Guest Jim DeSherlia Posted January 25, 2011 at 07:51 PM Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 at 07:51 PM Recently, the Board of Trustees of our Homeowner's Association mailed ballots to eligible members on a request for expenditure. In the ballot instructions was the phrase "Ballots not received by the above date will be counted as a vote in favor of the proposal." Does RONR have a position on the way ballots were to be counted? Please note that ample time was provided as well as a postage paid return envelope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted January 25, 2011 at 07:55 PM Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 at 07:55 PM " In recording the votes cast, the tellers ignore blank ballots and do not credit illegal votes to any candidate or choice. " RONR, p. 401A blank is equivalent to not voting........which not returning the ballot constitutes.RONR does not support making stuff up as you go along, even though the Board appears to enjoy doing it.Votes by mail are invalid, unless authorized by the bylaws. RONR, pp. 408-409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted January 25, 2011 at 08:23 PM Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 at 08:23 PM . In the ballot instructions was the phrase "Ballots not received by the above date will be counted as a vote in favor of the proposal." Can you say "RIGGED"???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 25, 2011 at 08:34 PM Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 at 08:34 PM Recently, the Board of Trustees of our Homeowner's Association mailed ballots to eligible members on a request for expenditure. In the ballot instructions was the phrase "Ballots not received by the above date will be counted as a vote in favor of the proposal." Does RONR have a position on the way ballots were to be counted? Please note that ample time was provided as well as a postage paid return envelope.Just when you thought you heard the most knuckle-headed thing you ever heard of, you hear of something more knuckle-headed.So they admitted in writing that they were planning on counting the ballots improperly, in complete violation of Robert's Rules? Wow. IF that's the case, please point out to them that nobody moved, seconded, or returned a ballot authorizing the treasurer to pay me a thousand bucks, so that measure passed unanimously! I will be expecting a check at your earliest convenience. I also take Paypal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jim DeSherlia Posted January 25, 2011 at 08:45 PM Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 at 08:45 PM I apologize for failing to mention that at the time the ballot was taken RONR was not accepted or in force. Adoption of RONR is now under consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted January 25, 2011 at 08:47 PM Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 at 08:47 PM I apologize for failing to mention that at the time the ballot was taken RONR was not accepted or in force. Adoption of RONR is now under consideration.I don't think that changes a thing, sir. Some things are just true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 25, 2011 at 09:11 PM Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 at 09:11 PM I apologize for failing to mention that at the time the ballot was taken RONR was not accepted or in force. Adoption of RONR is now under consideration.That doesn't matter. No parliamentary authority on Earth, nor any existing concept of common parliamentary law, would permit a non-returned ballot to be counted as a Yes vote. It's absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted January 25, 2011 at 09:15 PM Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 at 09:15 PM No parliamentary authority on Earth, nor any existing concept of common parliamentary law, would permit a non-returned ballot to be counted as a Yes vote.But an unusual rule in the bylaws could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 25, 2011 at 10:07 PM Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 at 10:07 PM But an unusual rule in the bylaws could.Yep. But what odds are you giving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted January 25, 2011 at 10:08 PM Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 at 10:08 PM Yep. But what odds are you giving?I think I can say I wouldn't be surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 25, 2011 at 10:40 PM Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 at 10:40 PM I apologize for failing to mention that at the time the ballot was taken RONR was not accepted or in force.An assembly which has not adopted any parliamentary authority is still bound by the common parliamentary law. Ballots which have not been returned are abstentions regardless of any erroneous correspondence to the contrary. A rule in the Bylaws would be necessary to treat unreturned ballots as anything other than abstentions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert conway Posted January 25, 2011 at 11:07 PM Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 at 11:07 PM An assembly which has not adopted any parliamentary authority is still bound by the common parliamentary law. Ballots which have not been returned are abstentions regardless of any erroneous correspondence to the contrary. A rule in the Bylaws would be necessary to treat unreturned ballots as anything other than abstentions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert conway Posted January 25, 2011 at 11:11 PM Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 at 11:11 PM Josh, common parliamentary laws.I am not familiar with this,do you mean normal common sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted January 25, 2011 at 11:19 PM Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 at 11:19 PM Josh, common parliamentary laws.I am not familiar with this,do you mean normal common sense?No, common parliamentary law (not "laws") refers to the generally accepted principles of parliamentary procedure. Such fundamentals as majority rule, voting by members only, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert conway Posted January 26, 2011 at 12:53 AM Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 at 12:53 AM No, common parliamentary law (not "laws") refers to the generally accepted principles of parliamentary procedure. Such fundamentals as majority rule, voting by members only, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert conway Posted January 26, 2011 at 01:18 AM Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 at 01:18 AM I like this answer, because it satisfys a curiosity I have had since 1959.The comapany I worked for would (every four years) have a Phycologist interview and test all employees at certain levels (degrees of management) for skills. What ever..... I was young. It was a Paper Machinery co.Interview for results: She asked me why I answered one question the way I did, or came to the conclusion I did.I told her that my common sense told me the answer. SHE SAID THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS COMMON SENSE!! Yes of course I had argued with her.Should I have answered "general accepted principles and such fundamentals rules taught in grade school" led to my conclusion.So is there a site I can look at or refer to "common parliamentary law", if I am going to make a case I would need this information Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 26, 2011 at 01:41 AM Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 at 01:41 AM So is there a site I can look at or refer to "common parliamentary law", if I am going to make a case I would need this informationThe leading authority on the common parliamentary law is Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 10th edition. It is not available online. See The Right Book, elsewhere on this site for more information Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.