Voting during electronic meeting

[Mike6453]

While drafting language to allow electronic meetings in our church bylaws, I came across something puzzling to me. I could use some expert advice.

In our current bylaws, a specific vote threshold is mentioned in relation to the number of members “present.” Here are examples:

… a member by a two-thirds vote of the members present at a meeting called for this purpose.

… by a two-thirds vote of the members present …

… If three-fourths of the members present vote to approve …

… shall be by two-thirds vote of all active members of the church present.

I looked at Robert’s Rules-12th Ed. 44:3 and it states: A two-thirds vote – when the term is unqualified – means at least two thirds of the votes cast by persons entitled to vote, excluding blanks or abstentions, at a properly called meeting. (I’m uncertain if “present” is a qualification referred to in the Robert’s language.)

The current wording of our bylaws got me to thinking about how to count the number of people “present” at an electronic meeting since many couples or even families would likely connect using a single device. But the more important question is whether the language in our bylaws should be changed to the number of persons “voting” instead of “present.” It seems that this might match Robert’s Rules better and diminish a conflict that might arise in a very close vote and trying to determine number of members “present.” 

Thoughts/advice?

Thanks!!!

[Gary Novosielski]

Yes, the use of "those present" in RONR is a form of qualification that affects the threshold.

To difference is that when it's a certain fraction of "those present", then abstaining, although it is not a vote, has the same effect as a No vote.

The recommended threshold in RONR is the unqualified form, simply "majority vote", "two-thirds vote", "three-fourths vote"  or what have you.   RONR does not use anything higher than two-thirds.  So there's no need to change it, simply remove the reference to who is present.

Then the default rule in RONR will apply, which is "of those present and voting."  Then a person who does not wish to affect the outcome either way can abstain without being counted as if opposed.

[Josh Martin]

On 1/16/2023 at 6:10 PM, Mike6453 said:

I looked at Robert’s Rules-12th Ed. 44:3 and it states: A two-thirds vote – when the term is unqualified – means at least two thirds of the votes cast by persons entitled to vote, excluding blanks or abstentions, at a properly called meeting. (I’m uncertain if “present” is a qualification referred to in the Robert’s language.)

Yes, "present" is a qualification. See RONR (12th ed.) 44:7-10 for more information concerning "Modifications of Usual Bases for Decision."

On 1/16/2023 at 6:10 PM, Mike6453 said:

The current wording of our bylaws got me to thinking about how to count the number of people “present” at an electronic meeting since many couples or even families would likely connect using a single device.

The organization will certainly need to consider some means of determining how many members are "present." The organization certainly may choose to amend these rules so that the voting thresholds are no longer based upon a proportion of the members "present," but these details are still important for other reasons, such as determining the presence of a quorum.

I would certainly advise that you take a look at Appendix A: Sample Rules for Electronic Meetings for a starting point, although those rules will require some modification for your particular circumstances. The issue of sharing devices will cause a number of complications which, while not insurmountable, will need to be considered. It will certainly make voting more complicated.

On 1/16/2023 at 6:10 PM, Mike6453 said:

The current wording of our bylaws got me to thinking about how to count the number of people “present” at an electronic meeting since many couples or even families would likely connect using a single device. But the more important question is whether the language in our bylaws should be changed to the number of persons “voting” instead of “present.” It seems that this might match Robert’s Rules better and diminish a conflict that might arise in a very close vote and trying to determine number of members “present.” 

The simplest solution would be to simply use the words "2/3 vote" or "3/4 vote" without any qualification at all, in which instance the rules in RONR will be controlling.

But yes, another solution would be to use the word "voting." That would resolve this problem, but I don't think you're entirely off the hook in needing to come up with some way of determining which members are "present" - although certainly this will not need to be determined with the same degree of precision if these rules are changed.

Edited January 17, 2023 at 12:56 AM by Josh Martin

[Alicia Percell, PRP]

Suggesting some things to consider for your rules drafting project:

If you have multiple members sharing a single connection, then a rule which would require use of the electronic system's hand-raising or polling-type features would likely disenfranchise some members, as their family connection could only cast a single vote.  Such a vote would need to be supplemented by a more manual process of asking which multiple-member connections to cast more roll-call-style votes to add to the poll results, so you wouldn't want a rule to be so strict as to preclude that.  If you had a rule that each voting member must use a separate connection, the hand-raising or polling features work well...but you'll need to evaluate whether that's realistic for your group.

Voice votes are also rather useless in an electronic meeting, as you can't really gauge quantity of people speaking at the same time.

Roll-call votes work well in electronic meetings...but if you have a large church, that's inefficient...or if you vote on matters in which members want to be able to cast secret ballots so as to not hurt feelings of their friends who might be up for election to some position, roll call voting obliterates the secrecy option.

You could have some external voting system like email, but that's not much of a secret ballot as the secretary will know how everyone voted.

You could use the electronic meeting just for discussion of motions and then have voting only be done in person at the church building...hand each member a ballot and drop it in a physical ballot box for a secret ballot.  That might work for substantial main motions, but a motion to adjourn would be rather silly to handle that way.

These are the kinds of things you ought to be (and apparently are) mulling as you craft the rules.

[Atul Kapur]

On 1/23/2023 at 1:51 AM, Alicia Percell, PRP said:

You could have some external voting system like email, but that's not much of a secret ballot as the secretary will know how everyone voted.

There are third-party systems that accept he votes and keep confidential how each member voted.

Edited January 23, 2023 at 04:26 PM by Atul Kapur