Proper way to request a roll call vote

[DavidWC]

Greetings,

 

Before our recent Board meeting of 7 members I decided I would "ask" for a roll call vote instead of a voice vote for something I knew we would be discussing. I've always understood the method of voting is usually at the discretion of the Chairman (unless the method is mentioned in the By-laws) OR if a voting member "asks" for a different form of voting. I'm not that knowledgeable about Robert's Rules, but I read elsewhere that requesting a different form of voting only needs to be "requested".

 

At the very beginning of the discussion for the topic I told the Chairman I would like a roll call vote when it was time to vote. The other Board members wanted my "roll call request" in the form of a motion (and properly worded), then seconded, voted on, opened for discussion, and then a voice vote to see if we would have a roll call vote for the agenda item. The bickering from other Board members about crafting the motion went on for almost 5 minutes. First they wanted the motion to mention specifically what we would be voting on. Then someone said the motion should mention the duration (this evening or forever on the same topic). Finally someone said the motion should say in what order the Board members would be asked. My head was spinning with everyone suggesting what I should put into my motion. Even the Secretary had a hard job of following what everyone was saying. Finally the Secretary made a counter motion to table the agenda item. I removed my "motion" and we voted to table the original topic.

 

What IS the proper way to "ask" for a different form of voting? No one on our Board, including myself, is very knowledgeable about Robert's Rules of Order.

 

David

[Guest Zev]

Normally we would say "Mr. Chairman, I request a roll call vote on this motion." And the roll call is in alphabetical order, the chairman called last if his vote affects the result. I hesitate to say more because I suspect this a governmental body of some kind. Is it?

[Dan Honemann]

7 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

Normally we would say "Mr. Chairman, I request a roll call vote on this motion." And the roll call is in alphabetical order, the chairman called last if his vote affects the result. I hesitate to say more because I suspect this a governmental body of some kind. Is it?

Just a simple request, huh?  🙂

[jstackpo]

If it is not a govt body with special rules  --  and has adopted RONR  --  there is no debate, there can be amendments, and a majority decides the question.  See pages 283ff. and 420ff. for more details. You will find answers to your questions there.

And while you are getting a copy or two of RONR for the association, get, for your Board members, copies of

RONRIB:

"Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief", Updated Second Edition (Da Capo Press, Perseus Books Group, 2011). It is a splendid summary of all the rules you will ever need in all but the most exceptional situations. And only $7.50! You can read it in an evening. Get both RONRIB and RONR (scroll down) at this link: 

http://www.robertsrules.com/inbrief.html

Or in your local bookstore. 

[Richard Brown]

4 hours ago, Borax said:

What IS the proper way to "ask" for a different form of voting? 

"Mr. Chairman, I move for a roll call vote". It requires a second, is not debatable but can be amended. It requires a majority vote for adoption. RONR (11th ed.) pages 283-284.

[Chris Harrison]

I haven't had my coffee this morning yet but what sort of amendments could be applied to a motion to hold the vote by Roll Call?

[Atul Kapur]

Holding the vote by another method, for example, by ballot.

[jstackpo]

Or changing the order of name-calling other than alphabetical.  To "Z first", or "random" or whatever.

 

[Joshua Katz]

And, as a general rule, others don't get to rewrite your motions. The chair should tell them all to shut up while you're making your motion. If they don't like it, they can refuse to second it, vote no, or move to amend. What they can't do is insist on workshopping your motion while you're making it.

[Dan Honemann]

40 minutes ago, Chris Harrison said:

I haven't had my coffee this morning yet but what sort of amendments could be applied to a motion to hold the vote by Roll Call?

Strike out "roll call" and insert "counted division vote."

[Atul Kapur]

2 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

And, as a general rule, others don't get to rewrite your motions. The chair should tell them all to shut up while you're making your motion. 

It is explicitly written that, before it is stated by the chair, others may make suggestions about the motion. The mover is free to accept or reject those suggestions.

Now 5 minutes seems like a long time to be doing that, but I still wouldn't go to the extreme reaction Mr. Katz suggests.

Borax, while I'm writing, a couple of points: your Board was correct to require you to make a motion. The default is that it applies to the vote that is pending. Guest Zev and Mr. Brown gave the other standard answers that you will find in RONR.

And, if you're still up to it, the next step is to know that your group seems to be using the motion To Table incorrectly and correct that. ☺️

Edited September 23, 2018 at 03:15 PM by Atul Kapur
correcting emoji

[Joshua Katz]

I agree with the rest of what Mr. Kapur says. As to the part dealing with my comments, the key point seems to be:

3 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

The mover is free to accept or reject those suggestions.

