I would like to give Mr. Seebeck a chance to potentially consider is appeal because I believe he is operating under a very fundamental misunderstanding.
Now that we have cleared up that a sponsor is required.
Email ballots are covered under special rules of order not RONR. RONR concedes that it cannot be strictly followed and discourages emails. However our bylaws allow them.
Mr. Seebeck's appeal is claiming that debate is allowed under RONR. That is irrelevant on two counts. First, RONR does not cover email ballots. HOWEVER, it doesn't matter. Our special rules of order ALLOW DEBATE. The appeal is based upon entirely misapprehended premises.
Please refer to policy manual 1.02.7 which are our special rules of order for email ballots, which I will quote for convenience:
7) Electronic Mail Ballots
Notification of an electronic mail ballot shall be made by the Secretary or Chair by electronic
mail within two (2) days of the question being submitted by the Chair or cosponsored by a
sufficient number of LNC members. This notification shall not include an accompanying
argument for or against passage of the motion though subsequent posting with votes may
contain debate. An LNC Member may change their vote on an electronic mail ballot, provided
that the change is received by the Secretary by the deadline for return of ballots or the entire
LNC has either voted or expressly abstained, whichever comes first.
I bolded the part that factually disproves the appeal. Never did the Chair disallow debate. Our Rules allow debate. There is no angle under which that email ballot is out of order and I kindly ask Mr. Seebeck to re-evaluate his position in light of this imforation.