Election by Acclamation RONR, p. 443

[Guest Pat Knoll]

One person was properly  nominated  for a director position-  only one person accepted nomination  .The Chair then applied RONR ,and declared  the nominee elected by acclamation  ( RONR ,p. 443- Lines 7-12) . However , the Chair was well aware that there was one member present who was opposed to the election of this person- by any method . Even so the Chair did not seek " any objections " - but simply declared  election  by acclamation . Was this proper procedure  by the Chair ? Nothing from the above reference to Robert's- specifically  indicates otherwise .   

[Dan Honemann]

One person was properly  nominated  for a director position-  only one person accepted nomination  .The Chair then applied RONR ,and declared  the nominee elected by acclamation  ( RONR ,p. 443- Lines 7-12) . However , the Chair was well aware that there was one member present who was opposed to the election of this person- by any method . Even so the Chair did not seek " any objections " - but simply declared  election  by acclamation . Was this proper procedure  by the Chair ? Nothing from the above reference to Robert's- specifically  indicates otherwise .   

 

Yes, it was proper procedure so long as the bylaws did not require a ballot vote. 

[Guest Guest]

 The bylaws did not require a ballot  vote .

 

What if the member opposed to the election , by any method , seeing that acclamation was about to be made by the Chair , yelled out " I  hereby object to any election by acclamation " ! Would  that change / cause  a different answer to the one above ? 

 

Or what -if after the acclamation , the member opposed - raised a Point of Order and claimed procedural error in that the Chair did not call for any "objections to acclamation applying " , and since acclamation is a  unanimous consent action - it was improper and out of order . What answer to that if you please  ? 

 

Thx 

 

PK 

[Edgar Guest]

The only way to "object" to the election of the sole nominee by acclamation is to nominate someone else. It's easy enough to do.

 

The chair should not ask if there is any objection to election by acclamation. The chair should ask if there are any additional nominations. Hearing none, the chair declares the sole nominee elected by acclamation.

[Dan Honemann]

What if the member opposed to the election , by any method , seeing that acclamation was about to be made by the Chair , yelled out " I  hereby object to any election by acclamation " ! Would  that change / cause  a different answer to the one above ? 

 

No.

 

 Or what -if after the acclamation , the member opposed - raised a Point of Order and claimed procedural error in that the Chair did not call for any "objections to acclamation applying " , and since acclamation is a  unanimous consent action - it was improper and out of order . What answer to that if you please  ? 

 

The chair should rule that the point of order is not well taken.

[Guest Guest]

Thx Mr Guest  ( but ) :

 

The member concerned does not wish to nominate anyone else- nor is he obliged to do so  . The response provided above  suggests that the Chair simply ignore the objection even though  acclamation is a unanimous consent process .  And that, that aspect of unanimous consent simply  be sheared  away, when it is  a context of election- by acclamation  ? Why so ?  Is unanimous  consent variable on when and how applied   and subject to rejection of parts ( from time to time or circumstance to circumstance ) of its inherent essentials  .? 

 

  And see ,See - H. Cannon  (p.133 par 2 )

 

"Finally , in certain circumstances  , an election may be by acclamation , or unanimous consent, although this is not permissible if there is any objection ".

 

And see also , G Demeter ,248., for same .

 

RSVP - thx 

 

 

 

 

[Dan Honemann]

Thx Mr Guest  ( but ) :

 

The member concerned does not wish to nominate anyone else- nor is he obliged to do so  . The response provided above  suggests that the Chair simply ignore the objection even though  acclamation is a unanimous consent process .  And that, that aspect of unanimous consent simply  be sheared  away, when it is  a context of election- by acclamation  ? Why so ?  Is unanimous  consent variable on when and how applied   and subject to rejection of parts ( from time to time or circumstance to circumstance ) of its inherent essentials  .? 

 

  And see ,See - H. Cannon  (p.133 par 2 )

 

"Finally , in certain circumstances  , an election may be by acclamation , or unanimous consent, although this is not permissible if there is any objection ".

 

And see also , G Demeter ,248., for same .

 

RSVP - thx 

 

We are concerned with proper procedure under the rules in RONR.

 

If you want answers based upon other rules, you've come to the wrong place. 

 

Perhaps you should visit the Cannon or the Demeter forums where you will feel a bit more at home. 

[Guest Guest]

With Respect: Mr. Honeman :

 

I was unaware that this discussion precluded  useful context from other authorities .  indeed, I understood this forum welcomed all  relevant discussion  and input . But even if this forum restricts itself solely and entirely  to RONR ,the responses  provided to this inquiry   are seemingly  difficult ,if not  entirely unacceptable applying , logic , common sense, and  specifically RONR. And furthermore ,RONR in a  context of fundamental fairness and individual member rights .

