Secret Ballot Questions

[Guest Ken Greenberg]

I am President of a Religious (not for profit) organization.  Recently, before a meeting, a member informed me that she was going to call for a secret ballot in connection with the appointment of a clergy-member.

In researching the matter, I came across a couple of questions with respect to which I could not find answers.

1.  Our board has allowed Trustees to participate by conference call (specifically permitted by Statute).  I didn't see any way  mechanically administer Secret Ballots for those on the phone.

2. More generally, State Law permits a dissenting Trustee to have their dissension recorded on the minutes (in which case, they are absolved from legal liability in the event of a lawsuit) -- how does one preserve the Trustee's right to dissent in a secret ballot.

3. A lesser issue, relates to Motions to Reconsider when someone must be in the prevailing side -- I'm less concerned about this, and would basically take someone's word for it.

 

What I was going to do -- 1. Ask the people on the phone if they objected to Secret Ballots for the rest of the group. (I had pre-cleared it with them already).  2. I didn't think there was a fiduciary issue here, so was less concerned with the state law issues re dissenting trustees in this case.

What actually happened -- Before the vote, I asked the person who had raised the issue whether she wanted to make a motion for a secret ballot.  Another member stated - "after the debate, everyone knows where everyone else stands already, is it needed"  The logic prevailed, and the motion wasn't made.

[Josh Martin]

15 minutes ago, Guest Ken Greenberg said:

1.  Our board has allowed Trustees to participate by conference call (specifically permitted by Statute).  I didn't see any way  mechanically administer Secret Ballots for those on the phone.

Yes, that certainly is a problem. If it is expected that the board will wish to take ballot votes in the future, the board may wish to research methods (online voting, for instance) which would permit all members to cast a ballot vote.

16 minutes ago, Guest Ken Greenberg said:

2. More generally, State Law permits a dissenting Trustee to have their dissension recorded on the minutes (in which case, they are absolved from legal liability in the event of a lawsuit) -- how does one preserve the Trustee's right to dissent in a secret ballot.

I don’t see an issue. Taking a ballot vote ensures members have a right to secrecy, but it does not force members to keep their own votes secret. There is no rule in RONR preventing a member from revealing how he voted on a ballot vote.

20 minutes ago, Guest Ken Greenberg said:

3. A lesser issue, relates to Motions to Reconsider when someone must be in the prevailing side -- I'm less concerned about this, and would basically take someone's word for it.

Yes, I agree that is the appropriate course of action.

20 minutes ago, Guest Ken Greenberg said:

1. Ask the people on the phone if they objected to Secret Ballots for the rest of the group. (I had pre-cleared it with them already). 

There is no procedure in RONR for some members to vote by ballot and other members to vote by a different method. If the organization wishes to permit such votes, it should adopt its own rules on this matter. Alternatively, the board could find a method which would permit all members to vote by ballot, and adopt rules regarding that method  if necessary.

[Rob Elsman]

I think most of your question requires the assistance of an attorney who is familiar with the governing statutes, which may, in effect, preclude the use of the secret ballot method of voting. You need help on this that is not available on this forum.

[Shmuel Gerber]

9 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

I don’t see an issue. Taking a ballot vote ensures members have a right to secrecy, but it does not force members to keep their own votes secret. There is no rule in RONR preventing a member from revealing how he voted on a ballot vote.

The problem is that members can vote in favor of the motion and then evade responsibility for it by recording a dissent.

[Guest Ken Greenberg]

If the issue had arisen, (re someone needing to record their vote)  I probably would have said that anyone who wants to sign their ballot may.  It does lead to other issues -- if enough people sign their ballots, we might be able to effectively figure out how the other have voted -- fortunately, in the specific case, no ruling was necessary.

[J. J.]

2 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

The problem is that members can vote in favor of the motion and then evade responsibility for it by recording a dissent.

The voter, in order to identify how he votes, could be required to sign his ballot in the presence of the secretary, or somehow publicly verify how he voted.  That would prevent me from signing the name "Shmuel Gerber,"  or saying that I voted no when I voted yes. 

