David A Foulkes Posted July 4, 2010 at 11:10 PM Report Share Posted July 4, 2010 at 11:10 PM "Some small organizations have a custom that ballots are counted in full presence of the meeting." p. 401 ll.22-23 In May, our annual State convention was held. Seven of nine Board members and 23 delegates from our five affiliated organizations in the state were present. A quorum is no less than ten seated delegates. Bylaws state that officers "shall be elected, along with five trustees, by a majority vote taken by ballot or voice vote if only one nominee....." We have that "rolling" office term, where some officers and trustees (P, Sec, 1 Trustee, for example) are elected every three years. At this year's convention, elections as required were held. After nominations were taken from the floor, blank ballots were distributed and collected by two tellers. A third stood at a white-board with names listed (writing them as nominations were made). As the two tellers alternately read the names (pulling ballots from collection bowls while standing at the Board dais) on each ballot, the third made "hash marks" on the board next to the names. When all ballots were read, the President announced the winner according to the name on the white-board with the most hash-marks. There was no "tellers' report" (a separate sheet of paper, that is) created, as the white-board served as that. 1. Does this sound like what the cited reference above refers to?2. If, during the several elections held, one of the tellers was nominated for an office, was it inappropriate for her to continue to be a teller?3. Pointing out any (other) possible improprieties is appreciated. ________________________________(edited to restore format after cut'n'paste didn't so such a good job ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted July 5, 2010 at 12:00 AM Report Share Posted July 5, 2010 at 12:00 AM 1. Does this sound like what the cited reference above refers to?I don't think the authors had the whiteboard in mind with that citation. But otherwise, sure.2. If, during the several elections held, one of the tellers was nominated for an office, was it inappropriate for her to continue to be a teller?It might not be wise, but it is not prohibited by RONR. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 400, lines 12-17; pg. 394, lines 27-31)3. Pointing out any (other) possible improprieties is appreciated. A teller's report should have still been prepared. Tally marks on a white board is equivalent to "scratch paper" in most tellers' committees and should not be substituted for the report. Also, not all the necessary information was included - a proper teller's report must include the totals for all candidates, any illegal votes, the total number of ballots cast, and the number needed for election. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 403, lines 9-18)More importantly, it was improper for the President to announce the winner as "the name on the white-board with the most hash-marks," as this is a plurality, not a majority, which is required by RONR and your Bylaws. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 425, lines 23-27; pg. 387, lines 7-13) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted July 5, 2010 at 12:03 AM Author Report Share Posted July 5, 2010 at 12:03 AM More importantly, it was improper for the President to announce the winner as "the name on the white-board with the most hash-marks," as this is a plurality, not a majority, which is required by RONR and your Bylaws. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 425, lines 23-27; pg. 387, lines 7-13)Thanks, Josh. To be clear, I'm a bit hazy on it now, but I think I recall the winner actually getting a majority of votes, not just a plurality. But I'll be alert to that next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted July 5, 2010 at 10:15 AM Report Share Posted July 5, 2010 at 10:15 AM Thanks, Josh. To be clear, I'm a bit hazy on it now, but I think I recall the winner actually getting a majority of votes, not just a plurality. But I'll be alert to that next year.It's a strikingly common oversight, and when it's explained to the group, they look at you like you just hit your head or something.......but yes, remind the presiding officer before the meeting, not when he's announcing the result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted July 5, 2010 at 04:42 PM Report Share Posted July 5, 2010 at 04:42 PM Each of the tellers should individually examine each ballot, and each of the tellers should individually record each ballot on his own tally sheet. After all the ballots have been examined, the tellers should reconcile any differences between them and prepare the report to be presented to the assembly.For example, Teller Adam removes a ballot from the ballot box, examines it, calls out to the assembly the names of those voted for, records the ballot on his tally sheet, and passes the ballot to Teller Baker. Teller Baker examines the ballot and records it on his tally sheet, then passes it to Teller Charley, who also examines and records it. After recording the ballot, Teller Charley places the ballot into the container of counted ballots that will be given to the secretary for custody until it is ordered to be destroyed. After all the ballots have been gone through in this way, the tellers tally their sheets and compare the results, determining the cause and effect of any discrepancies. After the results have been reconciled in this way, the container of counted ballots is sealed, and the tellers' report is prepared for presentation to the assembly by the chairman of tellers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted July 5, 2010 at 11:13 PM Report Share Posted July 5, 2010 at 11:13 PM Each of the tellers should individually examine each ballot, and each of the tellers should individually record each ballot on his own tally sheet. After all the ballots have been examined, the tellers should reconcile any differences between them and prepare the report to be presented to the assembly.For example, Teller Adam removes a ballot from the ballot box, examines it, calls out to the assembly the names of those voted for, records the ballot on his tally sheet, and passes the ballot to Teller Baker. Teller Baker examines the ballot and records it on his tally sheet, then passes it to Teller Charley, who also examines and records it. After recording the ballot, Teller Charley places the ballot into the container of counted ballots that will be given to the secretary for custody until it is ordered to be destroyed. After all the ballots have been gone through in this way, the tellers tally their sheets and compare the results, determining the cause and effect of any discrepancies.I'm not aware of anywhere in RONR that states a specific procedure for recording ballots. The CD-ROM edition does include a suggested method, which is apparently "Derived (with revisions) from Henry M. Robert, Parliamentary Law (1923), pp. 223-24," but the procedure is not quite what you've described. Rather than having each teller examine each ballot, the procedure involves one teller who reads the ballots, one teller who observes the reader for verification, and three tellers who perform independent counts, which are checked against each other. In my own experience on tellers' committees, that procedure was much closer to the procedure we used (although I admit the elections were much, much larger than the one involved in this post).While I agree that the counting process used by the assembly could certainly use some improvement, there is no "official" method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted July 6, 2010 at 03:19 PM Report Share Posted July 6, 2010 at 03:19 PM I'm not aware of anywhere in RONR that states a specific procedure for recording ballots. The CD-ROM edition does include a suggested method, which is apparently "Derived (with revisions) from Henry M. Robert, Parliamentary Law (1923), pp. 223-24," but the procedure is not quite what you've described. Rather than having each teller examine each ballot, the procedure involves one teller who reads the ballots, one teller who observes the reader for verification, and three tellers who perform independent counts, which are checked against each other. In my own experience on tellers' committees, that procedure was much closer to the procedure we used (although I admit the elections were much, much larger than the one involved in this post).While I agree that the counting process used by the assembly could certainly use some improvement, there is no "official" method.As long as each member of the committee has the opportunity to examine each ballot and keep his individual tally, I'm happy. Each member of the committee has the same rights and duties as the other members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted July 6, 2010 at 03:51 PM Report Share Posted July 6, 2010 at 03:51 PM As long as each member of the committee has the opportunity to examine each ballot and keep his individual tally, I'm happy. Each member of the committee has the same rights and duties as the other members.Then I suppose there may be occasions when you will be unhappy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted July 6, 2010 at 07:30 PM Report Share Posted July 6, 2010 at 07:30 PM Then I suppose there may be occasions when you will be unhappy. No, I would be happy, though I wouldn't serve on the committee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.