Signed ballots - an allowable forcing of disclosure of members' votes?

[Guest Jim]

Under "Voting procedures" §45 p. 413 ll 1-4 RONR provides that

"When a vote is to be taken, or has been taken, by ballot, no motion is in order that would force the disclosure of a member's vote or view on the matter.

however it later provides, on p. 420 (as a seeming special case of Roll-call voting, whose intent is to put on the record how each member votes) the capacity to (ll 23) move "that a signed ballot be taken by tellers" and so the first distinction I shall assume is that the aforementioned proscription against disclosure of ballot contents is not intended to apply to signed ballots as the latter are, by their nature, a "different kind of ballot"?

Supposing now that a majority within a Board orders a matter to be decided by role-call vote (or in the alternative by signed ballot), would any dissenting directors who lack individual constituencies in having been elected by their memberships as a whole find grounds in p. 420 lines 5-9 to argue that these methods should "not be used" since in their directorship capacity they are "not responsible to a (particular) constituency" or would forum members accept lines 5-9 to support a purpose of holding the directors accountable for their actions (or inactions) to a constituency that happens to be the entire membership?

Lastly, in the scenario of a Board a minority of whose directors were of the view that the majority were misconducting themselves, wherein the dissenting minority desired the protection of secrecy such as is normally possible through voting by ballot, while desiring the possibility of later accountability to the membership, would it be in order to move that

a signed ballot be taken by tellers and that, after the reporting of the totals, the ballots be sealed until the adjournment of the first meeting of general membership at which time, absent a prior resolution by the members to unseal and record the ballot votes, the ballots shall be destroyed

I appreciate that a minority cannot hope to pass such a motion unless assisted by a bylaw or rule empowering the minority (say, one fifth) to so require. I just wondered if it is an approach that any forum members have either already encountered or, if not, whether you like it?

[Josh Martin]

however it later provides, on p. 420 (as a seeming special case of Roll-call voting, whose intent is to put on the record how each member votes) the capacity to (ll 23) move "that a signed ballot be taken by tellers" and so the first distinction I shall assume is that the aforementioned proscription against disclosure of ballot contents is not intended to apply to signed ballots as the latter are, by their nature, a "different kind of ballot"?

Correct. A signed ballot isn't really a ballot vote at all in the sense RONR normally uses the term, but is instead a form of roll call vote. It's primarily used in larger assemblies, where actually calling the roll would be too time-consuming. When the term "ballot vote" is used, it refers to a secret ballot unless otherwise stated.

Supposing now that a majority within a Board orders a matter to be decided by role-call vote (or in the alternative by signed ballot), would any dissenting directors who lack individual constituencies in having been elected by their memberships as a whole find grounds in p. 420 lines 5-9 to argue that these methods should "not be used" since in their directorship capacity they are "not responsible to a (particular) constituency" or would forum members accept lines 5-9 to support a purpose of holding the directors accountable for their actions (or inactions) to a constituency that happens to be the entire membership?

Either philosophy has merit. It's ultimately up to the assembly to determine how the vote will be taken (in the absence of a rule instructing the assembly how to vote), RONR's advice on the matter notwithstanding. If a member raised a Point of Order that a roll call vote was out of order on the grounds that the assembly was not responsible to an interested constituency, the point should be ruled not well taken.

Lastly, in the scenario of a Board a minority of whose directors were of the view that the majority were misconducting themselves, wherein the dissenting minority desired the protection of secrecy such as is normally possible through voting by ballot, while desiring the possibility of later accountability to the membership, would it be in order to move that

a signed ballot be taken by tellers and that, after the reporting of the totals, the ballots be sealed until the adjournment of the first meeting of general membership at which time, absent a prior resolution by the members to unseal and record the ballot votes, the ballots shall be destroyed

I appreciate that a minority cannot hope to pass such a motion unless assisted by a bylaw or rule empowering the minority (say, one fifth) to so require. I just wondered if it is an approach that any forum members have either already encountered or, if not, whether you like it?

I've never seen or heard of such a motion, and I don't much care for it, since it would seem to me the assembly should simply make up its mind about whether it wants to reveal the votes to the membership. Nonetheless, the motion would be in order unless it conflicts with the rules of the assembly. As mentioned above, a signed ballot is truly a form of roll call vote, so the rules regarding the secrecy of a ballot vote do not apply.

Stick around, though. It's possible one of the more experienced parliamentarians has seen something like this. J. J.'s seen just about everything.

[Guest Jim]

The motion for which you don't much care was envisioned to function along the same lines as a majority among those members present and voting at a general meeting having the power to order that the minutes of one or more Board meetings be read.

It is predicated on an idea analogous to the Board's minutes being private to the Board unless there is sufficient interest, or desire for accountability, on the part of the membership to have the Board more fully disclose just what exactly it has been doing.