It might be advisable for Mr. Greenberg to see the article "On the Record," National Parliamentarian, Fourth Quarter 2000.  I do not have a digital copy, but one could be gotten from the National Association of Parliamentarians.  I think it covers the very legitimate situation issue you are raising. 

[Guest Zev]

Quote

In any decision made, the opinion of each member present has equal weight as expressed by vote -- through which the voting member joins in assuming direct personal responsibility for the decision, should his or her vote be on the prevailing side.

RONR 11th edition, page 2.

4 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

The problem is that members can vote in favor of the motion and then evade responsibility for it by recording a dissent.

So they could vote by ballot, the result is unanimous and then all of them record a dissent. So much for "direct personal responsibility."

[Shmuel Gerber]

6 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

So they could vote by ballot, the result is unanimous and then all of them record a dissent. So much for "direct personal responsibility."

Which is why I said it's a problem. There's nothing in RONR that gives members a right to record a dissent.

[Guest Zev]

"...and upon Mr. Zev's request that his dissent be recorded, the chairman put the question to the assembly and the motion was defeated..."

[Richard Brown]

Just keep in mind folks, that some state corporation laws give a member, or at least a member of a board of directors, the right to have his dissent recorded in the minutes. 

[Gary Novosielski]

If this is to be done in the context of a ballot vote, it seems to me that a member who wishes to have his dissent recorded must not cast a secret ballot, but rather cast his vote openly, so that it can be verified that he did, in fact, dissent.

[George Mervosh]

10 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

If this is to be done in the context of a ballot vote, it seems to me that a member who wishes to have his dissent recorded must not cast a secret ballot, but rather cast his vote openly, so that it can be verified that he did, in fact, dissent.

So we can take the guy's word for it if the original vote was by secret ballot and if he's willing to waive that secrecy in moving to reconsider the vote, but not here.  Hmmmm.  Which brings us right back to what Mr. Gerber said:

On 4/17/2019 at 2:16 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

Which is why I said it's a problem. There's nothing in RONR that gives members a right to record a dissent.

 

[Dan Honemann]

21 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

If this is to be done in the context of a ballot vote, it seems to me that a member who wishes to have his dissent recorded must not cast a secret ballot, but rather cast his vote openly, so that it can be verified that he did, in fact, dissent.

 

8 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

So we can take the guy's word for it if the original vote was by secret ballot and if he's willing to waive that secrecy in moving to reconsider the vote, but not here.

Right. We just won't take his word for it if he claims he voted on the losing side. 

[AFS1970]

I would think that members recording dissent after a unanimous vote in favor of something could be ruled out of order (or not well taken) because it would be plainly obvious that there had been no dissent. 

Where I would see a bigger problem would be where two or more members wanted to record their dissent when the vote showed a lower number of votes against the motion. Then the chair might have tp figure out who actually dissented.

[Gary Novosielski]

In my view, a member who casts a secret ballot has waived his right to have his dissent recorded.

[Guest perspective on terms]

So if there is such a thing called "secret ballot" why does RONR not index such.  It seems to me that people conflate 3 different things to mean the same. 

secret ballot

secret vote

a vote that is not to be secret or a vote that is to be secret

I ask this because people in meetings that I attend see a ballot vote and then call out secret vote as a practice.  It is as if at some point in the past that assemblies allowed people to just call out secret ballot and that this changed the nature of a ballot process that is already secret because of the way it is done. They think with no motion a member of the assembly can call Secret ballot and then everyone must do just that. I am perplexed by this action and wonder where they get that from.

Ballots in themselves are secret. I was thinking this is why when you reference secret vote RONR refers you to ballot. If someone want to tell how they vote the assembly can not stop them from telling but if the voter receives a ballot with no space for identifiers they in fact have a vote done secretly. 

Then when you go to mail -in vote in RONR it references the act of "If the vote is not to be secret" and "If the vote is to be secret". This seems to be a verb to me and not a noun.

Then there is a secret vote- which would mean going to a voting process where no one can tell who voted in which way. 

Any thoughts?