What's more, the member making a suggestion can "quickly rise and, with little or no explanatory comment, informally suggest one or more modifications in the motion, which at this point the maker can accept or reject. . . ." Five minutes of "well I think . . ." bears little resemblance, in my opinion, to what RONR is describing. It's an effort to workshop the motion.

Finally, the "process" described in the OP does not sound like one where the mover was fairly given the opportunity to reject changes. 

8 hours ago, Borax said:

 First they wanted the motion to mention specifically what we would be voting on. Then someone said the motion should mention the duration (this evening or forever on the same topic). Finally someone said the motion should say in what order the Board members would be asked. 

So, three suggestions. If the members did as described above, and the OP accepted or rejected the suggestions, this would take about 30 seconds. But it took 5 minutes, so I suspect they were doing something other than quickly and with little or no explanatory comment, informally suggesting modifications. 

 

8 hours ago, Borax said:

Even the Secretary had a hard job of following what everyone was saying.

How did the Secretary get involved? None of these "suggestions," if not accepted by the mover, go into the minutes. Which leads me to suspect that the Secretary was just changing the motion as the suggestions came in, without the mover having the chance to accept or reject them. I also suspect, to get over the 5 minute mark, that they likely were debating these suggestions.

[Josh Martin]

9 hours ago, Borax said:

At the very beginning of the discussion for the topic I told the Chairman I would like a roll call vote when it was time to vote. The other Board members wanted my "roll call request" in the form of a motion (and properly worded), then seconded, voted on, opened for discussion, and then a voice vote to see if we would have a roll call vote for the agenda item.

Such a motion is not debatable, but the chair was otherwise correct (assuming your organization does not have its own rules on this subject).

9 hours ago, Borax said:

The bickering from other Board members about crafting the motion went on for almost 5 minutes. First they wanted the motion to mention specifically what we would be voting on. Then someone said the motion should mention the duration (this evening or forever on the same topic). Finally someone said the motion should say in what order the Board members would be asked.

When made while another motion is pending, the motion for a roll call vote automatically applies only to that motion, so most of this is unnecessary. I suppose an amendment regarding the order in which the roll would be called would be in order. By default, it is generally called in alphabetical order.

9 hours ago, Borax said:

Finally the Secretary made a counter motion to table the agenda item. I removed my "motion" and we voted to table the original topic.

This was most likely improper. See FAQ #12 and FAQ #13.

20 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

How did the Secretary get involved? None of these "suggestions," if not accepted by the mover, go into the minutes.

Or if they were accepted by the mover, for that matter. This was not a main motion.

[Joshua Katz]

Good point. 

[DavidWC]

Our organization is not a government body.

 

It took at least 5 minutes to put the motion together because most of the other Board members were debating why something should be or should not be included (One comment I remember from some of the Board members went like this: "(BILL) Setting a time limit is good, after-all we might not want to do a roll call vote in two months on the same topic. (TOM) I agree with Bill. It would be a time waister if we always had to do a roll-call vote. (SUE) I also think it needs a time-limit, but if we happen to have two separate votes on how to proceed, will the role call vote be for only one of the votes? I mean, we'll probably vote to DO something on this topic, and then we may vote again on WHAT we will do".

 

The Secretary was trying to write all the suggestions into the minutes. I don't know why; I was writing the suggestions too so I could compose the final motion... which is what the Secretary would want.

 

I will definitely pick up a copy of "Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief". I have an older book from the late 1970's; about about 1" thick. It is hard to find something specifically and nothing in the book is brief. I have found our organization lacks the knowledge to conduct a proper meeting. Our Bylaws mention RROR will be used, but most of the time the meetings proceed with everyone talking like it was an afternoon tea or sitting around a campfire. 

 

David 

 

[jstackpo]

Unfortunately... RONRIB mentions roll-call votes only in references to the big book (RONR) -- no procedural rules.

So I guess you'll have to get at least one copy RONR for yourself.  Worth every penny!

[Joshua Katz]

35 minutes ago, Borax said:

It took at least 5 minutes to put the motion together because most of the other Board members were debating why something should be or should not be included (One comment I remember from some of the Board members went like this: "(BILL) Setting a time limit is good, after-all we might not want to do a roll call vote in two months on the same topic. (TOM) I agree with Bill. It would be a time waister if we always had to do a roll-call vote. (SUE) I also think it needs a time-limit, but if we happen to have two separate votes on how to proceed, will the role call vote be for only one of the votes? I mean, we'll probably vote to DO something on this topic, and then we may vote again on WHAT we will do".

 

This is what I figured was going on, and it is improper. It amounts to debate unrelated to the pending motion. As I commented above, they may briefly make their suggestions, and then they may be quiet and let you make your motion. Your chair should not have allowed this debate - they can debate these points, as appropriate, on a motion to amend (some of these comments relate to things that would not be appropriate as amendments). 

