Requests and Inquiries on voting accuracy

[mikalac]

At the upcoming owner meeting, there will be a mixture of members, who have the right to vote on motions, and non-members. If it is not apparent that procedures are in place to assure that only members vote on motions, I would like to ask about them. (Bylaws say nothing on the subject.)

 

At last year's meeting, I made only one motion, which was unanimously approved by the members, so I didn't think about accuracy. But at this meeting I plan to make 6 of them and the voting might be close on some. Page 292 of Robert shows 5 kinds of requests and inquires - (a) thru (e). What form should my motion take to assure accurate voting?

 

Suggestion: [rising] "Mr. President, it is not clear that proper controls are in place to assure voting accuracy. Please explain the voting procedure with respect to accuracy of the vote count."

 

Will that do, or is something else required to assure voting accuracy?

 

Thanks again, Norm

 

[Chris Harrison]

I think it would be entirely proper to inquire (via a Parliamentary Inquiry) as to what procedures are in place to make sure that only members are allowed to vote.  If there are no procedures in place the form of voting that is most likely to have a risk of nonmembers voting is a voice vote.  On the other hand the most "secure" form is by ballot (and the Secretary calls the names of current members and hands them a ballot) or by Roll Call vote (RONR pp. 420-422).  If the members are separated from the nonmembers (such as putting the nonmembers in the back of the room) you could use a rising vote and disregard anyone rising in the "nonmember section" (you will want to let the members know you are doing this so no one is sitting in the back with their buddies when the vote is taking place).

[Josh Martin]

So you think that Robert's PI is the vehicle. Following the book's suggested form, then I would rise and say, "Mr. President, I rise to a parliamentary inquiry." Then continue as I suggested in my last post?

 

Yes (after the chair asks you to state your inquiry).

 

If the non-members are separated, then a show of hands would seem to suffice; in a close vote I could ask for a division. Voice vote would not seem to work on a close vote.

 

A show of hands vote is not advisable except in very small assemblies. A rising vote would be preferable for an assembly of this size.

[Gary c Tesser]

... , but the voting method is the chair's decision, correct?

 

To start with, yes, but the membership can make the choice themselves; see p. 44 - 53, especially pp. 46-47 and 52;  Section 30, on methods of voting, especially the middle of p. 285.

 

.... If he asks for a show of hands and I am unsure of the results, then I can ask for a division, thereby accomplishing the rising vote in a roundabout way, correct?

 

I don't see how it would be indirect.  And you don't so much ask for a division as require one (p. 280 - 281, esp. 281, lines 19-20)

[Dan Honemann]

I don't see anywhere in Robert where a member can move that the vote be counted. Only that the chair can order it. (I'm not talking about balloting, just counting the standing vote or show of hands vote.) Where exactly do you see this motion?

 

Norm

 

Section 30.

[Chris Harrison]

Try p. 410 ll. 21-26.

[Chris Harrison]

It would be an Incidental Motion if made when the question being voted on is pending.  If no question is pending then it would be a Main Motion.   In either case you would need to make a motion (whether it is a Main Motion or Incidental Motion is probably not really important in this case).

[Dan Honemann]

Still don't see it. P. 285 points to pp. 412ff., but I don't see it there either. I'm not talking about using ballots, machines, etc. Just moving that the standing, hands, or voice votes be counted (by the tellers?). Maybe it will be easier for me to understand what y'all are trying hard to teach me is by just giving me the words that move that the vote be counted.

 

How about I just make it a main motion? "I move that the vote be counted."  Will that do?

 

Norm

 

Read Section 30 again. It refers to a motion that the vote be counted several times, beginning with the second sentence.

 

As for a sample form, see No. 84 on tinted page 39.

[Dan Honemann]

Seems we are always dealing with an incidental motion because a question (the vote on the main motion) is pending. The difference between the main and incidental, as I understand it, is debatable v. undebatable. An interesting aspect of this motion is that those who voted for the main motion will always vote to adopt this incidental motion, so that by adopting the incidental motion I already know the results of the main motion w/o having the tellers actually count them. Am I correct in my thinking?

 

Norm

 

I suggest that instead of posting every other minute or so, you spend more time reading the book.

[Gary c Tesser]

Is this an order, general?

 

You have tasted archness, with perhaps a soupcon of asperity.  Wrath you don't want to provoke.

 

(Welcome to the club.  Maybe.)

 

 

I suggest that instead of posting every other minute or so, you spend more time reading the book.

 

It's not an order, it's sound advice.

 

I don't see anywhere in Robert where a member can move that the vote be counted. Only that the chair can order it. (I'm not talking about balloting, just counting the standing vote or show of hands vote.) Where exactly do you see this motion?

 

Norm

 

On page 285: "the assembly can still order ... that an uncounted vote be retaken as a counted vote" (lines 19 - 22).

 

There's also p. 259, lines 12 - 15, although you might quibble that, taken in context, this citation only refers to determining the vote on an appeal.

 

ANd there's  p. 52, lines 24 - 29. 

 

I got some of these from the index: RONR's index is exceptionally thorough.  Don't fail to avail yourself of it.  Specifically, on p.715, I see "voting, verify" (in the middle of the second column).  I also see a bunch on p. 683, under "counted votes," especially four citations under "counted votes, motion for", like p. 71, item 8, which hadn't come to mind initially.

[Gary c Tesser]

... An interesting aspect of this motion is that those who voted for the main motion will always vote to adopt this incidental motion, so that by adopting the incidental motion I already know the results of the main motion w/o having the tellers actually count them. Am I correct in my thinking?

 

Norm

 

I can't tell whether you're correct, because I am clueless as to what you're thinking.  Whyever should those in favor of a main motion want particularly to waste time counting it?