[Atul Kapur]

Previous discussions on this forum indicate that, under RONR, the concept of a ballot vote inherently is a secret ballot (with the possible exception of a mailed vote that is not to be secret).

The confusion may be due to corporate bylaws and many laws relating to corporations that do not make the assumption that ballot votes are secret. You will find the term "signed ballot" in many such laws. These laws also often have the concept that a director has the right to have their dissent recorded. That's also not in RONR.

[Gary Novosielski]

3 hours ago, Guest perspective on terms said:

So if there is such a thing called "secret ballot" why does RONR not index such.  It seems to me that people conflate 3 different things to mean the same. 

secret ballot

secret vote

a vote that is not to be secret or a vote that is to be secret

I ask this because people in meetings that I attend see a ballot vote and then call out secret vote as a practice.  It is as if at some point in the past that assemblies allowed people to just call out secret ballot and that this changed the nature of a ballot process that is already secret because of the way it is done. They think with no motion a member of the assembly can call Secret ballot and then everyone must do just that. I am perplexed by this action and wonder where they get that from.

Ballots in themselves are secret. I was thinking this is why when you reference secret vote RONR refers you to ballot. If someone want to tell how they vote the assembly can not stop them from telling but if the voter receives a ballot with no space for identifiers they in fact have a vote done secretly. 

Then when you go to mail -in vote in RONR it references the act of "If the vote is not to be secret" and "If the vote is to be secret". This seems to be a verb to me and not a noun.

Then there is a secret vote- which would mean going to a voting process where no one can tell who voted in which way. 

Any thoughts?

Please post new questions in a new topic, as instructed by 

 

[Guest Thank you but....]

On 5/30/2020 at 3:09 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Please post new questions in a new topic, as instructed by 

 

Thank you Gary,  However I posted my question here because in my it relates to the topic discussed.  There probably would have been a less aggressive way for your to make your suggestion.  I will just find other ways to get my question answered.

[Weldon Merritt]

33 minutes ago, Guest Thank you but.... said:

Thank you Gary,  However I posted my question here because in my it relates to the topic discussed.  There probably would have been a less aggressive way for your to make your suggestion.  I will just find other ways to get my question answered.

Well, he did say "please."

[Gary Novosielski]

3 hours ago, Guest Thank you but.... said:

Thank you Gary,  However I posted my question here because in my it relates to the topic discussed.  There probably would have been a less aggressive way for your to make your suggestion.  I will just find other ways to get my question answered.

Good luck with that.

[Nathan Zook]

As I understand op, there are two issues.

1) Providing for secret voting when some members are not physically present.

2) Providing for the "unsealing" of a ballot vote in the event that a director demands a recorded dissent.

As worded, the physically absent members are "on the phone".  If this is meant in the sense of something other than a smart phone, then this is logistically unworkable in the context of a continuous meeting.  Time will be needed for some sort of physical ballot to be transmitted.

In theory, electronic voting could permit secret ballots.  Maybe.  As a mathematician working as a programmer for twenty years with an interest in this, I don't see how.  The problem is that you must be able to verify the reported vote count.  Naively, the problem is that it's really hard to add unknown quantities.  It is also nigh-impossible to trust that the vote that the voter selected was the one that actually went from their devise to the central counting system, and that the central counting system properly accepted the vote, or that it properly added the votes.  (Unanimous votes can be verified, but that is less interesting.)

---

It seems to me that a simple mechanic can permit "unsealing" as long as all of the voting members remain present.

a) We provide an excess of ballots.

b) We number the ballots consecutively, on the side opposite from the voting.

c) Each member comes forward to select their ballot, they do so from the pool of available ballots.  The ballots are presented number-side down, so no one can see what number is drawn.  They also receive an envelope.

d) A member then votes, and remembers the number of their ballot.  The ballot is returned in the envelope.

If a member wishes to record dissent, they announce their number, and their dissent is verified.  If any other member claims that this is their number, the vote is spoiled and the entire process is repeated.  If the number is one of the unvoted ballots, the member is in error, and their dissent is not recorded.

Alternatively, the ballots are numbered twice, and the members keep a copy of the number, and produce this copy to record their dissent.