[Atul Kapur]

Undebateable motion so undebateable amendments (thankfully, it would seem)

[Dan Honemann]

30 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

Undebateable motion so undebateable amendments (thankfully, it would seem)

But I'm not at all sure that any motion was pending at the time the effort was made to "ask" for a roll-call vote, and if not, any motion that the vote be taken by roll call would be a debatable main motion.

 

[Richard Brown]

33 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

But I'm not at all sure that any motion was pending at the time the effort was made to "ask" for a roll-call vote, and if not, any motion that the vote be taken by roll call would be a debatable main motion.

 

15 hours ago, Borax said:

At the very beginning of the discussion for the topic I told the Chairman I would like a roll call vote when it was time to vote.

I agree, but I get the impression from the statement above in the original post that the "topic" was indeed pending as as a motion and was the pending business at the time Borax made his "request" for a roll call vote.  But, if that "topic" was not actually pending as a main motion, and if no other motion was pending, then a motion for a roll call vote would indeed be considered a main motion and would be debatable, etc.  The actual parliamentary situation existing at that time is rather vague.

[Guest Zev]

15 hours ago, Borax said:

At the very beginning of the discussion for the topic I told the Chairman I would like a roll call vote when it was time to vote.

I got the impression that the motion was actually pending.

12 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Just a simple request, huh?  🙂

Was there supposed to be an emoticon at the end of the sentence? I can't tell if Mr. H is serious or being facetious.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

He's just a square.😏

[Richard Brown]

4 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

Was there supposed to be an emoticon at the end of the sentence? I can't tell if Mr. H is serious or being facetious.

The smiley face emoticon shows up on my laptop, but not on my cellphone.  I've seen this happen before.

[Guest Zev]

Oh, and another thing. The OP said

15 hours ago, Borax said:

Then someone said the motion should mention the duration (this evening or forever on the same topic).

Do we need to discuss the issue of keeping the polls open? I can see it for a very large organization but not for a mere seven member board. Would keeping the polls open under these circumstances be OK under RONR rules?

[Josh Martin]

4 hours ago, Borax said:

It took at least 5 minutes to put the motion together because most of the other Board members were debating why something should be or should not be included (One comment I remember from some of the Board members went like this: "(BILL) Setting a time limit is good, after-all we might not want to do a roll call vote in two months on the same topic. (TOM) I agree with Bill. It would be a time waister if we always had to do a roll-call vote. (SUE) I also think it needs a time-limit, but if we happen to have two separate votes on how to proceed, will the role call vote be for only one of the votes? I mean, we'll probably vote to DO something on this topic, and then we may vote again on WHAT we will do".

If no motion was pending, then a motion for a roll call vote must indeed specify what vote(s) it shall apply to, or the time period for which it shall apply, or in some other manner define the extent of its effect. In such instance, this is an incidental main motion, which means that it is debatable and amendable and would be recorded in the minutes.

Since there appeared to be some discussion about extending this order past the current meeting, it should be noted that this would make it a special rule of order, which makes the requirement for its adoption a 2/3 vote with previous notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership without notice.

4 hours ago, Borax said:

The Secretary was trying to write all the suggestions into the minutes. I don't know why; I was writing the suggestions too so I could compose the final motion... which is what the Secretary would want.

Yes, it is correct that only the final motion needs to be in the minutes.

2 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I agree, but I get the impression from the statement above in the original post that the "topic" was indeed pending as as a motion and was the pending business at the time Borax made his "request" for a roll call vote. 

I think some of the discussion that follows casts doubt on whether a motion was pending, such as this comment.

4 hours ago, Borax said:

(SUE) I also think it needs a time-limit, but if we happen to have two separate votes on how to proceed, will the role call vote be for only one of the votes? I mean, we'll probably vote to DO something on this topic, and then we may vote again on WHAT we will do".

 

1 hour ago, Guest Zev said:

Oh, and another thing. The OP said

Do we need to discuss the issue of keeping the polls open? I can see it for a very large organization but not for a mere seven member board. Would keeping the polls open under these circumstances be OK under RONR rules?

I think the meaning of “duration” here is how long the effect of the order requiring roll call votes would be. Some of the ensuing discussion hints at this. Bill asks whether a roll call vote would be required if another vote on this topic in two months. Sue asks whether, if multiple motions are made on this topic in the present meeting, a roll call vote will be required on both.

A motion relating to closing or opening the polls is only applicable to a ballot vote, but the size of the assembly is not a factor in whether such a motion is in order.

“Motions relating to opening and closing the polls are applicable only with respect to ballot votes.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 286)

Edited September 24, 2018 at 12:40 AM by Josh Martin