CONFIRM MEMBERS ONLY VOTE

[Steven P]

At a recent meeting of our assembly, we were taking a ballot vote and one of the members called for a roll call vote.  The purpose was to ensure that no non-members voted in the election.

 

Other than going into executive session, can a member raise a point of order about a specific persons membership or is this a question of privilege?  I could not find it under either and ran out of time trying to locate it under all the member & membership entries in the 11th edition.

[Gary Novosielski]

It was probably not in order to move for a roll-call vote in place of a ballot vote, especially during an election, and certainly if a ballot vote is required in the bylaws.

 

The purpose of a ballot vote is to keep each member's vote secret.  The purpose of a roll call is exactly the opposite.

 

Procedures for a ballot (or any) vote can and should be designed to ensure that only members cast votes.  There should be a list of members on hand at the polling place, and if non-members are present, each person should be checked against the list before being permitted to cast a vote.  If non-members are not supposed to be present, but you believe one is, you can raise a point of order to that effect.

[Josh Martin]

At a recent meeting of our assembly, we were taking a ballot vote and one of the members called for a roll call vote.  The purpose was to ensure that no non-members voted in the election.

 

This was not in order since a vote cannot be interrupted (and possibly for other reasons as well). There are methods to ensure security in a ballot vote.

 

Other than going into executive session, can a member raise a point of order about a specific persons membership or is this a question of privilege?  I could not find it under either and ran out of time trying to locate it under all the member & membership entries in the 11th edition.

 

A Point of Order is probably the appropriate tool. It would not be a Question of Privilege. I'm not entirely clear on the circumstances, however, and additional details may be helpful. What is the non-member doing in this scenario that warrants a Point of Order?

[Steven P]

Josh, we were calling a new staff member (we are a Church) and there is no proceedure in our bylaws that mandate a ballot vote.  A motion was made an seconded to take the vote by ballot, another member insisted that we take the vote by roll call which is normally dillatory in the case of a non-representative assembly (if my memory serves in the wording).

 

The motion to take the vote by ballot passed.

 

We had not begun to vote at the time that the other member wanted the roll call vote.

 

I was not able to be present to preside, I just could not remember the parlimentary mechanism for a member to be certain that non-members were not participating in either the discussion or the voting.

[jstackpo]

The rule "against" a roll call vote is only a "should not" rule,  p. 420, so I suppose it isn't completely out of order, just rather pointless.  Perhaps that is enough  --  dilatory and all that.  But it does put the voters' opinions on record - in the minutes - which may be the point.  Perhaps the proponent of the roll call vote wants to be able to say "I told you so!" if it turns out that the outcome of the vote (to call a new staff member) turns out to be a disaster.  Or stick a "Don't blame me, I voted..." bumper sticker on his car.

 

However, given the prior adoption of a motion for a ballot vote, it is completely out of order as it contradicts the ballot vote motion.  The ballot vote motion would have to be reconsidered (majority vote to adopt "reconsider") then defeated in order for the roll call motion to be proper.

[g40]

At a recent meeting of our assembly, we were taking a ballot vote and one of the members called for a roll call vote.  The purpose was to ensure that no non-members voted in the election.

 

Other than going into executive session, can a member raise a point of order about a specific persons membership or is this a question of privilege?  I could not find it under either and ran out of time trying to locate it under all the member & membership entries in the 11th edition.

 

It seems to me that a ballot vote would be better able to ensure only members vote by only issuing a ballot to a member.

 

I have attended conferences and annual meetings of organizations where, to ensure that only the approved voting delegates vote, an area in the front of the room is set aside for approved voting delegates. It is marked off (roped off) to restrict access to only those with the "voting delegate" badge. The first time I participated in one such conference, I thought it was "overkill", but later I participated in another group's annual meeting where things were "looser" and we had pandemonium on one issue when the voting was "not smooth" (to say the least).

[Steven P]

Thank you, Dr. Stackpole and all who responded.

 

The purpose of the ballot (at least in our assembly) is so that members can vote their conscinence without pressure from others.

 

We do get calls for a division of the assembly on occasion when the vote is close on some of the more passionate issues that come before us.  That appears (and only appears) to be a way of seeing how everyone voted by one or more of the members on the loosing side of the vote.

 

If I understand all the the previous responses, if there is a question about the membership status of an individual or individuals in the meeting, a point of order can be raised by any of the members to that effect.

[Guest Edgar]

. . . one of the members called for a roll call vote.  The purpose was to ensure that no non-members voted in the election.

Well, that may have been the purported purpose but I suspect the real purpose was that suggested by Mr. Stackpole. As has been noted, there are many ways to ensure that only members vote. A roll-call vote is not one of them.

[jstackpo]

 there are many ways to ensure that only members vote. A roll-call vote is not one of them.

Well... if the secretary has an up-to-date and correct membership roster at hand (don't all secretaries have those?) then he/she will restrict the name calling to members only. That'll ensure it.

 

As RONR notes (pp. 21, 346) (and it has been my experience as well) churches seem to have particular difficulties ascertaining just who is a "member" at any given (usually) critical moment.  Cross your fingers and check the bylaws.

[Josh Martin]

If I understand all the the previous responses, if there is a question about the membership status of an individual or individuals in the meeting, a point of order can be raised by any of the members to that effect. 

 

Well, a Point of Order is raised when a member believes some rule has been violated. Depending on your church's practices, it may or may not be a violation for a non-member to simply be present. A Point of Order would certainly be in order if a non-member spoke without the assembly's permission, or if he voted (although since a vote cannot be interrupted, you'd need to wait until the vote was finished).

[Guest Edgar]

Well... if the secretary has an up-to-date and correct membership roster at hand . . . then he/she will restrict the name calling to members only. That'll ensure it.

Yes, but an up-to-date and correct membership roster could also ensure that only members cast ballots. My point being that a roll-call vote, in and of itself, doesn't guarantee that each name called is a member.