Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Filling Blanks and Ballot Voting


Dan Honemann

Recommended Posts

We’re at a regular meeting of the membership of a Society whose bylaws are the same as those on pages 583-588 of RONR, except that they do not contain the sentence on page 587, lines 32-34. You are present as a member, and I am presiding.

While a motion to refer a pending main motion “to a committee of three, consisting of Mr. Jones, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Brown, with instructions to report at the next regular meeting” is pending, a motion to create a blank by striking out “Mr. Jones, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Brown” is adopted. I announce that the names of Mr. Jones, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Brown have been suggested, and ask if there are any further suggestions. After the names of Mr. Williams and Mr. Johnson are proposed, a member moves that a ballot vote be taken on filling the blank. I rule that this motion is not in order. An appeal is taken from this ruling, and the immediately pending question is “Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?”

During the ensuing debate, I advise the assembly that, under the rules in RONR, each suggested name is to be treated as an independent original to be voted on separately (p. 164, ll. 25-26), and that a vote is to be taken on each name proposed in the order in which they were proposed until enough names to fill the blank (three) have received a majority vote (p. 165, ll. 4-6). I advise the assembly that voting by ballot would be proper only if the pending motion to commit had been adopted before filling the blank (p. 173, ll. 14-19). In such an event, the circumstances would be similar to those in which members must be elected to a board or existing standing committee, and the rules on page 441, lines 11-24, would apply.

You rise to speak in debate, and are granted the floor. So what do you say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/5/2016 at 11:35 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I advise the assembly that voting by ballot would be proper only if the pending motion to commit had been adopted before filling the blank (p. 173, ll. 14-19).

I rise to speak in opposition to the ruling.

With permission 'to read from papers' (assumed), the full text of page 173, lines 14 to 19, is as follows:

>> In the event that any of the above procedures results in the
>> adoption of an incomplete motion “to refer the question to
>> a committee,” the details must be completed as described in
>> the following paragraphs.

Since there has been no adoption --yet -- of an 'incomplete motion to refer the question to a committee', then page 173, lines 14 to 19, do not apply.

Since that cited rule does not yet apply here to our pending question, then that parliamentary rule is not triggered.

That is, the assembly is not -- yet -- under the burden of 'completing the details as described in the paragraphs which follow page 173 lines 14 to 19.'

So, the chair, and/or the assembly may still ______

(a.) put the question on 'the incomplete motion to commit' and

(b.) put the question on 'that the vote be by secret ballot'.

So the chair erred in his ruling.

Therefore, the motion, 'When we vote, we vote by ballot', is in order. -- Because there is no parliamentary rule against moving the motion, now.

Thank you Mister Chairman. [sits]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

What about what is said on p. 167, ll. 4-10?

What is said there makes sense to me.  :)

Keep in mind that the book, when making statements of this kind, must always allow for the fact that the blanks to be filled may be in a motion for the appointment of members to an existing standing committee, or to determine the location of a convention which the bylaws say must be held annually, or some such thing. But note that the paragraph begins with the rule that is applicable in all cases, which is that suggestions for filling a blank can be voted on by any of the regular methods. Voting by ballot is not one of the regular methods of voting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

. . . During the ensuing debate . . .

What debate? :)

(The appeal in such a case is undebatable, because it involves the undebatable incidental motion to take the vote on a pending question by ballot.)

Anyway, I think the most specific rule to point to is given in the paragraph on page 496, lines 18-35, which says (emphasis added):

  • Appointment by adoption of a motion naming members of a committee. This method finds use in the case of special committees when the rules or particular conditions do not dictate the use of another procedure. The names of the proposed committee members can be included in the motion proposing to appoint the committee, either as it is originally offered or by way of an amendment. Or, if the motion to appoint the committee is adopted without prescribing the manner of appointment, a second motion can be made "That the committee be composed of Mr. X, Mr. Y, . . ." In either case, the motion naming the committee members can specify the committee chairman or not as the assembly wishes. If other names (intended to replace one or more of those in the motion) are proposed while the motion is pending, all such names and those in the motion should be treated as nominations and should be voted on as in the case of an election (see also pp. 171ff.).

