RONR's applicability outside of meetings

[Guest Jim]

My society's membership makes some of its decisions through mailed referendum. The lack of ability to deliberate makes such things vulnerable to the information provided by the Board and its staff.

As a result some members, after casting and mailing in their ballots (which are in sealed, sender-identifiable envelopes and which will not be counted for another month) have determined that they would like to change their vote.

The CEO has determined that they may not. His basis is because, under our Bylaws,

All matters relating to the conduct and administration of voting … shall be governed by regulations established by the Board and administered by the CEO.

and he maintains that, absent any written policy on the matter, and absent any historical practice of permitting a change (notwithstanding whether the question had before been asked) he has answered that he

cannot retrieve the original vote and permit a second ballot to be cast. The original ballot stands.

I had prevailed upon him that RONR provides that a member may change their vote until such time as the vote has been announced. To which he answered

I am afraid I must disagree that Roberts' Rules of Order have any relevance to how elections or referenda are conducted by our organization.

What the Constitution and Bylaws expressly state is "Except where otherwise specifically provided in these Bylaws, the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern all procedural matters at all meetings of the Association, the Board, the Executive Committee and all committees." Clearly Robert's Rules are to apply to meetings only.

I would go further and point out that if you consult Robert's Rules you would see that they are largely rules for meetings. So whatever the impact of Robert's Rules on a vote at a meeting, they have no application here.

Hence my two questions:

1. Is there any agreement among the parliamentarians that there be a sound rationale to specify RONR as the parliamentary authority, but only for procedural matters at meetings? Would the objective of such an arrangement to be to have a basis to resolve procedural disputes as may arise within a meeting, without having to be tied to such rules (in RONR) as may prevent arbitrary deviation?

2. Is not a decision, even by mail, a procedure that warrants certain rights and, had it not been for the seeming exclusion in my Bylaws of RONR outside of meetings, would RONR have required the capacity to change one's vote in a mail ballot?

[Chris Harrison]

Do your bylaws specifically authorize the use of mail in ballots? If they don't then it all is moot because you can't use them (RONR pp. 423-424). If the bylaws do authorize the use of mail in ballots then they (or Standing or Special Rules) should spell out all the details. I would also question whether the CEO has the authority under the bylaws to decline a member's request to change their vote.

[Guest Jim]

Yes, the bylaws say with respect to a bylaws change, which is what is at issue (a proposal to bring in term limits, some directors having served on the Board 22 years):

The CEO shall distribute by mail or electronically… ballots to all voting members in good standing… together with a notice specifying the day by which completed ballots and telephone votes must be received, which shall be a date set by the CEO that is between six and eight weeks after the date of distribution.

however telephone votes are not being permitted because, essentially

"the Board has the option to make telephone voting possible but has not chosen to do so".

As to Special or Standing rules, there are none on record. I suspect these issues must have come up before in the 80+ years of the organization but I expect any and all decisions were ad hoc, taken by senior staff and/or certain members of the Board Executive without ever having been brought to the Board for approval (let alone deliberation) or else, if a Board had taken a decision, and even had it gotten captured in a resolution, such was never taken as having future relevance and never taken as having initiated a standing rule.

[J. J.]

1. Is there any agreement among the parliamentarians that there be a sound rationale to specify RONR as the parliamentary authority, but only for procedural matters at meetings? Would the objective of such an arrangement to be to have a basis to resolve procedural disputes as may arise within a meeting, without having to be tied to such rules (in RONR) as may prevent arbitrary deviation?

2. Is not a decision, even by mail, a procedure that warrants certain rights and, had it not been for the seeming exclusion in my Bylaws of RONR outside of meetings, would RONR have required the capacity to change one's vote in a mail ballot?

A member may submit a second ballot under RONR, p. 425, ll. 25-29). This will be subject to your rules, but not the whim of the presiding officer, unless your rules so provide.

[Gary Novosielski]

All matters relating to the conduct and administration of voting … shall be governed by regulations established by the Board and administered by the CEO.

and he maintains that, absent any written policy on the matter, and absent any historical practice of permitting a change (notwithstanding whether the question had before been asked) he has answered that he cannot retrieve the original vote and permit a second ballot to be cast. The original ballot stands.

Actually, absent any regulation giving him such power, the power is absent. In fact, outside of a meeting, he can't make any rulings at all. Ask him to show you the "regulations established by the board" that authorize him to overrule the parliamentary authority.

But your wording adopting RONR is problematic. The recommended wording for adoption of RONR is:

“The rules contained in the current edition of

Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised

shall govern the Society in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the Society may adopt.”

,,, replacing the word Society with a more appropriate one if necessary. That makes it clear that the rules in RONR are in force not only during meetings but in all cases to which they apply. And while most of the rules apply to the conduct of meetings, that is not exclusively true, and those rules that apply outside meetings are also intended to govern a society that adopts RONR as its parliamentary authority (unless superseded by some local rule).