Mail Ballot rules

[DanielEHayes]

There was another recent thread where the members of the organzation were conduting an email vote.  That poster said the following:
"It was suggested to inform the members if a vote is not cast by email within a certain time frame, the non-communication will be considered a vote to the majority of respondents."

It got me thinking about the rules for one of the Orgs I belong to(remember this is really a Board and not a Committee in how it functions-dont let the name fool you.). I realize that its up the the organization to interpret the bylaws and I am posting it here for philosophical discussion and giggles. I realize that these rules are likely less than adequate for conducting email voting.  Let's look at B and C. I do think that B establishes something of a "quorum" for the vote. NOW, Does C cover what happens if the conditons are met for B OR does it cover A and B. I think these rules (poorly) would set up what that other group was trying to accomplish if they had rules (Sorta drafted like these.-but less vague) OH THE HORROR OF THE DRAFTING!...Here are the rules:


3.The State Central Committee may, without meeting together, transact business
by mail or telephone video conference, teleconference, internet chat rooms, or
any other means they deem proper.

a.Voting on questions submitted by mail or telephone or electronic means to
the members must be by or with approval of the Chairman.

b.In the case of a vote by mail, the measure being voted upon shall be deemed
to have failed if at the expiration of fifteen days, the majority of the
Committee have not returned their votes.

c.In all other cases, a majority of the votes returned shall carry the measure
except where a higher vote is required by the By-laws.

d.The Secretary must preserve all such votes on permanent record, and shall
advise the Committee members of the vote tallies upon request.

[Richard Brown]

I think you can (and should) view "b" as being roughly equivalent to a quorum requirement:  A majority of the entire membership must respond in some way to the mail vote, much as a majority must normally be present at a meeting in order to conduct business.  I interpret the phrase "returned their votes" as meaning "returned their ballots".

 

I believe "c" can be interpreted either of two ways:  as being the same as an ordinary majority vote or as a majority of the members present:   I'm  inclined to go with the latter:  In order to pass, a majority of the ballots returned must be yes votes.  It would be like an in-person voting requirement that requires the affirmative vote of the members present in order to pass.

 

The problem is with interpreting the word "votes" in both b and c.   Is it intended to mean "ballots" or true yes or no "votes"?  

 

Specifically, how is a blank ballot to be treated?    Taking the entire mail ballot scheme of these bylaws into consideration, I think the word "votes" in both cases should actually be interpreted to mean "ballots".   Both sections talk in terms of "votes returned".  That is unusual and strained wording.  But, it makes sense if you substitute the word "ballots" for "votes".  Nowhere does either provision mention the majority of the "votes cast".

 

It seems to me that if someone  returns a blank ballot, is it equivalent to being present at a meeting but abstaining from voting.  I see an issue only (or primarily) if a bare majority of the members returned ballots and one or more of them were blank.... in effect, abstentions.

 

For example, let's assume the organization has100 members.  51 ballots are returned, being a majority of the members.  Of those 51 ballots, 25 vote yes and 24 vote no and there are two blank ballots.  Does the measure pass?    25 to 24 is a majority of the votes cast but not a majority of the ballots returned.  Giving consistent treatment to the use of the word "votes" in both b and c, and treating it as meaning "ballots", I would say that the motion did not carry in the scenario I just put forth.  But, I also see how it can be argued that the result should be based on a majority of the votes cast, rather than of "votes (or ballots?) returned". 

 

It definitely appears to be a case of very poor drafting of that bylaw provision.

 

btw, it seems to me that this is an appropriate topic for the advanced discussion forum.

[Josh Martin]

There was another recent thread where the members of the organzation were conduting an email vote. That poster said the following:

"It was suggested to inform the members if a vote is not cast by email within a certain time frame, the non-communication will be considered a vote to the majority of respondents."

It got me thinking about the rules for one of the Orgs I belong to(remember this is really a Board and not a Committee in how it functions-dont let the name fool you.). I realize that its up the the organization to interpret the bylaws and I am posting it here for philosophical discussion and giggles. I realize that these rules are likely less than adequate for conducting email voting. Let's look at B and C. I do think that B establishes something of a "quorum" for the vote. NOW, Does C cover what happens if the conditons are met for B OR does it cover A and B. I think these rules (poorly) would set up what that other group was trying to accomplish if they had rules

As noted, it is ultimately up to the organization to interpret its own rules.

If I had to hazard a guess, I would suggest that Section B is intended to apply to asynchronous methods of voting (such as mail or e-mail), whereas Section C is intended to apply to synchronous methods of voting (such as teleconferences). In the latter case, it is possible for a quorum to be established based on whether members are "present" in the teleconference. Therefore, so long as a quorum is present, the key is whether a majority of the votes cast are in the affirmative, just as the rule is when a meeting is held in person.

Since the term "present" has no meaningful application in the context of a vote by mail or e-mail (even in a metaphorical sense), however, the organization reasoned that it must have some other rule to substitute for a quorum. I would interpret "votes" to mean "ballots" in this context, so that blank ballots count toward the "quorum." Section C says "in all other cases," so it does not apply here... but Section C is essentially the default rule anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

Personally, I'm really less concerned with the particular defects of these rules than I am with the fact that the organization decided it was acceptable to say that the committee could conduct its business by any means it deems proper, and then reasoned that four brief rules were sufficient to cover the particulars of any possible means of conducting business. If the organization wishes to continue to conduct business by means other than an in-person meeting, then it should scrap this entire section and start over from scratch.

[Edgar Guest]

 . . .  it seems to me that this is an appropriate topic for the advanced discussion forum.

 

Interpreting an organization's bylaws based on a few excerpts? Really?

[Dan Honemann]

As stated on its Introductory Page, “this Forum is provided to allow an open exchange of views relevant to specific questions of parliamentary procedure under Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised”, and it is also noted there that “the Robert's Rules Association and the authorship team reserve the right to remove … irrelevant … messages ...”

 

This question is not one concerning what is or is not proper parliamentary procedure under the rules in RONR, but rather it is one concerning what is or is not proper procedure under a particular organization’s bylaws. To permit extensive discussion of this question here in this forum will not only tend to be unproductive (since responders, most likely, will not have sufficient information to provide a meaningful response), but will also tend to mislead our readers, who may think that what is being discussed is proper procedure under the rules in RONR.

 

As a consequence, we respectfully request that those interested in pursuing this question do so by private email, or other means outside of this forum.