Electronic voting vs in person

[Guest Patricia]

In our 501c3 membership organization we have 5 regular membership meetings per year where you must be a member to attend (either in person or on zoom). We have approximately 120-150 members . A movement to enable electronic voting for all members regardless of attendance is being discussed to add to our bylaws. This will result in negating the need for absentee ballots and possibly even the need for a quorum as no one will be required to attend in order to vote. All issues will be put on a ballot and no in-person votes will be taken. We have existed for nearly 60 years so there is quite a disagreement afoot on what this means to the way our membership meetings regarding voting have been conducted and will be conducted in the future. We do have a board of directors who are elected at our big annual membership meeting, but we have multiple issues that members are asked to vote on (budget, bylaws, etc.) and those issues are discussed in the membership meetings. 

Is there anything in RONR that could help us navigate this?

[Gary Novosielski]

Well, the rules in RONR say that it is a "fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the right to vote is limited to the members of an organization who are actually present at the time the vote is taken."

You can refer to 9:30 ff., for advice on how to structure your bylaws to allow electronic meetings.  There is also an Appendix with sample rules for electronic meetings on pp. 635-649.

It's definitely not a good idea to eliminate the quorum requirement.  What's to stop two or three people from running off with the treasury?

 

[Guest Electronic voting vs in pe]

To be clear, there is no discussion re getting rid of the quorum requirement, but it seems that if there is no requirement to attend the membership meeting in order to get a ballot, and all voting is done via electronic ballot, then what is a quorum for? I may be missing a crucial element here so I appreciate your responses a lot. 

[Josh Martin]

On 4/9/2024 at 11:40 AM, Guest Patricia said:

This will result in negating the need for absentee ballots and possibly even the need for a quorum as no one will be required to attend in order to vote.

I'm not certain I agree that this negates the need for absentee ballots. As I understand it, what you're proposing is to vote only by absentee ballots.

As to negating the need for a quorum, I think that's correct, although I would note that it may be desirable to adopt some equivalent to a quorum, such as a requirement that a certain number of ballots be returned.

Finally (and correct me if I'm wrong), you seem to be proposing that you'll still be having "meetings" but that no voting will occur at these meetings. If this is correct, I would generally suggest either a.) no longer holding formal meetings of the assembly in question, and calling them something else or b.) making clear in the rules that no votes may be taken at such meetings.

On 4/9/2024 at 11:40 AM, Guest Patricia said:

Is there anything in RONR that could help us navigate this?

See RONR (12th ed.) 45:57-61.

On 4/9/2024 at 12:14 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

It's definitely not a good idea to eliminate the quorum requirement.  What's to stop two or three people from running off with the treasury?

Mr. Novosielski, as I understand it, the proposal is that all votes will be by mail (or some electronic equivalent). In such circumstances, I believe the OP is correct that there will be no quorum requirement, because no one is "present" and therefore the term "quorum" has no meaningful application.

It may well be beneficial to adopt rules requiring a certain number of ballots to be returned. This will have a similar purpose to a quorum requirement, but it is not quite the same thing.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 4/9/2024 at 12:29 PM, Josh Martin said:

Mr. Novosielski, as I understand it, the proposal is that all votes will be by mail (or some electronic equivalent). In such circumstances, I believe the OP is correct that there will be no quorum requirement, because no one is "present" and therefore the term "quorum" has no meaningful application.

It may well be beneficial to adopt rules requiring a certain number of ballots to be returned. This will have a similar purpose to a quorum requirement, but it is not quite the same thing.

Right that's what I meant.  Some method whereby a small unrepresentative minority of the members would be prevented from making decisions for the organization.

[Guest Electronic vs in person]

Creating an

On 4/9/2024 at 10:29 AM, Josh Martin said:

I'm not certain I agree that this negates the need for absentee ballots. As I understand it, what you're proposing is to vote only by absentee ballots.

Only absentee ballot would imply that no one is in attendance, but people do attend and most of the time we do have a quorum. The movement to send ballots to everyone regardless of attendance is one of the main issues. Not identifying those members who are not in attendance as absentee is also an issue. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 4/9/2024 at 12:40 PM, Guest Patricia said:

In our 501c3 membership organization we have 5 regular membership meetings per year where you must be a member to attend (either in person or on zoom). We have approximately 120-150 members . A movement to enable electronic voting for all members regardless of attendance is being discussed to add to our bylaws. This will result in negating the need for absentee ballots and possibly even the need for a quorum as no one will be required to attend in order to vote. All issues will be put on a ballot and no in-person votes will be taken. We have existed for nearly 60 years so there is quite a disagreement afoot on what this means to the way our membership meetings regarding voting have been conducted and will be conducted in the future. We do have a board of directors who are elected at our big annual membership meeting, but we have multiple issues that members are asked to vote on (budget, bylaws, etc.) and those issues are discussed in the membership meetings. 

Is there anything in RONR that could help us navigate this?

My own view of it is that you are moving in the wrong direction.  Nothing works as well as in-person meetings for arriving at the best decisions.

[Guest Electronic vs in person]

I agree. I am Secretary of the Bylaw committee and we are wrestling with this for the upcoming meeting where we will make a presentation to the membership. Thank you for your response,

[Josh Martin]

On 4/9/2024 at 12:55 PM, Guest Electronic vs in person said:

Only absentee ballot would imply that no one is in attendance, but people do attend and most of the time we do have a quorum. The movement to send ballots to everyone regardless of attendance is one of the main issues. Not identifying those members who are not in attendance as absentee is also an issue. 

Okay, well, we can keep quibbling on this, but it continues to appear to me that under this proposal, all members are sent a ballot in advance of the "meeting" and vote by returning that ballot, and this would be the only manner in which any votes are taken. If this is correct, these "meetings" are no longer "meetings" in any parliamentary sense of the word, and therefore who is "present" at them is immaterial. So I continue to maintain that it is more accurate to state that, under the proposed rules, all votes will be by absentee ballot.

But even supposing you reject that premise, it is not at all accurate to say that this system eliminates absentee ballots, because it is certainly the case that the people who are absent are voting by absentee ballot.

As to this argument of "Not identifying those members who are not in attendance as absentee is also an issue," this sentence is just nonsense. If you are not in attendance, you're absent. That's just what those words mean.

To the extent the assembly instead proposes that members at the meeting will vote on these matters at the meeting and those votes will be combined with absentee ballots submitted in advance, RONR's only advice in that regard is "Don't do that, and if you ignore this advice, good luck."

"An organization should never adopt a bylaw permitting a question to be decided by a voting procedure in which the votes of persons who attend a meeting are counted together with ballots mailed in by absentees. The votes of those present could be affected by debate, by amendments, and perhaps by the need for repeated balloting, while those absent would be unable to adjust their votes to reflect these factors. Consequently, the absentee ballots would in most cases be on a somewhat different question than that on which those present were voting, leading to confusion, unfairness, and inaccuracy in determining the result. If there is a possibility of any uncertainty about who will be entitled to vote, this should be spelled out unambiguously and strictly enforced to avoid unfairness in close votes." RONR (12th ed.) 45:56

I am inclined to agree with Mr. Honemann that in any event, voting on all matters by absentee ballot is not advisable. In the alternative, the assembly might consider voting by absentee ballot on particular matters (e.g. elections, bylaw amendments, or whatever).

Edited April 10, 2024 at 04:28 PM by Josh Martin

[Guest Electronic vs in-person]

Thank you. I could definitely quibble but this gives me a lot of info to take back to the Bylaw committee.