Clicker votes

[Guest Carla]

Our board chair randomly brings clickers to some meetings expecting their use without discussion. I believe they are considered a secret ballot as they function in that way. We have never discussed nor voted on their use. This does not seem consistent with Roberts rules. Anyone have more information?

[Guest Edgar]

Our board chair randomly brings clickers to some meetings expecting their use without discussion. I believe they are considered a secret ballot as they function in that way. We have never discussed nor voted on their use. This does not seem consistent with Roberts rules. Anyone have more information?

The method of voting is either prescribed by rule or left to the assembly to determine. The chair does not have the authority yours appears to be exercising.

[Weldon Merritt]

The method of voting is either prescribed by rule or left to the assembly to determine. The chair does not have the authority yours appears to be exercising.

I agree, However, if the president says somthing like "we will use clickers for voting today," and no one objects or raises a Point of Order, the assembly has in effect agreed by unanimous consent. The lesson is, if you think somthing is not right, challenge it! Raising a question after the fact rarely is helpful (except to help you know better nect time).

[Shmuel Gerber]

I agree, However, if the president says somthing like "we will use clickers for voting today," and no one objects or raises a Point of Order, the assembly has in effect agreed by unanimous consent. The lesson is, if you think somthing is not right, challenge it! Raising a question after the fact rarely is helpful (except to help you know better nect time).

Since we haven't heard from Rob Elsman in a while, I'm going to object to this answer on his behalf.

[jstackpo]

On what grounds?

[Tim Wynn]

On what grounds?

I think Rob is objecting, through Shmuel, to the fact that the chair did not legitimately solicit unanimous consent.

However, since no Point of Order was raised, it is indeed too late, and the assembly's lack of such action has the same effect as unanimous consent.

[Weldon Merritt]

Since we haven't heard from Rob Elsman in a while, I'm going to object to this answer on his behalf.

I thought about Rob's usual stance as I was writing my previous response. Of course I have no illusion that remaining silent due to ignorance really indicates consent . But I still manintain that those who do not speak up, whether from ignorance or actual consent, effectively have agreed to the action. Certainly, unless the action was one that creates a co0ntinuing breach, one cannot subsequiently object on the basis that "I didn't know the president couldn't do that." If you're going to play the game, you need to know the rules, or at least enough of the basics to know when to question something that "does not seem consistent with Roberts rules."

[Guest Carla]

OK, so can I object at the next meeting if the clickers come out? Has our not objecting set a precident of implied ongoing consent? (although to some they are greatly disturbing). I am planning , by the way to discuss this with the chair before the next meeting.

[David A Foulkes]

Of course I have no illusion that remaining silent due to ignorance really indicates consent . But I still manintain that those who do not speak up, whether from ignorance or actual consent, effectively have agreed to the action.

For my money, p. 54 makes a strong argument for how the chair should obtain unanimous consent, and it's not by telling the assembly what they will do.

[Chris Harrison]

OK, so can I object at the next meeting if the clickers come out?

Yes. Just make sure to do so before the vote is taken.

Has our not objecting set a precident of implied ongoing consent?

In the Chair's eyes, probably so. In RONR's eyes, doubtful. However, with a very few exceptions the Chair doesn't have the authority under RONR to force a vote be held in a specific way unless the bylaws require certain types of motions be voted on a certain way. So even if it were considered to be a custom a single member can put the brakes on it by merely raising a Point of Order (RONR p. 19).

[Guest Nancy N.]

Weldon Merritt, on 26 February 2012 - 06:44 PM, said:

Of course I have no illusion that remaining silent due to ignorance really indicates consent . But I still manintain that those who do not speak up, whether from ignorance or actual consent, effectively have agreed to the action.

For my money, p. 54 makes a strong argument for how the chair should obtain unanimous consent, and it's not by telling the assembly what they will do.

David, you do recognize that Weldon agrees with this, right? (He probably agreed with it before you did... :-) )

[Guest Nancy N.]

Carla, on 26 February 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

OK, so can I object at the next meeting if the clickers come out?

Yes. Just make sure to do so before the vote is taken..

Chris, we can tell Carla that she will do best to object before the vote is taken, but it's not too late then, ... can't we?

[David A Foulkes]

David, you do recognize that Weldon agrees with this, right? (He probably agreed with it before you did... :-) )

That wasn't my point.

[Chris Harrison]

Chris, we can tell Carla that she will do best to object before the vote is taken, but it's not too late then, ... can't we?

I think after the Chair has put the question and the clickers have started clacking any Point of Order would no longer be timely. Are you saying that you think one of the p. 251 exceptions would apply in this case?

[Guest Nancy N.]

