List of Eligible Voters

[Guest Scott]

Hello,

Is there some type of guidance that Roberts Rules can offer me regarding the accesibility of a list of eligible voters for our organization. At our last board meeting the secretary referenced that he had an up to date spreadsheet that has tracked attendance which in turn determines eligibility.

The secretary position is being contested in this year's election and it appears that there is an unfair advantage if both candidates do not have access to the list. The current secretary refused to turn it over to a member of the executive board as well as a member of the nominating committee. He said it could be created via the monthly minutes if anyone wants it.

Is there any specific language that will show us whether this is acceptable? By withholding this information is he subject to any sanctions by the lorganization?

Thank You

[hmtcastle]

Is there some type of guidance that Roberts Rules can offer me regarding the accesibility of a list of eligible voters for our organization.

The organization's records belong to the organization. The secretary is just the custodian. So it's not up to the secretary to decide to give the membership list to anyone, or to use it for his own election campaign. The organization should establish a policy regarding access to the membership list (and, perhaps, require that individual members "opt in" before their personal information is distributed).

[Guest Scott]

Thank you for your response. On Page 442 under the duties of the secretary #4 states that the secretary is to "make the minutes and records available to members upon request." It appears that only documents that relate to committee and executive board meetings are not available to the general membership.

Therefore if the secretary discussed having a document that keeps track of all eligible voters, it should be available upon request.

Is this the correct interpertation?

[hmtcastle]

Is this the correct interpertation?

Well, if you follow the "(see below)", you'll see that the minutes are the only records to which an individual member is given access rights. So, following the Principles of Interpretation, I'd say that access to all other documents must be determined by the organization. But others may see things differently. In any case, even if a member had a right to access committee reports, etc., I'd make a special exception for personal member information such as address, phone number, etc.

[Guest Scott]

I dont want to overcomplicate this. The document I am referring to is simply a spreadheet that the current secretary has compiled based on the meeting attendance over the course of 2010. He made reference to this spreadsheet at our last regular monthly meeting. It is not a committee report or something that was done in executive session. As I said above, now that he is running in a contested election for secretary, the challenging candidate would like to have a copy of that list of eligible voters. By not doing so it gives the current secretary an unfair advantage in the upcoming election. Had he not mentioned that he had a current list, this would be a non issue.

Once again, the quote from Roberts Rules...........

On Page 442 under the duties of the secretary #4 states that the secretary is to "make the minutes and records available to members upon request."

Thank You

[hmtcastle]

By not doing so it gives the current secretary an unfair advantage in the upcoming election. Had he not mentioned that he had a current list, this would be a non issue.

Well, the secretary certainly shouldn't be able to use the membership list for any personal purpose (e.g. his own election campaign) not available to other members. Nor should the existence of such a list be a secret (though I would think everyone would simply assume that the secretary had a list of members and their contact information).

The fact that it's "simply a spreadsheet" is irrelevant. If the names and addresses were hand-written on parchment in a leather-bound volume, would they then seem more sacrosanct? I'm sticking with preserving the privacy of members' personal information unless the assembly (preferably with the consent of each individual member) chooses otherwise. If you can persuade your membership that RONR says there is no such right to privacy, more power to you.

[Guest Scott]

To H Wm Mountcastle

I originally thought your sarcasm was humorous but now it's bordering on arrogant. If you have something to share, share it and move on. There are plenty of comedy clubs that you can practice your stand up routine.

Once again (and I will go slow this time) this list that I am referring to is nothing more than a monthly breakdown of who has attended the general meetings. It is based on that attendance that we determine voter eligibility.

You seemed to be obsessed about the privacy factor, which I never have mentioned. I don't need to know peoples addresses, phone numbers or their dogs name. I simply want the secretary to relinquish a document that he has created that summarizes who is currently eligible to vote heading into the elections.

Being that the position of secretary is being contested in the upcoming election, it is a matter of both contestants having a level playing field.

Thanks Again!

[Dan Honemann]

To H Wm Mountcastle

I originally thought your sarcasm was humorous but now it's bordering on arrogant. If you have something to share, share it and move on. There are plenty of comedy clubs that you can practice your stand up routine.

Once again (and I will go slow this time) this list that I am referring to is nothing more than a monthly breakdown of who has attended the general meetings. It is based on that attendance that we determine voter eligibility.

You seemed to be obsessed about the privacy factor, which I never have mentioned. I don't need to know peoples addresses, phone numbers or their dogs name. I simply want the secretary to relinquish a document that he has created that summarizes who is currently eligible to vote heading into the elections.

Being that the position of secretary is being contested in the upcoming election, it is a matter of both contestants having a level playing field.

Thanks Again!

Well, let's calm down a bit. No one here is responsible for writing this rule of yours that restricts the voting rights of members, and no one here is in a very good position to advise you on how this rule of yours (which they really know nothing about) is to be implemented or enforced.

[Trina]

Hello,

Is there some type of guidance that Roberts Rules can offer me regarding the accesibility of a list of eligible voters for our organization. At our last board meeting the secretary referenced that he had an up to date spreadsheet that has tracked attendance which in turn determines eligibility.

The secretary position is being contested in this year's election and it appears that there is an unfair advantage if both candidates do not have access to the list. The current secretary refused to turn it over to a member of the executive board as well as a member of the nominating committee. He said it could be created via the monthly minutes if anyone wants it.

