Was this a properly held vote?

[David A Foulkes]

Point well taken and I know it to be true. I suppose I should've said the chair seemed to decide unilaterally to do it that way!

I suppose this could be a case of unanimous consent, as no one raised a Point of Order at the time. Sadly, too many organizations seem to be in the circumstance where the members knows very little about parliamentary procedure, and the chair (knowing perhaps only slightly more, or just being power mad) asserts his authority with what sounds like "The Rules", and the members follow innocently along. The phrase "unanimous consent" seems more and more to be the equivalent of lack of knowledge and the (misplaced) trust in one's leaders.

[Gary Novosielski]

I suppose this could be a case of unanimous consent, as no one raised a Point of Order at the time. Sadly, too many organizations seem to be in the circumstance where the members knows very little about parliamentary procedure, and the chair (knowing perhaps only slightly more, or just being power mad) asserts his authority with what sounds like "The Rules", and the members follow innocently along. The phrase "unanimous consent" seems more and more to be the equivalent of lack of knowledge and the (misplaced) trust in one's leaders.

Well, I don't have too much of a problem with the use of unanimous consent as long as it's used properly. I think at a minimum, the chair should always indicate that he is prepared to use unanimous consent by one of the cue phrases, "if there is no objection," "without objection," "is there objection?", or "hearing no objection."

If the chair does not indicate that objection would be in order, I count that as a failure of proper chairmanship, and if I did not agree with the proposed action, and perhaps even if I did, I would be inclined to raise a point of order that the chair had failed to put the question, rather than simply objecting.

[HawaiiThad]

OK, I made it to the library and read over some of RONR. I also found the the governing document, 2008 Neighborhood Plan, here:

http://www1.honolulu.gov/nco/2008nplan.htm

The section of voting is 2-14-115.

I think I misused some terms in previous posts, so I'll try to clarify. I think the best way to state how the voting was done is to say that the viva-voce method of election was used, but the actual voting was done by roll-call, rather than by show of hands, voice vote, etc. I believe that, as Gary Novosielski intimated, since the members of the Neighborhood Board are elected officials, their votes need to be public, thus voting by ballot is not permissible. I've never seen them vote any other way, so that kinda makes sense.

I have only been attending these meetings for a little over a year. The Chair has been on this board for at least ten years and has been Chair for a long time too. It seems to me she should have known that this was an unfair voting method and should have conducted the election in some other fashion.

What I can't figure out now is what should have been done. The Plan states that "The members shall vote in the affirmative, negative, or may abstain." Does that mean that members couldn't have voted for a particular candidate in a ballot election?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

... since the members of the Neighborhood Board are elected officials, their votes need to be public, thus voting by ballot is not permissible.

Not true.

I can devise (anyone can devise) how to use a ballot (i.e., a piece of paper) in a vote, and still comply with your cited rule.

What I can't figure out now is what should have been done.

The Plan states that

"The members shall vote in the affirmative, negative, or may abstain."

Does that mean that members couldn't have voted for a particular candidate in a ballot election?

Beware.

Again, you are asking for an interpretation of a rule which is unique to your organization, and not anywhere near what Robert's Rules of Order specifies.

We cannot interpret weird, one-shot rules. -- At least, not with any authority. (We can try to spin the rule every which way. But none of those ways will be official or superior to anybody else's spin.)

Do you have a question about Robert's Rules of Order?

[Josh Martin]

I think the best way to state how the voting was done is to say that the viva-voce method of election was used, but the actual voting was done by roll-call, rather than by show of hands, voice vote, etc.

I agree, but this sort of "mix and match" strategy is not really supported by RONR.

I believe that, as Gary Novosielski intimated, since the members of the Neighborhood Board are elected officials, their votes need to be public, thus voting by ballot is not permissible.

There is something called a "signed ballot," but that's really more of a written form of a roll call vote. It's generally used in large assemblies where a traditional roll call vote would take too much time.

The Plan states that "The members shall vote in the affirmative, negative, or may abstain." Does that mean that members couldn't have voted for a particular candidate in a ballot election?