Nancy N., on 26 February 2012 - 09:43 PM, said:

David, you do recognize that Weldon agrees with this, right? (He probably agreed with it before you did... :-) )

That wasn't my point.

Well then, persnickety pundit, if it please you to divulge, what might your point have been?

[David A Foulkes]

Nancy N., on 26 February 2012 - 09:43 PM, said:

David, you do recognize that Weldon agrees with this, right? (He probably agreed with it before you did... :-) )

Well then, persnickety pundit, if it please you to divulge, what might your point have been?

Unanimous consent is given, not taken. P. 54 describes the methods the chair may employ to obtain unanimous consent. Very simply, he asks for it. Anything less, such as in the manner of a chair telling the assembly what it will do, is not acceptable and borders on dereliction of duty. Yes, a Point of Order may correct this one time or two. But if that kind of behavior, or similar, persists, he should be removed from his position.

[Gary Novosielski]

OK, so can I object at the next meeting if the clickers come out? Has our not objecting set a precident of implied ongoing consent?

No. Consent lasts only as long as it lasts.

[Steven Britton]

OK, so can I object at the next meeting if the clickers come out? Has our not objecting set a precident of implied ongoing consent? (although to some they are greatly disturbing). I am planning , by the way to discuss this with the chair before the next meeting.

The chair could argue precedent, but that reasoning can only be "persuasive." See p.251 - 252 regarding Precedent.

As the clicker voting is not actually a voice-vote, I can imagine that sometimes it's difficult to tell whether there are more click in favor, or more clicks against. If this is the case, call for a Division of the Assembly. It's the chair's duty to assure the assembly that there is little or no doubt in the outcome of particular vote.

[Tim Wynn]

As the clicker voting is not actually a voice-vote, I can imagine that sometimes it's difficult to tell whether there are more click in favor, or more clicks against. If this is the case, call for a Division of the Assembly. It's the chair's duty to assure the assembly that there is little or no doubt in the outcome of particular vote.

I assume the "clicker" is rendering an exact vote total.

[Steven Britton]

I assume the "clicker" is rendering an exact vote total.

I don't believe that has been determined.

I think after the Chair has put the question and the clickers have started clacking any Point of Order would no longer be timely. Are you saying that you think one of the p. 251 exceptions would apply in this case?

I thought that Chris was infering a "clacking" sound.

[Tim Wynn]

I don't believe that has been determined.

That's why I assume. Anyway, in my experience, "clicker" usually refers to a hand-held device that allows members to vote electronically.

I thought that Chris was infering a "clacking" sound.

I don't think he was implying anything… except maybe something to do with ducks.

[Trina]

...

As the clicker voting is not actually a voice-vote, I can imagine that sometimes it's difficult to tell whether there are more click in favor, or more clicks against..

..

I must say, this interpretation had not occurred to me -- a distribution of noise-making devices, to be used in place of the members' voices. That does lead to some amusing scenarios, if one imagines various objects that could be used for such a purpose -- pot lids, bicycle horns, duck calls, etc.

I had imagined an electronic voting device when I read 'clicker'... but I guess that isn't 100% certain.

[Josh Martin]

The chair could argue precedent, but that reasoning can only be "persuasive." See p.251 - 252 regarding Precedent.

Unless the chair has actually made a ruling on the subject (which I find doubtful), no precedent has been created in the parliamentary sense. As is common, what the original poster calls "precedent" seems more like what RONR refers to as "custom."

As the clicker voting is not actually a voice-vote, I can imagine that sometimes it's difficult to tell whether there are more click in favor, or more clicks against. If this is the case, call for a Division of the Assembly. It's the chair's duty to assure the assembly that there is little or no doubt in the outcome of particular vote.

The term "clicker" usually refers to a device similar in design to the keypads used at the last NAP Convention. The term "clicker" tends to be more prevalent in academic settings, where these devices are used for classroom participation in large lecture halls.

If the term actually is used to refer to some sort of noise-making device, I agree with your response, but I find this unlikely.

[Guest Carla]

Hi Everyone,

Thank you for your informative, lively discussion. The clickers are electronic voting thus secret ballots. I am asssuming a "point of order "is a discussion of how our rules appy to this format and you have given me the information I need to discuss this. I have been discussing this with peers from around the country and it seems unusual to use secret ballots for committees of our size (20 persons). But maybe they are becoming more popular with the explosion of electronic gizmos. I wonder how this effects group process for the better or worse. Thanks again! Carla

[jstackpo]

"explosion of electronic gizmos. I wonder how this effects group process for the better or worse."

It makes us all feel groovy and modern, even though we are using rules from a book that first came out ONE-HUNDRED AND THIRTY SIX years ago, and the rules are a lot older than that!