Reconsidering an Election

[George Mervosh]

On tinted page 19, under motion 49 (someday I'll stop obsessing with this), it notes "Election cannot be reconsidered after person elected learns of it, and has not declined."

 

It seems to me that the most reasonable reason to reconsider the vote when the above criteria is met is in cases where the assembly doesn't want to adjourn without knowing for sure the position is filled.  This would be especially true in organizations that only have an annual meeting or a convention, etc... where the opportunity to complete an election would be very troublesome if not impossible.

 

Does this sound like a correct reason and what other reasons would you think using the motion to reconsider would be a good idea?

 

Question - If the absent member who hasn't learned about his elected submitted a note in advance that he would accept the position he was elected to, would the motion to Reconsider be in order?

[J. J.]

I think the reason might be that there is a kind of contract between the officer and the society (p. 319, ll. 1-3). 

[Kim Goldsworthy]

 

Does this sound like a correct reason

and

what other reasons would you think using the motion to reconsider would be a good idea?

 

Your reason sounds like the only reason.

 

I can think of other scenarios, but they would not be "reasonable". -- Real stretches of the imagination.

[Weldon Merritt]

That seems to be to be the most likely reason. But if the person elected has not yet been notified, then it seems to me that the assembly could reconsider the election for any reason at all. And if the language is taken literally, that would be tree even if the electee had submitted consent in advance, so long as he or she has not been officially notified of election

[Josh Martin]

Does this sound like a correct reason and what other reasons would you think using the motion to reconsider would be a good idea?

That sounds perfectly reasonable. It is also conceivable that the society might wish to reconsider the election after learning of another candidate or learning some troubling information about the person just elected, although I think it may generally be unwise to reconsider the election for such reasons, even in the limited circumstances where this is in order.

Question - If the absent member who hasn't learned about his elected submitted a note in advance that he would accept the position he was elected to, would the motion to Reconsider be in order?

Yes, I think so.

[Edgar Guest]

I apologize if this is off-topic, and I hesitate to post on the Advanced Discussion forum, but am I right to assume that, in the case of an election, a member making the motion to Reconsider must have voted for the winning candidate (i.e. on the prevailing side)? And since elections are usually held by ballot, must the member's word simply be taken at face value? In practical terms, can't any member make a motion to reconsider an election by ballot?

 

Again, apologies.

[Josh Martin]

I apologize if this is off-topic, and I hesitate to post on the Advanced Discussion forum, but am I right to assume that, in the case of an election, a member making the motion to Reconsider must have voted for the winning candidate (i.e. on the prevailing side)? And since elections are usually held by ballot, must the member's word simply be taken at face value? In practical terms, can't any member make a motion to reconsider an election by ballot?

 

Again, apologies.

Yes to all three questions.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Once a person has been elected to office, the election could not be rescinded. As someone who has still much to learn on the nuances of parliamentary procedure, I view the motion to reconsider as a more limited version of the motion to rescind. So if it can't be rescinded, why could it be reconsidered?

[Edgar Guest]

I view the motion to reconsider as a more limited version of the motion to rescind. 

 

I'm going to go out on an advanced limb here and suggest that this is where you've gone wrong.

[J. J.]

Once a person has been elected to office, the election could not be rescinded. As someone who has still much to learn on the nuances of parliamentary procedure, I view the motion to reconsider as a more limited version of the motion to rescind. So if it can't be rescinded, why could it be reconsidered?

 

 

Depending on the wording of the bylaws, it is possible to rescind an election. 

[George Mervosh]

On tinted page 19, under motion 49 (someday I'll stop obsessing with this), it notes "Election cannot be reconsidered after person elected learns of it, and has not declined."

 

Question - If the absent member who hasn't learned about his elected submitted a note in advance that he would accept the position he was elected to, would the motion to Reconsider be in order?

 

 

Yes, I think so.

 

The way the rule is written, I do too.  Thanks.

[Edgar Guest]

Depending on the wording of the bylaws, it is possible to rescind an election. 

 

Don't tease us. How about an example?

[Josh Martin]

As someone who has still much to learn on the nuances of parliamentary procedure, I view the motion to reconsider as a more limited version of the motion to rescind.

 

I don't know that I would describe it was "a more limited version of the motion to Rescind." It's more complicated than that, but yes, the rules for the two motions are often similar.

 

So if it can't be rescinded, why could it be reconsidered?

 

Well, to be clear, this is only under very limited circumstances. An election may only be reconsidered if the elected person has not learned of his election and has not previously consented to his candidacy.

 

Depending on the wording of the bylaws, it is possible to rescind an election. 

 

Not under the 11th edition. Depending on how the term of office is defined, it may be possible to remove an officer by the same voting requirements as for rescinding a motion, but RONR no longer refers to this as "rescinding" the election.

 

The way the rule is written, I do too.  Thanks.

 

On further reflection, I thought it might be wise to look at the actual rules on this subject rather than just the summary in the tinted pages, and it appears my earlier answer was not correct.

 

"An election to an office becomes final immediately if the candidate is present and does not decline, or if he is absent but has consented to his candidacy. If he is absent and has not consented to his candidacy, the election becomes final when he is notified of his election, provided that he does not immediately decline. If he does decline, the election is incomplete, and another vote can be taken immediately or at the next meeting without further notice. After an election has become final as stated in this paragraph, it is too late to reconsider (37) the vote on the election." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 444)

 

Therefore, it would seem that if a member has previously consented to his candidacy, the election may not be reconsidered, even if he has not yet learned of his election.

[Weldon Merritt]

 

Therefore, it would seem that if a member has previously consented to his candidacy, the election may not be reconsidered, even if he has not yet learned of his election.

 

Based on that language, I would have to agree, I guess it is always best to check the actual language of the rule.

[George Mervosh]

I don't know that I would describe it was "a more limited version of the motion to Rescind." It's more complicated than that, but yes, the rules for the two motions are often similar.

 

 

Well, to be clear, this is only under very limited circumstances. An election may only be reconsidered if the elected person has not learned of his election and has not previously consented to his candidacy.

 

 

Not under the 11th edition. Depending on how the term of office is defined, it may be possible to remove an officer by the same voting requirements as for rescinding a motion, but RONR no longer refers to this as "rescinding" the election.

 

 

 

On further reflection, I thought it might be wise to look at the actual rules on this subject rather than just the summary in the tinted pages, and it appears my earlier answer was not correct.

 

"An election to an office becomes final immediately if the candidate is present and does not decline, or if he is absent but has consented to his candidacy. If he is absent and has not consented to his candidacy, the election becomes final when he is notified of his election, provided that he does not immediately decline. If he does decline, the election is incomplete, and another vote can be taken immediately or at the next meeting without further notice. After an election has become final as stated in this paragraph, it is too late to reconsider (37) the vote on the election." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 444)

 

Therefore, it would seem that if a member has previously consented to his candidacy, the election may not be reconsidered, even if he has not yet learned of his election.

 

Yes, of course.  I too was focused on the two criteria in the tinted pages only.  Thanks

[Shmuel Gerber]

Yes, of course.  I too was focused on the two criteria in the tinted pages only.  Thanks

 

Well, you just didn't look far enough into the tinted pages, then. :-)

See tinted page 47.