of time taken why a member shouldn't be allowed to personally review the ballots.Under supervision, I hope. In any case, I believe it would be in order for a majority to order a public count of the ballots, which would not take too long if the assembly is fairly small.I agree that such a motion is in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted June 8, 2011 at 09:15 PM Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 at 09:15 PM Under supervision, I hope.Remember the secretary who took the ballots home and had her kid help re-count them on the kitchen table?Good times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.