If it should happen that a decision had been taken of which the assembly highly disapproved and thus begged the question of just whose votes had been on the prevailing side, the unsealing of signed ballots will achieve that. Contingent on the tellers' integrity in not having breached the confidentiality of the votes, the advantage of those signed ballots having in the meantime been sealed is that the maneuver will have afforded the dissenting directors the individual voter's right of secrecy, and potentially protection from interim attack, that secret ballots are intended to provide.

[Steven Britton]

In part, the purpose for a signing a ballot in conjunction with mailed ballot is to insure that only qualified electors (voters) are taking part in the balloting.

If your organization wishes to maintain the best of both worlds, take a reading of the section regarding A Vote By Mail, paying particular attention to p. 424 (line 36) - p. 425 (line 32). Unless there is something which prohibits in your other rules, there would be no reason why an envelope system couldn't be utilized; thus, maintaining the secret aspect of the signed ballot.

[jstackpo]

The (I suppose) confusion implicit in the actual question in the subject of this thread may be arising from a confusion over the hierarchy of rules. Or maybe the definition of "signed ballot".

Given that a "ballot vote" is inherently secret (NOT a "signed ballot")...

If a ballot vote (on any subject) is required in the bylaws, then it is completely improper to move that the secrecy of that ballot be lifted. Or move anything that could reveal the secret aspects.

If a ballot vote (not required in bylaws) is ordered on a specific motion in a meeting then, I suppose, that order could be reconsidered (the book says no, but why not?) but only before the vote in question was taken. Ditto for rescind. After the vote has been taken, the action called for in the "vote by ballot" motion has been carried out and there is nothing left to reconsider or rescind. The ballots remain secret, forever.

A "signed ballot" is inherently non-secret -- it is no more than a roll-call vote on paper (p. 420) so none of the above arguments apply. With a signed ballot there is no "confidentiality of the votes" and none should be anticipated by the voters - the results go in the minutes so if the general membership moves for the reading of board minutes (containing the tabulation of a signed ballot) the details of who voted how are read out for all to hear.

If bylaws require a signed ballot on some class of issues, say, so be it, but those results are not "secret".

[Dan Honemann]

If a ballot vote (not required in bylaws) is ordered on a specific motion in a meeting then, I suppose, that order could be reconsidered (the book says no, but why not?) but only before the vote in question was taken.

The book says no?

[Guest Jim]

With a signed ballot there is no "confidentiality of the votes" and none should be anticipated by the voters

Most boards are sufficiently small that a role-call vote would be more quickly and easily achieved than a signed ballot, which latter would be adding nothing as far as ensuring that only those who were entitled to vote did so. While the problem of a roll-call vote within a board that is intolerant of dissent is not RONR's to solve, this does not preclude RONR to provide a potentially helpful alternative.

The potential level of intimidation in such circumstances is apt to be partly mitigated by the method of signed ballots. These can provide the board with an immediate tally on a question while (potentially) delaying directors' knowledge of how the others voted at least until the circulation of the draft minutes. This may better enable directors to dissent when they may otherwise to fail to do so.

Deferring the disclosure of the individual directors' votes by sealing the signed ballots after the count, and delaying to record the individual votes in the minutes until such time as the general membership would insist to know them, was the one extra level of protection of dissent (however non-standard) that I had been contemplating.

[jstackpo]

The book says no?

Ah, you are right (why am I not surprised?)

I misread (or mentally inserted) a "not" into line 22, p. 284.

(Probably one of the "nots" that JJ frequently fails to include in his postings got transfered to me.)

[Josh Martin]

The motion for which you don't much care was envisioned to function along the same lines as a majority among those members present and voting at a general meeting having the power to order that the minutes of one or more Board meetings be read.

It is predicated on an idea analogous to the Board's minutes being private to the Board unless there is sufficient interest, or desire for accountability, on the part of the membership to have the Board more fully disclose just what exactly it has been doing.

If it should happen that a decision had been taken of which the assembly highly disapproved and thus begged the question of just whose votes had been on the prevailing side, the unsealing of signed ballots will achieve that. Contingent on the tellers' integrity in not having breached the confidentiality of the votes, the advantage of those signed ballots having in the meantime been sealed is that the maneuver will have afforded the dissenting directors the individual voter's right of secrecy, and potentially protection from interim attack, that secret ballots are intended to provide.

I can certainly see the logic of this position, however, I stand by my personal opinion that it is best for the members to know whether their votes shall be secret or public. The board is nonetheless free to adopt the proposed motion if it feels otherwise.

The (I suppose) confusion implicit in the actual question in the subject of this thread may be arising from a confusion over the hierarchy of rules. Or maybe the definition of "signed ballot".

Given that a "ballot vote" is inherently secret (NOT a "signed ballot")...

If a ballot vote (on any subject) is required in the bylaws, then it is completely improper to move that the secrecy of that ballot be lifted. Or move anything that could reveal the secret aspects.