 

My read of p 443 of RONR ( for the little that may mean )  identifies unanimous by acclamation  election ,as a unanimous consent process - and indeed RONR p 443- says as much . But that paragraph in question is not as fulsome as it might be - a  fulsomeness  that would include reference to ,"objection" ,as a full stop  negation , for election   by acclamation  .

 

I do not read RONR myopically nor with an inflexible clinging that  favours the literal at the expense of the intended and logical .

 

 But Thx a lot    

 

PK 

 

 

[Edgar Guest]

Thx Mr Guest  ( but ) :

 

The member concerned does not wish to nominate anyone else- nor is he obliged to do so  

 

He's obliged to do per RONR. He can nominate anyone. He can nominate himself. He can nominate his mother. He can nominate you. He doesn't even have to vote for the person he nominates.

 

What's his problem?

[Guest Guest]

Mr Guest :

 

And also with respect - see the above response  to Mr Honeman . This inquiry/discussion is not about why he ( the opponent to acclamation  )  has an objection, or what "his problem" is . It concerns the fulsomeness of RONR p. 443 ,with respect to acclamation election, and whether or not the Chair has acted properly  .

 

I propose that the  referred to lines from RONR p 443, are not fulsome  enough and should include , and obviously so , the context for acclamation being unavailable if there is an objection . And the duty on the Chair to call for that as a core aspect of  using unanimous consent . That,  and not the  "problems " of the  person opposed to acclamation election -  is the point here  .

 

Thx  a lot ! 

 

PK  

 

 

[Dan Honemann]

Mr Guest :

 

And also with respect - see the above response  to Mr Honeman . This inquiry/discussion is not about why he ( the opponent to acclamation  )  has an objection, or what "his problem" is . It concerns the fulsomeness of RONR p. 443 ,with respect to acclamation election, and whether or not the Chair has acted properly  .

 

I propose that the  referred to lines from RONR p 443, are not fulsome  enough and should include , and obviously so , the context for acclamation being unavailable if there is an objection . And the duty on the Chair to call for that as a core aspect of  using unanimous consent . That,  and not the  "problems " of the  person opposed to acclamation election -  is the point here  .

 

Thx  a lot ! 

 

PK  

 

Well, since you obviously didn't post your question here in order to seek the correct answer, but rather to insist upon your own incorrect one, there is nothing more that we can do to assist you. 

 

Both approval of minutes and election by acclamation are very specialized instances of unanimous consent. In the first instance, offering a correction to the minutes is the only way to object to their approval, and in the second instance, making a nomination is the only way to object to election by acclamation, but apparently all of this has managed to escape your comprehension.

[Edgar Guest]

Mr Guest :

 

I propose that the referred to lines from RONR p 443, are not fulsome enough 

 

Then I suggest you wait for the 12th 20th 21st Edition.

 

You might also want to choose a word other than "fulsome".

[Guest Guest]

 Mr .  Honeman and Mr Guest - And again with respect - due  you both : 

 

Thank-you  very much for your responses . I would concede an inclination to see the referred to paragraph in RONR reflect the potential for "objection" - as that strikes me as the logical conclusion for this . That would be something like ; "Unless there is any objection I will now declare  X elected by acclamation. 

 

But  it certainly  is not a conclusion that you either endorse, and" fulsomeness" may well be less appropriate than say " completeness " . But the circumstance mentioned is a real situation and one that arose in my area last year - a thorny one to resolve for the interested patties .

 

It seems RONR is adjusted and amended from time to time . My inquiry at core was to see if experts on this forum were of the view perhaps that it should be . Without  posing  the question  I did not know what the answer might be and I was looking for a response that would not pre load the question with specific detail or my own view .It was not to provoke by means of my own final response and view .

 

But I have that now and again thx very much . Appreciated .

 

PK 

 

 

[Guest Pat Knoll]

One final comment  on this - and not to have the last word ,and possibly  at the risk of the wrath of both Dan and Edgar.

 

If RONR is to be read this way - that is - an objection is made by way of a second  nomination,  then RONR might well say as much for the benefit of  those  who are not so sharp as to appreciate the implication . It is  done  specifically  for minutes (p.355 line 7-8) , why not for acclamation ?

 

Especially so since other authorities  (  totally irrelevant to  RONR- of course ) say the opposite ( e.g. Cannon  ) . But in any event I am set right on this point by the eminence  grise of the  responses provided .Thank-you.

 

pk

[George Mervosh]

One final comment  on this - and not to have the last word ,and possibly  at the risk of the wrath of both Dan and Edgar.

