It was no where near 80%. I am thinking nearer 250 voters.
I know the 2017 election was around 10%.
Votes does not equal turn out.
Votes / 5 is the turn out.
@stansimmons. What was the 2018 voter turn out?
I’ll have to dig it out of the wiki when I get back.
1 Like
The Annual Meeting is here: https://dallasmakerspace.org/wiki/Annual_Member_Meeting_20180412 but they don’t list the total votes cast.
It looks like there were 47 votes cast in person, but the online votes cast is a little murky. It lists the totals for each person, but not everyone cast 5 votes, so dividing the total by 5 doesn’t work. @Lampy handled the online portion of the voting and should have that information.
1 Like
I’m guessing the 80% number is 80% of members registered with voting rights (as opposed to 80% of total number of members or members who could be eligible to vote should they ask for it)? I seem to remember there being around 300 or so “voting members”.
You’re right, but dividing by 5 will give a lower bound at least.
Thanks, however I did not have the notion that votes = turnout.
SImply Voting tells us the exact number of people who cast a vote, regardless of how many people they voted for.
Sources:
https://dallasmakerspace.simplyvoting.com/index.php?mode=results&election=64499 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13XvR0JJvcjdVPs6G70UD9e5Z8EuQs1n_YcgTI_63DcA/edit#gid=0
3 Likes
As Luke points out, we did reach quorum in our last election. It was only a couple of years ago that we made quorum in 2 member meetings back to back.
Quorum is not the problem. The substance of the meeting is what is needed. ByLaw changes, or a defense of our rules & bylaws will do it.
I collected 163 signatures. From people physically at space over a 10 day period (sans a weekend with the boys). I talked to many more that would vote.
200 is a small number for something of this scale.
Voting for bylaw changes must be regular members in good standing who have been here 90 days an. Add on family members are not eligible.
Thanks for getting that info before I noticed the request.
Quorum isn’t a characteristic of an election. It is a characteristic of a meeting.
This is traditionally never an issue, because by “default” rules in just about any parliamentary authority one could think of (Robert’s, but also Mason’s, Demeter’s, the Standard Code, and a few dozen others) no vote is binding to a membership unless it occurs in a meeting. Bylaws can make exceptions to that, but a blanket “exception” for the outside-of-meeting passage of any motion is not an exception at all, but a redefinition. (Typical exceptions include election of organizational officers, for example)
If one meant for a vote to be able to be held without a meeting, and wanted to say something about the minimum votes for it to count, they’d talk about minimums to “votes cast,” not to “quorum.”. The fact that a quorum of 2/3 of voting membership would be required for some of the things named above is a reflection of the authors intending it to be hard to do, which makes sense (especially when we’re talking about the ability to fully rewrite the bylaws!). It means that that many folks in the org feel like this issue is of sufficient gravity to show up for to a scheduled meeting, announced with sufficient previous notice. Casting a vote online doesn’t either de jure or de facto meet that quorum criterion.
2 Likes
The way we hold board elections is by proxy via electronic voting. This is how we meet quorum for the membership meeting election. Rarely if ever do we have enough members at monthly membership meetings to make quorum with 1/3 of the voting members but no one even counts or puts anything on the agenda. It has turned into an announcement meeting and potluck. This is an issue. I think we should make quorum in membership meetings many times a year outside of elections and hold business. I don’t think people realize that they have more power than the board.
1 Like
Online voting is simply proxy voting, an in-person respresentitve would appear at an in-person meeting available to members.
Online voting isn’t proxy voting – it’s online(/electronic) voting. Were it proxy voting, the proxy would actually have to be assigned, which would be a problem for two reasons: one, because any authority that grants the ability for proxy voting typically also puts quantity limitations on the proxies held by one person, and two, because proxies for voting purposes aren’t automatically also necessarily considered as attendance for quorum purposes.
As I said in my earlier comment, it is not uncommon that an exception be made in an organization allowing some sort of outside-of-meeting “remote” voting when it comes to the election of the organization’s officers – that would include the process by which we hold board elections. That exception doesn’t itself grant any other process that same avenue for voting, let alone somehow affect how quorum is counted. It is still the case that, again, quorum is a characteristic of a meeting – not a vote.
2 Likes
Actually ours is proxy voting. The members cast their votes online and the secretary applied them as proxies in the meeting.
Actually … proxies can only be in writing …
Section 4.8 Proxies https://dallasmakerspace.org/wiki/Bylaws#Section_4.8_Proxies
At any meeting of members, a member entitled to vote may vote by proxy executed in writing by the member or by his duly authorized attorney-in-fact in accordance with the requirements of law.
What is WRITING? https://thelawdictionary.org/writing/
The expression of ideas by letters visible to the eye. Clason v. Bailey, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 491. The giving an outward and objective form to a contract, will, etc.,by means of letters or marks placed upon paper, parchment, or other material substance. In the most general sense of the word, “writing” denotes a document, whether manuscript or printed, as opposed to mere spoken words. Writing is essential to the validity of certain contracts and other transactions.
