Interesting Question re Voting

Bruce,

Good question. And, IMO, the answer is, you couldn't. I believe if this method of voting were to be used the Pres. should state b/4 the vote is taken that only one member per household may vote. Then you just have to rely on the members to do the right thing. If there is a doubt, you could always call for a voice vote and hope that the board members know all the members present!

George,

I am very familiar with Roberts Rules, and true, any member who questions the vote can demand a division, which would work only if the president recognizes every unit owner and can determine that, in fact, there is only one vote per unit. A roll call vote can also be required whereby the secretary would call the role of units and each would respond with a yea or nay vote. That could take a very long time.

Although the president may rule on the outcome, the question still remains, how can there be reasonable assurance, other than the above, that there was only one vote per unit? The mere fact that the president rules on the outcome of the vote doesn't make it so. If the vote is challenged in court, the court will decide if the vote was legal, not the president. What reasonable assurance can be given to the court that there was only one vote per unit?

I think there is a very simple solution. I'm just curious to see if anyone else comes up with it, or with something else.

I'm pretty sure you have. A vote on the motion to adjourn!

(I know, that's trivial, but in reality, even THAT is supposed to be only one vote per unit.)

I understand what you are saying, Robert. There is no reasonable assurance of a viva voce vote. The outcome is entirely up to the decision of the presiding officer. And if there is no objection, and no counted vote, then the decision of the presiding officer is final, legal, and binding.That is why voice votes are most often reserved for non-disputed or non-contentious issues.

As part of his elected duties the presiding officer is empowered to make the determination that only one vote per unit was cast. In fact, he does have the power to "make it so" for all legal purposes. The power can be abused by a heavy handed presiding officer. No question about it.

The only way I know to achieve the certainty of one vote per unit is to have a counted vote.

I have seen a number of solutions to voting in such situations. In one case each unit is issued one paddle with the unit number written on it. When it comes time to vote, a show of paddles is all that is required.

In another case, each unit is issued a page of numbered tickets. For a vote, the presiding officer announces that ticket number X will be used. The unit voting representative will then place the properly numbered ticket in a yes or no box.

I am sure there are many other solutions. But as far as your original question goes, the decision of the presiding officer makes a vote viva voce legal.

A "show of hands"???? You must be kidding. Or voice?

Maybe as just an "opinion" to do something. Or to get something "started". But as a "legal" vote?

I doubt it.

RONR is now using the 10th edition - but in any case, by a voice vote, there could be no guarantee since you have allowed couple members with just one vote to be in the audience. Both could voice their vote and no one would know.

Requiring that all voting be by ballot would stop the confusion.

I found the question interesting when it was asked of me. Frankly, I never thought about it before it was asked. It then occurred to me that when asked "all in favor" or "those opposed" many people would just naturally respond either verbally or by raising their hand without thinking of the fact that only one person might be entitled to vote.

Credit goes to George for suggesting the solution that I had come up with. Issue a paddle (like a ping pong paddle), one per unit, as each homeowner checks in. Paddles being more costly, my solution was to issue a a "voting card," maybe about 5" x 7" or similar, one for each unit. Voting would be by raising the paddles or cards and not by raising hands. Certainly, no voice votes (I chose that expression over viva voce because this is the 21st century and it's more easily recognized).

Our HOA attorney suggests "generic" ballots. When checking in an envelope containing generic ballots is issued, one to each unit. One ballot is simply labeled "Question 1," another is labeled "Question 2" another "Question 3" and so on. Each ballot also includes "yes" and "no." The ballots are then used to vote on any item that comes up during the meeting.

George, your copy of Roberts Rules is severely outdated. Your'e six editions behind. There have been about 50 changes or clarifications between the 9th and 10th editions alone, including some pertaining to voting.

Hmm. I have to say I'm partial to Kirk's solution as well. Since our inception, we have only had written ballots for any items of any substance (not including the motion and vote to adjourn).

We also pass out slips of papers with the lot number/address on it and it is checked against a master list of those residents in good standing, since members in good standing aren't allowed to vote, so ANY vote taken must be matched up against the "good standing" list.

That would definitely filter out "double dippers."

I agree, that's what a lot of people do, but that's not proper parliamentary procedure. A more proper procedure is for the president to say something like, "Unless there is further business, I will entertain a motion to adjourn" or words to that effect, to which someone might repond, "so moved." The president should then ask for a second, and, upon hearing a second, conduct a vote on the motion to adjourn. The motion to adjourn is not debateable. If the president does as you say he does, he is not following proper parliamentary procedure. A procedure such as this (many do it) is a "short-circuit" of the proper procedure that has evolved over the years. Some do it that way because they've seen others do it that way. Bad idea.

I find it somewhat sad, and I get concerned, when parliamentary procedures are short-circuited. Although in many cases it may seem innocent and inconsequential, other procedures are likely to suffer the same fate in time. Parliamentary procedures were developed over time as a compromise to protect the rights of the whole, the rights of majority, the rights of the minority, and the rights of the individual. When parliamentary procedures are short-circuited, someone's rights are not being upheld. I realize that many feel that proper parliamentary procedures can be overly complicated, and that may be true in very involved circumstances. But in the majority of cases as applied to the majority of meetings, the basics are really very simple.

As a note, there is another possibility that has not been mentioned in anything that might be close. Not only is it possible that both people of a couple in a single unit voted, it is also possible that someone who holds multiple votes did not get counted the number of times they deserve.

As an illustration, I went to our last meeting with 12 proxies. Thus I had the right to cast 13 votes. In a voice of hand count, it is unlikely that someone would actually count my vote 13 times.

You're right but a voice vote to adjourn between 4 or 5 directors is not like a voice vote by all owners. I'm not sure what you mean that is supposed to be only one vote per unit. The board members all know each other so this is something quite differen from a membership vote.

For important votes in our HOA, each household is provided ONE ballot and must sign for it.

Your new procedure takes away the secrecy factor. A better way, IMO, is to have a separate envelope with the owner's name & number on it, into which the ballot is placed. This envelope is then placed into another envelope for mailing. At the time the ballots are counted, the name & number on all inner envelopes are verifed, then opened and the ballots counted. This procedures allows for the verification of names & lot numbers while still protecting the privacy of the vote.

Michelle,

Oops, I got a little off-topic.

But, it's still possible to maintain secrecy by not printing the name and unit number of the member on the ballot. Instead, each member should sign in when they arrive at the meeting. The secretary checks to make certain they are eligible to vote and hands them a ballot. When ballots are used, I'm a strong advocate for secrecy.

Dana,

The concept of using ballots in the first place is to preserve secrecy and not necessarily to guarantee one vote per household. A roll-call vote can guarantee one vote per household, but it doesn't preserve secrecy. If secrecy is not important, why not use a roll-call vote instead?

Well, although most FL elections are supposed to be by secret ballot, if board members are seeking re-elections then their names will show on pre-printed ballot mailed to all homeowners. However, the vote itself would be secret. The same goes for Ohio where I still own a home.