If a ballot vote (not required in bylaws) is ordered on a specific motion in a meeting then, I suppose, that order could be reconsidered (the book says no, but why not?) but only before the vote in question was taken. Ditto for rescind. After the vote has been taken, the action called for in the "vote by ballot" motion has been carried out and there is nothing left to reconsider or rescind. The ballots remain secret, forever.

A "signed ballot" is inherently non-secret -- it is no more than a roll-call vote on paper (p. 420) so none of the above arguments apply. With a signed ballot there is no "confidentiality of the votes" and none should be anticipated by the voters - the results go in the minutes so if the general membership moves for the reading of board minutes (containing the tabulation of a signed ballot) the details of who voted how are read out for all to hear.

If bylaws require a signed ballot on some class of issues, say, so be it, but those results are not "secret".

My understanding is that the proposed motion is intended for a case where the rules are silent on the method of voting and no method of voting has yet been adopted by the assembly. I see no reason such a motion would be out of order.

Most boards are sufficiently small that a role-call vote would be more quickly and easily achieved than a signed ballot, which latter would be adding nothing as far as ensuring that only those who were entitled to vote did so. While the problem of a roll-call vote within a board that is intolerant of dissent is not RONR's to solve, this does not preclude RONR to provide a potentially helpful alternative.

The potential level of intimidation in such circumstances is apt to be partly mitigated by the method of signed ballots. These can provide the board with an immediate tally on a question while (potentially) delaying directors' knowledge of how the others voted at least until the circulation of the draft minutes. This may better enable directors to dissent when they may otherwise to fail to do so.

Quite so. I have certainly heard of signed ballots being used for this purpose.

Deferring the disclosure of the individual directors' votes by sealing the signed ballots after the count, and delaying to record the individual votes in the minutes until such time as the general membership would insist to know them, was the one extra level of protection of dissent (however non-standard) that I had been contemplating.

In an assembly that is highly intolerant of dissent but nonetheless has a majority which agrees that the membership should be able to view the votes of board members (a fine line to walk), I can see the merit in the proposed motion.

[jstackpo]

...signed ballots. These can provide the board with an immediate tally on a question while (potentially) delaying directors' knowledge of how the others voted at least until the circulation of the draft minutes.

A (decent) secretary will (or should, at any rate) have the draft minutes out in a day or so, not leaving much time for "delaying knowledge".

I suppose even that small delay could help. At least the members aren't in the same room when their votes are revealed to one another.

[J. J.]

Supposing now that a majority within a Board orders a matter to be decided by role-call vote (or in the alternative by signed ballot), would any dissenting directors who lack individual constituencies in having been elected by their memberships as a whole find grounds in p. 420 lines 5-9 to argue that these methods should "not be used" since in their directorship capacity they are "not responsible to a (particular) constituency" or would forum members accept lines 5-9 to support a purpose of holding the directors accountable for their actions (or inactions) to a constituency that happens to be the entire membership?

In theory, a member ex officio that is not under the authority of the society might fall into that category, e.g. a state governor made an ex officio member of a board of a university. It is possible that a board member would not be technically responsible to any constituency within the society. Even if the constituency is the entire membership, however, the responsibility to that constituency would still exist. Any point of order should not be well taken, and possibly not subject to appeal on that ground.

Assuming that there was no constituency to which the member was responsible within the society, the point of order regarding the roll call would be on the ground that the motion to have a roll call is dilatory. Under an eponymous rule, "No motion is dilatory, that the assembly chooses to entertain (no matter how dilatory it really is)." The fact that the majority chose to entertain the motion, in this instance, is sufficient evidence that the motion is not dilatory. This would be true even if there was no constituency to which any member was responsible, e,g. at a regular meeting of a society. The recommendations of p. 420, ll. 7-8, 20-21, would not be sufficient to prevent an appeal, though I agree that it would be "generally dilatory" if there is no constituency.

Lastly, in the scenario of a Board a minority of whose directors were of the view that the majority were misconducting themselves, wherein the dissenting minority desired the protection of secrecy such as is normally possible through voting by ballot, while desiring the possibility of later accountability to the membership, would it be in order to move that

a signed ballot be taken by tellers and that, after the reporting of the totals, the ballots be sealed until the adjournment of the first meeting of general membership at which time, absent a prior resolution by the members to unseal and record the ballot votes, the ballots shall be destroyed

I believe this would require a special rule, since it varies from the RONR standard for recording votes and would have applicably outside of the session (of the board). It would at the very least require suspension of the rule requiring that the votes be recorded. Such a rule could be adopted, though the practicality of it is questionable at best.

Stick around, though. It's possible one of the more experienced parliamentarians has seen something like this. J. J.'s seen just about everything.

Dan H can jump in here if I'm wrong, but I think the first edition of RO, did have a provision where any member could demand that the votes be recorded; it was certainly not in the third edition. While I am old, 1876 is a bit beyond my memory span.