Election by acclamation

[Lumpy52403]

I was recently elected president (actually another title equivalent to president) of an organization, which is a local affiliate of a much larger fraternal service organization.  Our officer elections for the coming year consist of presenting a “slate” of nominees prepared by the nominating committee, with the opportunity for nominations from the floor.  Usually there are no additional nominations, and someone moves to “close nominations and cast a unanimous ballot.” 

 

I reviewed our bylaws (which date to 1987) and found that balloting is required for all elections, without exception, so it appears that we have not been following our own bylaws in this regard for quite a while.  Rather than trying to enforce the bylaws as written ("But we've always done it that way!"), I plan to propose an amendment to legitimize our current practice, since it seems to work and isn't prohibited by the parent organization.  The following is my first draft; I would welcome suggestions on improving it.  It would be placed immediately after the section specifying elections by ballot:

 

“In certain circumstances, election by acclamation, as described in Robert’s Rules of Order, is an acceptable alternative to a ballot vote.  When nominations have been closed, either by motion or by unanimous consent, and the list of nominees consists of no more than one nominee for each office to be elected, the presiding officer shall declare the nominees elected by acclamation.”

[jstackpo]

I suggest you just truncate your draft to read "If the list of nominees consists of no more than one nominee for any office to be elected, the presiding officer shall declare the nominee for that office elected by acclamation.”

 

Note I changed "each" to "any" and inserted "for that office".    The way your version reads, it requires all the offices to have but a single nominee to allow acclamation.

 

Using "In certain circumstances..."  just raises a red flag:  What "circumstances?"  Who decides if they are met?  Are the "circumstances" different from what RONR describes?  &c.

[Timothy]

Or, "For any office having no more than one nominee, the presiding officer shall declare the nominee elected by acclamation."

[Lumpy52403]

Thank you; your points are well taken. By "circumstances," I meant only the circumstances described in the next sentence, so perhaps I need to clarify that.

[jstackpo]

I'd say the best "clarification" is simply to drop that part of your text.

[Shmuel Gerber]

I suggest you just truncate your draft to read "If the list of nominees consists of no more than one nominee for any office to be elected, the presiding officer shall declare the nominee for that office elected by acclamation.”

 

Note I changed "each" to "any" and inserted "for that office".    The way your version reads, it requires all the offices to have but a single nominee to allow acclamation.

 

Using "In certain circumstances..."  just raises a red flag:  What "circumstances?"  Who decides if they are met?  Are the "circumstances" different from what RONR describes?  &c.

 

We don't usually provide rule-making advice on the forum, but since you started ...

 

Your suggested wording seems to address only one office for which there is only one nominee. Using the same words, it would be better to say this:

"If the list of nominees for any office to be elected consists of no more than one nominee, the presiding officer shall declare the nominee for that office elected by acclamation."

 

But that still leaves a problem, which is shared by the wording suggested by Mr. Fish: Why does it say "no more than one nominee"? Whom is the presiding officer to declare elected when there are zero nominees for office? So then we could have:

"If the list of nominees for any office to be elected consists of only one nominee, the presiding officer shall declare the nominee for that office elected by acclamation."

 

But that still leaves a problem, which is that the OP had a good idea to include "When nominations have been closed, either by motion or by unanimous consent, . . . " This makes it clearer that nominations from the floor are accepted after the list is initially prepared. It would be better to include those words, although it would be even better to tack on an exception to the ballot vote requirement itself. As stated in RONR, pp. 568-9:

Each sentence [in the bylaws] should be written so as to be impossible to quote out of context; that is, either its complete meaning should be clear without reference to sentences preceding or following, or it should be worded so as to compel the reader to refer to adjoining sentences . . . Exceptions or qualifications to statements should be included, as far as possible, within the sentence to which they apply—which can often be accomplished by ending sentences with clauses beginning "except that . . ." or "provided, however, that . . ."

[Lumpy52403]

Thanks to everyone for your suggestions.  I will take all of them into account when I propose the bylaw revision. 

 

I have been president of my organization for less than two weeks, and I'm already writing bylaw revisions.  The wisdom of that might be in question. 

[Dan Honemann]

Thanks to everyone for your suggestions.  I will take all of them into account when I propose the bylaw revision. 

 

I have been president of my organization for less than two weeks, and I'm already writing bylaw revisions.  The wisdom of that might be in question. 

 

My suggestion would be that you pay particular attention to the very last portion of post #6, where Mr. Gerber says that " ... it would be even better to tack on an exception to the ballot vote requirement itself."

[Edgar Guest]

I have been president of my organization for less than two weeks, and I'm already writing bylaw revisions.  The wisdom of that might be in question. 

 

You might want to involve other members in the process (e.g. a committee) before you present your revision as a fait accompli.

[Gary Novosielski]

Or, "For any office having no more than one nominee, the presiding officer shall declare the nominee elected by acclamation."

 

What about the office of, say, Director, where there are three nominees--but for three seats.

[Gary Novosielski]

Thanks to everyone for your suggestions.  I will take all of them into account when I propose the bylaw revision. 

 

I have been president of my organization for less than two weeks, and I'm already writing bylaw revisions.  The wisdom of that might be in question. 

 

 

Consider it questioned.

[Lumpy52403]

My suggestion would be that you pay particular attention to the very last portion of post #6, where Mr. Gerber says that " ... it would be even better to tack on an exception to the ballot vote requirement itself."

 

 

You might want to involve other members in the process (e.g. a committee) before you present your revision as a fait accompli.

 

Both points are well taken.

 

What about the office of, say, Director, where there are three nominees--but for three seats.

 

In my particular case, that does not apply.  Even though we have three trustees, their terms are specified (one-year, two-year, and three-year), so they are elected individually.   

 

Consider it questioned.

 

Duly noted.  When you spit in the wind, carry an umbrella.

[Timothy]

What about the office of, say, Director, where there are three nominees--but for three seats.

 

I see no harm in interpreting the statement to mean that those three could be elected by acclimation as well. There are three offices and one person for each office, we just don't know which office each person is nominated for, because there is nothing to distinguish each office.