[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-20: Increase Branding Budget 4

[Alicia Mattson]

Voting has ended for the email ballot shown below:

*Voting "aye":*  Bilyeu, Bittner, Demarest, Goldstein, Hagan, Harlos,
Hayes, Katz, Marsh, McKnight

*Voting "nay":*  (none)

*Express Abstention:*  Lark

*Doubtful vote:*  Redpath

With a final vote tally of 10-0, the motion PASSES.

A couple of notes:

1)  Under normal circumstances, I keep up with email better and will catch
any stray votes cast in other threads.  Recently I have been excessively
busy and have not kept up with all my email traffic.  If there are votes on
this email ballot which were cast in other threads, just point them out to
me, and I'll adjust these results.  My schedule is starting to return to
normal, so I expect to catch up over the next couple of weeks.

2)  I listed Mr. Redpath's vote above as "doubtful".  I don't like to be in
the position of interpreting votes, so I ask people to clearly state their
votes as affirmative or negative.  His vote was the word "indubitably,
which makes it a little ironic that I'm listing it as being doubtful, but
the word itself is not inherently affirmative or negative.  I strongly
suspect he meant "indubitably yes", rather than "indubitably no", but I
don't like to have to interpret.  Had I been more available for email
conversations at the time, I would have asked him to clarify before the end
of the vote.  Here's what RONR (11th ed., p. 416) says on the subject:

"Technical errors, like the misspelling of a word or name, do not make a
vote illegal if the meaning of the ballot is clear. If the meaning of one
or more ballots is doubtful, they can be treated as illegal if it is
impossible for them to affect the result; but if they may affect the
result, the tellers report them to the chair, who immediately submits to
the assembly the question of how these ballots should be recorded. When
reporting doubtful ballots, the tellers must be careful whenever possible
not to show how the decision would affect any of the candidates."

There are circumstances in which I would object to someone getting to see
the results before they get to specify what their otherwise unclear ballot
really meant (ponder the last sentence of the RONR passage above).  In this
case, the result would not be affected either way, but it's a signed ballot
so we know who cast it, and we all get to see the votes as they come in
anyway.  I could just leave this categorized as an illegal ballot since it
doesn't affect the result, but under these particular circumstances I think
I'd also be fine with merely having Mr. Redpath confirm his intent and
recording it that way for the final record in the future minutes.

-Alicia




On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 11:58 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:

> We have an electronic mail ballot.
>
>
> *Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by November 14, 2017 at 11:59:59pm
> Pacific time.*
> *Co-Sponsors:*  Hagan, Hayes, Harlos, Goldstein
>
> *Motion:*  to increase the budgets for both Line 26-Brand
> Development/Political Materials Revenue and Line 55-Brand
> Development/Political Materials Expenses from $60,000 each to $80,000 each
>
> -Alicia
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20171117/2fcaff97/attachment-0002.html>