Is there any specific language that will show us whether this is acceptable? By withholding this information is he subject to any sanctions by the lorganization?

Thank You

...I simply want the secretary to relinquish a document that he has created that summarizes who is currently eligible to vote heading into the elections.....

....

No one here is responsible for writing this rule of yours that restricts the voting rights of members, and no one here is in a very good position to advise you on how this rule of yours (which they really know nothing about) is to be implemented or enforced.

I think Scott's question is actually an interesting one, although a RONR-based answer doesn't immediately jump out at me.

It appears the secretary has used his easy access to the past minutes (easier access than is available to other members, simply by virtue of his position as secretary) to do a form of 'data mining', and is now using the data for possible personal benefit. The secretary is right that other members could do the same thing, by making the effort to look at the past minutes, and dig out the information. However, it wouldn't be nearly as easy for those other members.

Sorry not to offer an opinion right off, but hopefully more posters will chime in. Going off to ponder....

In general, is the fruit of 'mining' the minutes a 'record of the organization'? It certainly is directly derived from an official record of the organization, and it doesn't seem right for it to belong personally to the secretary. Perhaps the rules for access should be the same as the rules of access for the minutes it was derived from?

As Mr. Honemann notes, basing voting eligibility on attendance is a rule of the organization (not a rule from RONR). Furthermore, the practice of recording attendance in the minutes is not part of the format suggested in RONR, although I suppose once you create an attendance rule, you then have to keep track of attendance somehow.

[hmtcastle]

It appears the secretary has used his easy access to the past minutes (easier access than is available to other members, simply by virtue of his position as secretary) to do a form of 'data mining', and is now using the data for possible personal benefit.

Thanks to Trina's comments, I see that I overlooked a key element in the original question: namely, that the eligibility to vote is based on attendance, not simply a membership list. I thus focused, unnecessarily, on the privacy of the membership list (which, in its irrelevance, may have seemed like an obsession).

If attendance is recorded in the minutes then, clearly, all members have a right to access the attendance records. But, to use Trina's "fruit" metaphor, I'm not sure they have a right to someone else's harvest, even if that someone else is the secretary, who happens to live in the orchard.

[Josh Martin]

I dont want to overcomplicate this. The document I am referring to is simply a spreadheet that the current secretary has compiled based on the meeting attendance over the course of 2010.

Then I'll keep it simple - make a motion ordering the secretary to release the document to whoever you think should have access to it. Majority rules.

On Page 442 under the duties of the secretary #4 states that the secretary is to "make the minutes and records available to members upon request."

Yes, and under #8, RONR explains what the other records are that it is referring to: "To maintain record book(s) in which the bylaws, special rules of order, standing rules, and minutes are entered, with any amendments to these documents properly recorded, and to have the current record book(s) on hand at every meeting." Under "Records of the Secretary," it is clarified that the records also include reports of committees. The assembly may well have other records beyond those included in RONR, but who has access to those other records is up to the assembly. The "records" referred to under #4 does not include records kept by an assembly above and beyond what is required in RONR.

[Trina]

Then I'll keep it simple - make a motion ordering the secretary to release the document to whoever you think should have access to it. Majority rules.

And that suggests another (slightly different) way to skin the cat. The assembly could simply ignore the fact that the secretary already did this work, announced that he had this spreadsheet showing eligible members, and then refused to share it freely. Instead, take the approach that the assembly is free to order the secretary to review the attendance information in the minutes, and to prepare a list to be submitted to the assembly... and then make a motion to have the secretary carry out that assignment.

What he did before could be treated as irrelevant... except perhaps by the voters in the upcoming election, as they consider whether it is a good idea to have a secretary who has this proprietary attitude toward information which belongs to the organization...

...

If attendance is recorded in the minutes then, clearly, all members have a right to access the attendance records. But, to use Trina's "fruit" metaphor, I'm not sure they have a right to someone else's harvest, even if that someone else is the secretary, who happens to live in the orchard.

Yes, and under #8, RONR explains what the other records are that it is referring to: "To maintain record book(s) in which the bylaws, special rules of order, standing rules, and minutes are entered, with any amendments to these documents properly recorded, and to have the current record book(s) on hand at every meeting." Under "Records of the Secretary," it is clarified that the records also include reports of committees. The assembly may well have other records beyond those included in RONR, but who has access to those other records is up to the assembly. The "records" referred to under #4 does not include records kept by an assembly above and beyond what is required in RONR.

I guess that answers my earlier question as to whether a record entirely derived from the minutes inherits certain properties of the minutes -- namely that any individual member could request to see that record. I believe Mr. Martin is saying that would not be the case, and that the assembly as a whole would have to make the decision on how access to the derived record is to be controlled.

[Guest Scott]

UPDATE.....The post by Mr. Martin is exactly what we did last night at our monthly meeting. There was clear division in the room based on what candidate you supported. When it came to voting they all abstained for fear of looking very silly. Who would publicly vote for a document to be accessible to one candidate and not another? The motion passed with flying colors and I will be given a copy of that eligibility list.

The next phase will be to see how long it takes the current secretary to make it available to me. I fully expect this and will need to find a way to expedite the process.

Thanks to all for the advice!!