Approval Voting

[DanielEHayes]

One of the Organizations that I belong to is attempting to have create a judicial committee that will serve as an investigative committee on matters of discipline that may come before the board until our next convention during which we may alter the bylaws and create an actual Judicial Committee.
There has been a lot of dissession over this process. It has gone through various iterations and taken much longer than it should have. Our normal method of filling vacanies outside of convention is the Chairman appoints and the Board approves. As some wish to discipline the Chairman they claim it to be a conflict of interest for him to appoint the members though one iteration someone put forth that was approved laid out that it was the CHAIRMAN that appoints.  The Board is in a rather disfunctional for various reasons and the Chairman is not the only person that has "greivances" against them.
I think since this is a matter related to discipline there is an even greater need for following rules to the T.  There is a segment of the board which likely has the majority at this point that favors an alternative method of filling this committee. They wish to have all persective JC members come before the Board and give a 2 minute speech.  Then the remaining 4 committee members will be selected by using Approval voting. I am not a fan of this idea, but this isn't the focus of this question.

I realize that this is not a covered method of voting in RONR to my knowledge. It is also not a method authorized in the bylaws of the organization. My question has to do with can we even use this method? Would a bylaw or special rule need to be created for this? (we basicaly can't amend those till convention.)

For those that are not familiar with approval voting be aware that this is not covered in RONR to my knowledge and is included here for informational purposes only so people answering know what they are referring to in order to give an answer.
"Approval voting is a single-winner voting method used for elections. Each voter may 'approve' of (i.e., select) any number of candidates. The winner is the most-approved candidate."

SO you can vote for everybody or nobody or anything in between if you approve of them.

The actual question once again.  Since its not covered in the bylaws and not covered in the Parliamentary Authority(RONR 11th ed.) and we have no way at present to change our rules, can we even utilize this alternative method or would RONR restrict us from using this since it was not specifically authorized?

 

[Dan Honemann]

It seems to me that the voting method proposed is sufficiently comparable to a plurality vote to lead one to the conclusion that what is said in RONR, 11th ed., on pages 404-405, relating to plurality voting may be applicable. In this connection, RONR notes that: 

 

"A plurality that is not a majority never chooses a proposition or elects anyone to office except by virtue of a special rule previously adopted. If such a rule is to apply to the election of officers, it must be prescribed in the bylaws."

[Josh Martin]

Our normal method of filling vacanies outside of convention is the Chairman appoints and the Board approves. As some wish to discipline the Chairman they claim it to be a conflict of interest for him to appoint the members though one iteration someone put forth that was approved laid out that it was the CHAIRMAN that appoints. 

I'm inclined to agree with these members that it is a conflict of interest for the Chairman to appoint people to an investigative committee when he is the target of the investigation, but the society must nonetheless follow its rules until those rules are changed.

I think since this is a matter related to discipline there is an even greater need for following rules to the T.  There is a segment of the board which likely has the majority at this point that favors an alternative method of filling this committee. They wish to have all persective JC members come before the Board and give a 2 minute speech.  Then the remaining 4 committee members will be selected by using Approval voting. I am not a fan of this idea, but this isn't the focus of this question.

I realize that this is not a covered method of voting in RONR to my knowledge. It is also not a method authorized in the bylaws of the organization. My question has to do with can we even use this method? Would a bylaw or special rule need to be created for this? (we basicaly can't amend those till convention.)

For those that are not familiar with approval voting be aware that this is not covered in RONR to my knowledge and is included here for informational purposes only so people answering know what they are referring to in order to give an answer."Approval voting is a single-winner voting method used for elections. Each voter may 'approve' of (i.e., select) any number of candidates. The winner is the most-approved candidate."

SO you can vote for everybody or nobody or anything in between if you approve of them.

The actual question once again.  Since its not covered in the bylaws and not covered in the Parliamentary Authority(RONR 11th ed.) and we have no way at present to change our rules, can we even utilize this alternative method or would RONR restrict us from using this since it was not specifically authorized?

Yes, in my opinion, RONR would prohibit it, and it seems that your bylaws may as well. You say that your ordinary method of filling these positions is for the chair to appoint them. If the bylaws actually prescribe this, then that is what must be done, and only an amendment to the bylaws could change it. If RONR is all that prohibits this method of voting, then a special rule of order could authorize its use.

[jstackpo]

Actually....   if you "do the math", approval voting turns out to be just the same as the way you vote after filling  blanks.  Approval voting, in effect, has you do a "for" or "against" for each of the choices all at once.

 

With the one "little detail" that in approval voting the winner (or final choice) is the "most approved" - i.e. plurality winner, while  in the voting to select one of the blank-fillers the ultimate winner has to be a majority choice. And in voting on blank-fillers you quit voting after reaching the first majority-in-favor winner.

 

In approval voting it is possible to have more than one majority-in-favor winner, just as could happen if voting on blank-fillers was continued through each choice.

[DanielEHayes]

I'm inclined to agree with these members that it is a conflict of interest for the Chairman to appoint people to an investigative committee when he is the target of the investigation, but the society must nonetheless follow its rules until those rules are changed.

Yes, in my opinion, RONR would prohibit it, and it seems that your bylaws may as well. You say that your ordinary method of filling these positions is for the chair to appoint them. If the bylaws actually prescribe this, then that is what must be done, and only an amendment to the bylaws could change it. If RONR is all that prohibits this method of voting, then a special rule of order could authorize its use.

Mr Martin,

This JC committee is not authorized in our bylaws or special rules so I am not sure that we can even actually have one. The intent though was to have a committee who's duty was to hear any grievances until such time as we could amend the bylaws at convention and make the real one.  The JC is just an pre-approved investigatory commiittee in essence.  The actual decision regarding discipline falls to the vote of the board.

The bylaws don't say anything about a judicial committee nor do the special rules. Our Special rules can only be modified in convention.

As to filing offices.. the bylaws authorize the Chairman to appoint other board members when there is a vacancy in those offices defined under the bylaws.  He also has appointed the chairman of ad hoc committees. In general there is a strong precendent for the chairman to appoint members with it being approved up or down by the board. I just have to think that doing things any other way especially with regards to matters of discipline is a problem with regards to other members being admistered to by this JC.  I think if members have a problem with the chairman appointing these people claiming conflict of interest it would be in order for the vice chairman to appoint an investigatory committee for the purpose of investigating the Chairman. That all said. I think my question regarding whether or not approval voting could be used has been answered and that answer seems to be NO. It can't without a change in the bylaws and/or the special rules. As both those generally can only be changed in convention as per my organizations rules, it becomes moot. Approval voting is out of order.

Thanks to Mr Honemann and everyone for the insight.