It is up to the assembly to interpret its own rules.

[Gary Novosielski]

I think I misused some terms in previous posts, so I'll try to clarify. I think the best way to state how the voting was done is to say that the viva-voce method of election was used, but the actual voting was done by roll-call, rather than by show of hands, voice vote, etc. I believe that, as Gary Novosielski intimated, since the members of the Neighborhood Board are elected officials, their votes need to be public, thus voting by ballot is not permissible. I've never seen them vote any other way, so that kinda makes sense.

On the contrary. A signed ballot is perfectly acceptable in that instance. You print the name of the person you're voting for, and sign the bottom.

During the voting process, as the votes are counted, there is no need to read aloud the names of who voted how. If a second (or subsequent) ballot is needed, proceed as before. This helps members to vote independently of how others are voting, and it avoids the first-at-bat problem you noted above.

Once someone achieves a majority, the ballots can be read and the voters identified. The vote is recorded in the minutes, indicating the vote of each member, which meets the requirement of making the vote public.

I am reasonably certain that the names of voters need not be revealed on the non-productive ballots, but I'd welcome additional opinions.

[Josh Martin]

This helps members to vote independently of how others are voting, and it avoids the first-at-bat problem you noted above.

A traditional roll call vote would also avoid the first-at-bat problem if they did it right.

I am reasonably certain that the names of voters need not be revealed on the non-productive ballots, but I'd welcome additional opinions.

RONR does not really delve into the details for a signed ballot, but I believe that a member who turned in a blank (but signed) ballot would be recorded in the minutes in much the same way as a member who answers "Present" or "Abstain" in a traditional roll call vote. A member who turned in an unsigned ballot would not be recorded in the minutes unless his name was needed to demonstrate the presence of a quorum, in much the same way as a member who remains silent in a traditional roll call vote.

[hmtcastle]

During the voting process, as the votes are counted, there is no need to read aloud the names of who voted how.

If a vote by signed ballot [sic] is essentially a roll-call vote, why not?

[Gary Novosielski]

If a vote by signed ballot [sic] is essentially a roll-call vote, why not?

Because that is the one way it differs from a roll-call vote? I dunno.

The point of using paper is (presumably) to allow people to vote uninfluenced by the votes of others. Since only the last ballot has any effect, I suggest that the identity of the voters need not be announced during the balloting process, even though I could find no reason [not] to record the results of each round in the minutes, and announce them after the final result is known.

I'm just floating a way to accomplish what the OP was looking for in a way that would appear to satisfy their legal requirement.

[Josh Martin]

The point of using paper is (presumably) to allow people to vote uninfluenced by the votes of others.

The point of using paper is to save time in assemblies which have a large membership but low attendance, so there is no need to waste time reading the names of all the absent members.

[HawaiiThad]

Thanks for all the input, everyone. I think I need to decide how to proceed. At first, I figured that the Chair held the election this way so it would be easier for her to get her preferred candidate elected. But now I am questioning if this isn't SOP at these meetings. I was all set to go off at the next Neighborhood Board meeting about how the Chair held an unfair election and knew that it was unfair. But before I do that, I think I should find out how other Neighborhood Boards run their elections to fill vacancies. I'm not sure where to get that info, but I'll look around.

Mahalo. (Hawaiian for 'Thanks'!)

[Gary Novosielski]

Thanks for all the input, everyone. I think I need to decide how to proceed. At first, I figured that the Chair held the election this way so it would be easier for her to get her preferred candidate elected. But now I am questioning if this isn't SOP at these meetings. I was all set to go off at the next Neighborhood Board meeting about how the Chair held an unfair election and knew that it was unfair. But before I do that, I think I should find out how other Neighborhood Boards run their elections to fill vacancies. I'm not sure where to get that info, but I'll look around.

Mahalo. (Hawaiian for 'Thanks'!)

He me iki ia.

[David A Foulkes]

He me iki ia.

And off we all go to Google Translate!!