Vote by Mail, minimum number or responses

[Guest JamesMcLean]

In searching previous posts, this topic has come up, but it always seems to be clouded by other issues.

 

RONR specifically addresses voting by mail (p. 424).  But it is mysteriously (to me) silent on the question of whether there is a minimum number of responses necessary for the result to be valid.  The only conclusion I can make is that unless otherwise specified, there is no minimum -- a single response could decide the outcome.  But this seems quite at odds with the concern for participation reflected in the quorum requirements for a called meeting.

 

Granted, vote by mail is only valid if authorized by bylaws.  I suppose the argument could be made that any such authorization should also specify any threshold that the society might desire.  But it seems uncharacteristic of RONR to say nothing at all on such a fundamental topic (witness all the other detail lavished on the Vote by Mail topic).

 

So basically my question is: Am I missing something?  Is there something in RONR that either specifies or recommends a minimum number of responses required in a vote by mail?

[Josh Martin]

In searching previous posts, this topic has come up, but it always seems to be clouded by other issues.

 

RONR specifically addresses voting by mail (p. 424).  But it is mysteriously (to me) silent on the question of whether there is a minimum number of responses necessary for the result to be valid.  The only conclusion I can make is that unless otherwise specified, there is no minimum -- a single response could decide the outcome.  But this seems quite at odds with the concern for participation reflected in the quorum requirements for a called meeting.

 

Granted, vote by mail is only valid if authorized by bylaws.  I suppose the argument could be made that any such authorization should also specify any threshold that the society might desire.  But it seems uncharacteristic of RONR to say nothing at all on such a fundamental topic (witness all the other detail lavished on the Vote by Mail topic).

 

So basically my question is: Am I missing something?  Is there something in RONR that either specifies or recommends a minimum number of responses required in a vote by mail?

 

No, you aren't missing anything. There is nothing in RONR which either specifies or recommends a minimum number of responses in a vote by mail.

 

I don't think this is really at odds with the quorum requirement. The quorum requirement isn't so much about a "concern for participation" as a concern for the opportunity to participate. The quorum requirement is simply that a certain number of members must be present. They're not required to actually do anything. If most of the members who are present at a meeting abstain, the vote is still valid so long as a quorum is present. In a vote by mail, the ballot is sent to all members, so all members have an opportunity to participate. So far as RONR is concerned, it's no more a concern if most of them choose not to vote than if most of the members present at a meeting choose not to vote.

[Chris Harrison]

Well, as far as RONR is concerned a motion can be adopted by a 1-0 vote at an in-person meeting (RONR pp. 400-402) so why should a mail-in vote be any different? 

[Guest JamesMcLean]

A mail-in vote should be different because without any response, there is no confirmation that members have actually received the ballot.

 

A vote at a meeting requires both that the membership was notified of the meeting AND that a quorum of members shows up at the meeting.  This allows for a distinction between not being able to vote (those who didn't show up) and those who are able to vote, but choose not to (those present and abstaining).

 

Josh is right, I should have said "concern for the opportunity to participate".  If mailing out a notice of a meeting is not sufficient to establish opportunity to participate, then how can mailing out a ballot do so?

 

PS. Do those puzzles get harder the more frequently you post?  Pretty clever!

[Josh Martin]

A mail-in vote should be different because without any response, there is no confirmation that members have actually received the ballot.

 

That's certainly true. RONR does not require such confirmation. If the ballots are sent by mail to "the mailing address of record of all persons entitled to vote" in the time required by the organization's bylaws, this is sufficient.

 

A vote at a meeting requires both that the membership was notified of the meeting AND that a quorum of members shows up at the meeting.  This allows for a distinction between not being able to vote (those who didn't show up) and those who are able to vote, but choose not to (those present and abstaining).

 

More precisely, notification is required for special meetings and for regular meetings set by resolution. Notice is not strictly required (although it is probably still a good idea) for regular meetings which are set in the organization's rules or for adjourned meetings.

 

Josh is right, I should have said "concern for the opportunity to participate".  If mailing out a notice of a meeting is not sufficient to establish opportunity to participate, then how can mailing out a ballot do so?

 

I think that there are important differences between sending notice of a meeting and sending out a ballot. In many cases, a notice will simply specify the date, time, and place of a meeting. It is not necessarily required to include the items which will be voted on. Conversely, a ballot will always specify the exact issue to be voted on. Additionally, if a member receives a notice, that alone does not enable him to vote - he needs to actually attend the meeting to do so. Conversely, when a member is sent a ballot in the mail, he can simply mail the ballot back in to cast his vote (and if the society follows the rules in RONR for a mail vote, this is very easy to do).

 

An organization is, of course, free to adopt its own rules on the subject, such as by requiring that a minimum number of ballots be returned, or that the ballots be sent by certified mail.

[JamesMcLean]

FIrst: You've confirmed for me what is in RONR.  That is the main issue.  Thanks!!

As to its wisdom...

 

More precisely, notification is required for special meetings and for regular meetings set by resolution. Notice is not strictly required (although it is probably still a good idea) for regular meetings which are set in the organization's rules or for adjourned meetings.