 

If RONR is to be read this way - that is - an objection is made by way of a second  nomination,  then RONR might well say as much for the benefit of  those  who are not so sharp as to appreciate the implication . It is  done  specifically  for minutes (p.355 line 7-8) , why not for acclamation ?

 

Especially so since other authorities  (  totally irrelevant to  RONR- of course ) say the opposite ( e.g. Cannon  ) . But in any event I am set right on this point by the eminence  grise of the  responses provided .Thank-you.

 

pk

 

 

"If only one person is nominated and the bylaws do not require that a ballot vote be taken, the chair, after ensuring that, in fact, no members present wish to make further nominations, simply declares that the nominee is elected, thus effecting the election by unanimous consent or "acclamation.""  RONR (11th ed.), p. 443

 

It seems clear that the above cited rule is not applicable if there is more than one nominee. Therefore, to render this rule inapplicable to a particular election when there is one nominee (or to use your term and object to declaring a lone nominee elected), there is only one way to avoid it.....nominate someone else.

[Guest Guest]

 All  this certainly obvious  to you George  and likely most others . But  unanimous consent process obliges the Chair to call for objections.  Election by acclamation is a unanimous consent procedure . So for those of  us with less  capacity ,to see the obvious implications  - crumbs need to be dropped so we can find our way . They are with minutes ( ,p 355 line 7-8) - could be  for this  as well . But of course RONR is not written for those slow on the uptake-  or it would be 1400 pages .

 

Thx George .

 

pk 

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Perhaps this citation may be of use:

 

"In reading all that follows throughout this manual, it should be borne in mind that - as in any treatment of any subject - a statement of a rule generally cannot include all possible exceptions to the rule. Whenever a particular statement appears to conflict with a more general statement elsewhere in the book, therefore, the particular statement governs in the matter to which it states that it applies (see also p. 589)." (RONR 11th ed., p. 20, ll. 9-16)

[Robert B Fish]

This thread is very useful if only that it illustrates the problem with members who refuse to understand or accept the plain language of RONR.  In this case Mr/Ms Guest_Guest_* is seeking to apply the idea of "acclamation" in a manner using his understanding of the word, even though does not apply in this case.  As in many situations in real life he is persisting in restating his understanding of that word even though the rule in RONR is plain.

 

Clearly, the chair must rule that his point of order is not well taken.  The minutes will record his point of order and he can rest well knowing that his erroneous feelings were recorded in his objection.

 

-Bob

[Dan Honemann]

Well, as we have noted on at least one other occasion in the recent past, Pat Knoll ain't no slouch when it comes to the rules in RONR in particular, and parliamentary law in general, and so whenever we fuss with him we do so with a great deal of respect, even when we don't make it apparent. 

[Edgar Guest]

Well, as we have noted on at least one other occasion in the recent past, Pat Knoll ain't no slouch when it comes to the rules in RONR in particular, and parliamentary law in general, and so whenever we fuss with him we do so with a great deal of respect, even when we don't make it apparent. 

 

And yet "Pat Knoll" posts as a guest . . . and as a guest named "Guest".

 

C'mon Pat Knoll, become a member of this humble forum. You'll no longer need to "sign" your posts "pk" and you can stop typing "thx" when you (presumably) mean "thanks".

[Shmuel Gerber]

And yet "Pat Knoll" posts as a guest . . . and as a guest named "Guest".

 

C'mon Pat Knoll, become a member of this humble forum. You'll no longer need to "sign" your posts "pk" and you can stop typing "thx" when you (presumably) mean "thanks".

 

But "thx" is not just thanks: it's thanks in ultra-high-quality audio.

[Guest Pat Knoll]

Kind words  these ( D. Honemann ) ,and invitation ( E. Guest ) ,from the parliamentarian illuminati. 

 

Grateful for all and will join  the forum when  possible to contribute regularly . Expect that will be the case next year if fate   so designs . In the meantime grateful for the education provided  by these parliamentarian  sages  and  guru .

 

THANKS  or "Thx" .

 

Pat  K 

[Guest Nancy N.]

Great Steaming Cobnuts. I thought we would win this one.

[Guest Guest]

Great Steaming Cobnuts. I thought we would win this one.

 

 

A time arises when a slice from   half a loaf is preferred to  starvation .If the possibility exits for better  clarity in the entry of concern then a full meal may, one day , be pending . 

[jstackpo]

Granted, an "objection" to an election by acclamation is called for, but the form that the objection takes is what matters. For a unanimous consent decision on a motion, it is an actual vote, but for an election the objection comes in the form of another nomination.