The online vote wasn’t auditory, right? At least when I did it, it was written. I read it and responded in kind. (Not the first document I’ve signed online, either… pretty sure the IRS has a good handle on the validity of online “writing”.) I don’t see a problem there.
That said: a proxy vote is a vote cast by a proxy. A proxy is a person. So either we’re saying the secretary acted as proxy for a few hundred members – problematic for a number of reasons, some likely obvious – or, more fittingly, we conducted a vote via online medium. People are of course free to call anything whatever they like; that’s how descriptively defined language works. But as far as the given meaning within the context of parliamentary practice, it would be a difficult argument to make that this was a “proxy” vote, and a much more straightforward one to say that this was an “electronic” vote.
EDIT: Though I will say – it’s possible that the text I agreed to when I consented to vote by email said something about my granting a proxy to some particular person to cast my vote – in which case somebody did cast a few hundred votes or whatnot by proxy, but at least it was via a proxy duly authorized (even if I wasn’t paying attention to the fact I did so).
1 Like
The definition and expansion of what constitutes “a writing” has a greatly expanded in the 200+ years (1817) since Calson was issued.
Texas statute more relevant and on point an covers electronic records, signatures and contracts. If YOU personally don’t agree to an electronic transaction you can opt out. As can the the other side for refusing to accept it as part of the bargain (try demanding a physical EUA to sign). DMS provides the option of physical ballots for you to exercise your vote.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/BC/htm/BC.322.htm
Sec. 322.007. LEGAL RECOGNITION OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS, ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES, AND ELECTRONIC CONTRACTS.
(a) A record or signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form.
(b) A contract may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because an electronic record was used in its formation.
© If a law requires a record to be in writing, an electronic record satisfies the law.
(d) If a law requires a signature, an electronic signature satisfies the law.
Sec. 322.004. PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION. This chapter applies to any electronic record or electronic signature created, generated, sent, communicated, received, or stored on or after January 1, 2002.
Statutory Exceptions. Does it apply? I think it does. If you can find a statutory reference as an exception I’ll stand corrected. I couldn’t find a relevant one.
Sec. 322.003. SCOPE.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in Subsection (b), this chapter applies to electronic records and electronic signatures relating to a transaction.
(b) This chapter does not apply to a transaction to the extent it is governed by:
(1) a law governing the creation and execution of wills, codicils, or testamentary trusts; or
(2) the Uniform Commercial Code, other than Sections 1.107 and 1.206 and Chapters 2 and 2A.
© This chapter applies to an electronic record or electronic signature otherwise excluded from the application of this chapter under Subsection (b) when used for a transaction subject to a law other than those specified in Subsection (b).
(d) A transaction subject to this chapter is also subject to other applicable substantive law
Opt Out of Electronic format: YOU personally can always use physical ballots, DMS provides these for members. You can do it on a case by case basis. When we “signed” the DMS kiosk waiver, that was electronic, when we joined online, that was electronic. When we joined TALK that was electronic. DMS has electronic agreements with members often and they are binding under this statute.
322.005. USE OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS AND ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES; VARIATION BY AGREEMENT.
(a) This chapter does not require a record or signature to be created, generated, sent, communicated, received, stored, or otherwise processed or used by electronic means or in electronic form.
(b) This chapter applies only to transactions between parties each of which has agreed to conduct transactions by electronic means. Whether the parties agree to conduct a transaction by electronic means is determined from the context and surrounding circumstances, including the parties’ conduct.
(c ) A party that agrees to conduct a transaction by electronic means may refuse to conduct other transactions by electronic means. The right granted by this subsection may not be waived by agreement.
(d) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the effect of any of its provisions may be varied by agreement. The presence in certain provisions of this chapter of the words “unless otherwise agreed,” or words of similar import, does not imply that the effect of other provisions may not be varied by agreement.
(e) Whether an electronic record or electronic signature has legal consequences is determined by this chapter and other applicable law.
3 Likes
Subject to the provisions of this code and the certificate of formation and bylaws of a corporation, a meeting of the members of a corporation, the board of directors of a corporation, or any committee designated by the board of directors of a corporation may be held by means of a remote electronic communications system, including videoconferencing technology or the Internet, only if:
(1) each person entitled to participate in the meeting consents to the meeting being held by means of that system; and
(2) the system provides access to the meeting in a manner or using a method by which each person participating in the meeting can communicate concurrently with each other participant.
Regardless of voting, in order to get a quorum by electronic means it must satisfy this requirement.
If you mean “in order to hold a meeting by electronic means,” then sure. The statute you quoted says nothing about quorum. Quorum isn’t “can we have a meeting.” It is, specifically, the number of members of an organization that must at minimum be at any given meeting (or any given meeting for which that particular quorum is defined) for that meeting’s business to be valid. If you’re doing something outside of the context of a meeting, that doesn’t mean much, of course. Again: quorum is a characteristic of a meeting.
2 Likes
If the voting is separate from the meeting, like we were talking about in person and doesn’t require a quorum then the results need to be ratified at a membership meeting and that meeting must have quorum and if that meeting is held electronically or over the internet then the law I stated still applies.