I know that we did not pass the measure to amend bylaws, but with the elections coming up, folks that are not able to attend our June meeting should go ahead and send in absentee ballots so that there is no irregularity raised by the vote due to restricting members rights to do so. In support of that, the Bylaws clearly imply absentee voting, tradition has had absentee voting and the vast majority of the BWA members who did vote on the measure supported absentee voting. The election will be tainted if it is not allowed, so, I think everyone who desires to do so, should. It may not matter, hopefully, anyway, but, better to have all votes that want to be placed than to restrict them. Since there is no real rule about when, I would urge that any votes received by the meeting be counted and considered. We can talk about this more at the SC meeting and here. so everyone pipe in that has views.
Brent

That's a sticky area. It would be better if we had a majority voting up or down on the issue this past month, but we didn't even get a majority to vote.

I am personally hoping that absentee votes won't tilt any of the election results and thus will be a non-issue, but I'm torn about the actual issue of allowing absentee voting. I don't want to disenfranchise voters who can't attend the June meeting, but I also want to try to stick to the letter of the law as much as possible. Mostly I want to take another swing at amending the bylaws in July. I'm actually less concerned about what the rules end up being, just so long as they are clear and consistent.

I'll have to give this some more consideration before I can actually ring in on one side of this issue or the other.

Hanley

Hanley:
I agree. That is why I raise it now. I think there will be more taint to disallow members to vote than to simply reinterpret the bylaws as presuming "in person" voting. I hope it will not be an issue also, but, I think we need to address the reality of the predicament now on that score, and then we can have a clearer interpretation with a bylaw change. Right now, there is good reason to allow absentee voting for the reasons I just mentioned.
Brent

I'm for allowing absentee voting at next month's election - just as has been done in the past. While we did not get the majority of the member vote required to actually change the bylaws, the wording of the bylaws as they exist now IMHO clearly implies allowing absentee voting anyway.
barryg

"Clearly implied" is an oxymoron.

I still maintain that the bylaws are written to say what you CAN do. To say that if they don't say you can't, then it must mean you can is wrong.

In this particular situation, however, I think absentee voting and "family memberships"should be allowed because of what we have done in the past and the expectations of people who joined under those circumstances.

Then we need to settle these issues and state them EXPLICITLY.

Fred

I agree that the pulse of the amendment vote is to approve the absentee amendment. I also would agree with you all that we should allow this for the election, but only if it is in a formal manner as it was going to be had the amendment passed. I think this is necessary to keep the votes of all participants in the election legitimate. We should set up one of the methods discussed at some of the previous steering committee meetings. What I would be disappointed to see is absentee votes of no formal format. The last thing we need are random e-mails and the occasional cocktail napkin with votes on them. I am all for allowing it if it is in a formal manner. J

Now, with the agreement for the absentee for this election I have to raise the question of the precedent and "clear implication" in the bylaws allowing absentee voting. In doing research and going to the Law school library I have copied the most current edition of RROR. In the absentee vote section they clearly state that "it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the right to vote is limited to the members of an organization who are actually present at the time the vot is taken in a legal meeting." And article 9 of our bylaws state that RROR shall govern where applicable. However, RROR states that "Exceptions to this rule [for clubs that have a widely distributed membership such as ours] must be expressly stated in the bylaws." this brings to question the ambiguity of how it is stated in our election process section of the bylaws. RROR lastly states that "If there is a possibility of any ucertainty about who will be entitled to vote, this should be spelled out unambiguously and strictly enforced to avoid unfairness in close votes."

So, help me to understand how we can continue under the premise that our bylaws include this method of voting.

As for the precedent, to my knowledge it hasn't been a consistent accross the board use or publicized option, as there are many that have never heard of it as an option until last year. And many that would have exercised their right to vote had they been aware in previous years.


I do, however have to admit that after reading arguments for the absentee allowment from members such as Dustin and Wes, they present valid cases and have helped me to re-evaluate my former view point. This is why I voted for the amendment and made the previous post. Yet, due to the above quoted material I am inclined to feel even more strongly that this issue needs to be added as an amendment. If this means through Hanley's suggestion of promptly after elections based on the membership at that time then so be it. Then we could legitimize this method of voting and put this to rest, but it should be clear otherwise it is deemed to be an illegal method based on clearly stated articles currently in our bylaws.

So as I said before help me understand how we can keep saying it's a precedent and clearly implied? I make this post as an informational statement and also in the hope of understanding the other side of this discussion. Thanks, J

Joey Calder

Joey: Go back over to the library and ask a first year law student about "language construction" often used in statutory "language construction". Can probably ask the librarian there as well. The basic premise of this well established method in the law is to imply intent from the absence of specific language that is used elsewhere in the same instrument. This what Judges all over Kentucky and the United States do to address ambiguity in the wording of documents, whether contracts, statutes, Last Will and Testaments, etc. Here, "member present" language is used in one method of voting and not with the officer elections. That is "clear intent" not to use the "member present" in the section on officer elections. I do not know what awareness folks had of absentee voting over the time you have been in the club over the past few years, but over my 19 years, it has been well known, used and not a problem, ever. With that said, the mere fact that some folks question it made me opt for amending the bylaws to more expressly address this most useful technique for voting among members that are disbursed around a broad greographical region. Hope this helps you see the "other side" as you requested.

Brent

It does Brent, Thank You. Agree with it or not, it does clarify the other side. I would also have to say that I echo your reason for bringing up the amendment to make it as clearly stated as possible and rule out any doubt as to the potential ambiguity of the language. As for the absentee option being well established, I mention it because during my short time as a member (the past 3+ years) I have only heard it expressly stated as an option openly this past year. I am pretty sure there are others in teh same boat so to speak. This lack of a formal method or notification is the source of my unawareness of absentee as an option or long standing precedent. I have been in the situation where I could have used it had I known it was an established precedent, but didn't know and was of the mind set that not being there I had to trust those in attendance to do the right thing. This is the source of my ademant desire to see a formal process established. This way there is no one left out of the loop, especially given the size our our membership base, and it is an open and publicized option for those not able to make the meetings. I would hope you can agree with that point of view and need for the formality of the process. With that I would still like to see us draft a formal/uniform ballot and process of casting and accounting for those absentee votes. Thanks again for the clarification and I look forward to a smooth election process this year. J

Joey Calder

Joey:
Cool
Brent