Subj : Parliamentary rule
To   : Daemon
From : Angus McLeod
Date : Tue Sep 13 2005 04:55 pm

  Re: Parliamentary rule
  By: Daemon to Angus on Tue Sep 13 2005 11:16:00

 >   About your voting thing...

Thanks for your detailed reply.  Much appreciated.  I just hope it doesn't 
prevent OTHERS from expressing their own opinions!

 >   Specifically, every single one has followed Roberts Rules of Order...

Yes, well, I'd like to think Roberts Rules were adhered to.  But as a 
small organization, we feel free to craft rules and regulations that suit 
our own particular needs, should any such situations arise.

 >   Quorum, traditionally, is usually 50% of the membership, rounded-up to the
 > nearest whole number, and most votes for action on a question is determined
 > (except under special circumstances) with a simple majority of voice vote.

As defined by our constitution, quorum depends on the type of the meeting.  
An ordinary general meeting is 50%.  The AGM is 2/3rds, and a Special 
General Meeting is also 2/3rds.  An Executive Committee meeting requires 
THREE members present, which is the same as ALL since the sice of the EC 
is currently three.

 >   In your case, where the intention is to preserve the internal resistance t
 > change above and beyond external considerations, it's VERY reasonable to hav
 > a 2/3 standard, especially in regards to membership acceptance.

What I was discussing here was not a vote at a meeting, but rather the 
response to a postal ballot to decide whether an applicant was to be 
accepted for membership, or not.  We considered a simple 51% majority, but 
that left open the possibility that a new member might be accepted on a 
hair-thin majority with *almost* half the club against his entry.

 >   Anyway, an abstention is like a time-out.  In abstaining from a vote on an
 > question, a person's pretty much saying "I'm not here right now in a capacit
 > relevent to the question on the table".  As such, the abstainer voluntarily
 > removes himself from being counted towards meeting the requirements for the
 > vote.

I am well familiar with that PoV.  But here is another perspective:  An 
applicant for membership has a job cut out for him, which is to persuade 
existing members that he would be an asset to the club and a congenial 
companion during club activities.  In that regard, if you fail to persuade 
a member to vote YES on your behalf, you have failed to show that you are 
indeed a congenial fellow, and a potential asset to the club.

 >   Bottom line, though, is that an abstention flat-out shouldn't count toward
 > meeting a voting requirement.  They are neither presumed to be a Yes vore or
 > a NO vote; they're not a relevent presence, voluntarily.

Again, what about the idea that an abstention represents someone who was 
NOT PERSUADED that the candidate would be a good member?

 >   (I also want to take a second and wonder aloud here what the point of
 > abstaining from a secret ballot over membership of a club is in the first
 > place.  There are various legal reasons for this to occur in a political
 > organization - conflicts of interests, etc - but I don't get the impression
 > your group's political?)

You are thinking in terms of a ballot cast at a meeting.  But this is a 
POSTAL ballot.  Now consider that the more people that abstain, the less 
votes the applicant needs.  We live in a small country, and people are 
frequently travelling abroad.  It is quite possible for an applicant to 
call for a vote when two or three members are away.  Given the small size 
of the club, this can significantly swing the vote for the applicant.  It 
has happened before.  Also, there must (obviously) be a deadline for the 
return of the postal ballots.  The last time a vote was taken, four 
ballots were returned AFTER the deadline.  To prevent this, *I* delivered 
my ballot to the secretary personally, but the four others did not do so.  
And of course, there is always human laziness and apathy.  People won't 
vote because they forget or can't be bothered or lose their ballot paper.

In the past (before adoption of the current rules) there was much 
manipulation and fiddling to get friends in to the club "through the back 
door" so to speak.  People were admitted to the club before some members 
had ever had a chance to meet them -- in one or two cases, before some 
members knew they had applied!  

Now, if we were to hold a meeting, and call for a vote, the issue of 
abstentions would hardly arise.  Nobody is going to abstain unless they 
REALLY want to abstain.  But with the postal ballot, an abstention *might* 
be someone who is out of the island for a month, or someone whose ballot 
has been delayed by the post office.


---
 þ Synchronet þ Generated automatically on The ANJO BBS

.