I think that having the meetings set in the rules qualifies as "membership notified of the meeting", even if "notice" in the specific sense is not required.  Its also worth noting, for my next comment, that special meeting notices must include the topic of the meeting, although not the exact wording of a motion.

 

I think that there are important differences between sending notice of a meeting and sending out a ballot. In many cases, a notice will simply specify the date, time, and place of a meeting. It is not necessarily required to include the items which will be voted on. Conversely, a ballot will always specify the exact issue to be voted on. Additionally, if a member receives a notice, that alone does not enable him to vote - he needs to actually attend the meeting to do so. Conversely, when a member is sent a ballot in the mail, he can simply mail the ballot back in to cast his vote (and if the society follows the rules in RONR for a mail vote, this is very easy to do).

I was thinking of "opportunity to participate" as a binary, yes/no thing;  this changes my thinking to a more "ease of informed participation" sliding scale.  Certainly it's true that a mail ballot gets more members informed and makes it easier to vote, compared to a called meeting.  But is that increased ease sufficient to compensate for removing the requirement that a minimum number be known to be informed on the question (what the quorum achieves, regardless of how many vote)?

 

My unease is because it feels like a sneaky end-run around the rules.

- Suppose a notice of a special meeting, including the topic, results in the attendance of X people, which is less than quorum Y.  As a result the issue is undecided.

- Suppose that under identical circumstances a mail ballot is sent with a motion to the same topic, and X responses are received.  Default RONR rules are that the issue is decided.

Maybe the people not participating are apathetic, and can be assumed abstentions.  But, maybe (Y-X) people were on vacation, or under the weather, or have some other reason that they neither attend the meeting nor return the ballot on time.  (Y-X) could be a small number, and yet the result is completely reversed. (With the decision occurring in the scenario with less opportunity for discussion, no less!)

 

This just doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

[Rev Ed]

Let me answer this for you the easiest way:  RONR deals with in-person voting, so a 1-0 vote (with quorum present) is sufficient to pass a motion.  Also, RONR states that authorization for any other type of voting must be found in the By-laws and as such must deal with the rules relating to that type of voting. 

 

So if the organization wants to use mail-in voting then the organization must create a By-law to allow for it (and then allow for all the issues relating to it.)

[Guest Nancy N.]

FIrst: You've confirmed for me what is in RONR.  That is the main issue.  Thanks!!

As to its wisdom...

 

... This just doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

 

Mr. McLean, I find this a fascinating, compelling discourse.  I'd like to recommend, and request, that you reassemble it as an article and submit it to one of the parliamentary journals (it would improve their average quality, I daresay).  But do note, please, that this forum is for discussing the rules, not their theory; and I trust you agree that your initial question was answered.  

 

(If you must keep typing on the internet, Mr. McLean, which I, for one, and probably not just me, would welcome, try posting more on the Advanced Discussion part of RONRrules.com or whatever you call this website, they're a lot more tolerant of digressions and tangents and inspired if offbeat discussions like this one.  Heck, they don't even blink at my coarse language over there.)

[Dan Honemann]

Mr. McLean, I find this a fascinating, compelling discourse.  I'd like to recommend, and request, that you reassemble it as an article and submit it to one of the parliamentary journals (it would improve their average quality, I daresay).  But do note, please, that this forum is for discussing the rules, not their theory; and I trust you agree that your initial question was answered.  

 

(If you must keep typing on the internet, Mr. McLean, which I, for one, and probably not just me, would welcome, try posting more on the Advanced Discussion part of RONRrules.com or whatever you call this website, they're a lot more tolerant of digressions and tangents and inspired if offbeat discussions like this one.  Heck, they don't even blink at my coarse language over there.)

 

No, less tolerance is shown in the Advanced Discussion Forum.

[Josh Martin]

But is that increased ease sufficient to compensate for removing the requirement that a minimum number be known to be informed on the question (what the quorum achieves, regardless of how many vote)?

 

Yes, so far as RONR is concerned. If an organization feels otherwise, it can adopt its own rules on the subject.

 

My unease is because it feels like a sneaky end-run around the rules.

- Suppose a notice of a special meeting, including the topic, results in the attendance of X people, which is less than quorum Y.  As a result the issue is undecided.

- Suppose that under identical circumstances a mail ballot is sent with a motion to the same topic, and X responses are received.  Default RONR rules are that the issue is decided.

Maybe the people not participating are apathetic, and can be assumed abstentions.  But, maybe (Y-X) people were on vacation, or under the weather, or have some other reason that they neither attend the meeting nor return the ballot on time.  (Y-X) could be a small number, and yet the result is completely reversed. (With the decision occurring in the scenario with less opportunity for discussion, no less!)

 

This just doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

 

So far as RONR is concerned, all voting occurs at a meeting, unless the bylaws provide otherwise. It should hardly be surprising that deviating from this principle can lead to less than desirable results.

 

With that said, though, if the assembly provides a reasonable amount of time for a mail vote, it seems unlikely that fewer than what would be a quorum for an in-person meeting would, for one reason or another, be unable to participate in the vote.