And in an election, of course, a motion to vote by ballot is perfectly in order (page 438, l. 34 - page 439, l. 3):

  • "In the absence of a rule establishing the method of voting, the rule that is established by custom, if any, should be followed, unless the assembly, by adoption of an incidental motion or incidental main motion, agrees to do otherwise."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/6/2016 at 8:36 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

What debate? :)

(The appeal in such a case is undebatable, because it involves the undebatable incidental motion to take the vote on a pending question by ballot.)

Anyway, I think the most specific rule to point to is given in the paragraph on page 496, lines 18-35, which says (emphasis added):

  • Appointment by adoption of a motion naming members of a committee. This method finds use in the case of special committees when the rules or particular conditions do not dictate the use of another procedure. The names of the proposed committee members can be included in the motion proposing to appoint the committee, either as it is originally offered or by way of an amendment. Or, if the motion to appoint the committee is adopted without prescribing the manner of appointment, a second motion can be made "That the committee be composed of Mr. X, Mr. Y, . . ." In either case, the motion naming the committee members can specify the committee chairman or not as the assembly wishes. If other names (intended to replace one or more of those in the motion) are proposed while the motion is pending, all such names and those in the motion should be treated as nominations and should be voted on as in the case of an election (see also pp. 171ff.).

And in an election, of course, a motion to vote by ballot is perfectly in order (page 438, l. 34 - page 439, l. 3):

  • "In the absence of a rule establishing the method of voting, the rule that is established by custom, if any, should be followed, unless the assembly, by adoption of an incidental motion or incidental main motion, agrees to do otherwise."

I agree, and no further debate as to this question shall be allowed. 

So let's assume that the motion to vote by ballot is adopted. Has the assembly now committed itself to filling the blank before voting on the motion to Commit to any greater extent than it was before agreeing to a ballot vote? Must there be repeated balloting until three names are chosen to fill the blank (without a suspension of the rules)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/6/2016 at 7:23 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I agree, and no further debate as to this question shall be allowed. 

So let's assume that the motion to vote by ballot is adopted. Has the assembly now committed itself to filling the blank before voting on the motion to Commit to any greater extent than it was before agreeing to a ballot vote? Must there be repeated balloting until three names are chosen to fill the blank (without a suspension of the rules)?

I think the answer to both questions is, no, but I'm not inclined to let them stop at this point without trying to finish off these details before voting on the motion to Commit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On March 6, 2016 at 0:02 PM, Hieu H. Huynh said:

Why wouldn't there be "necessary repeated balloting" as said on p. 441, l. 21?

What is said on pg. 441 assumes the society is electing required positions, such as those established in the society's bylaws. In the situation described here, the motion to establish the committee of three has not yet been adopted. The assembly might ultimately decide that the committee should have fewer members, or not to establish the committee at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/6/2016 at 7:23 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

So let's assume that the motion to vote by ballot is adopted. Has the assembly now committed itself to filling the blank before voting on the motion to Commit to any greater extent than it was before agreeing to a ballot vote? Must there be repeated balloting until three names are chosen to fill the blank (without a suspension of the rules)?

I don't know, but I suspect that the answer hasn't changed much since this previous discussion. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

I don't know, but I suspect that the answer hasn't changed much since this previous discussion. :)

No, it hasn't.

My ruling in the initial post was correct (or should be), but further debate on that question is verboten. The assembly has decided otherwise, and now must cope with the consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

No, it hasn't.

My ruling in the initial post was correct (or should be), but further debate on that question is verboten. The assembly has decided otherwise, and now must cope with the consequences.

OK. Now suppose that the ruling of the chair is sustained, and voice votes are taken successively on Mr. Jones, Mr. Smith, Mr. Brown, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Johnson.

The results are as follows:
 

Jones - The ayes have it; elected
Smith - The noes have it; not elected
Brown - The ayes have it; elected
Williams - The noes have it; not elected
Johnson - The noes have it; not elected

What do you do next?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:
3 hours ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

If only two (out of a possible three) received a majority vote after the first ballot, what would be the pending question at that point?

Which post / poster is this a response to?

It's a follow up to this post:

4 hours ago, Josh Martin said:
On 3/6/2016 at 1:02 PM, Hieu H. Huynh said:

Why wouldn't there be "necessary repeated balloting" as said on p. 441, l. 21?

What is said on pg. 441 assumes the society is electing required positions, such as those established in the society's bylaws. In the situation described here, the motion to establish the committee of three has not yet been adopted. The assembly might ultimately decide that the committee should have fewer members, or not to establish the committee at all.

My question is: What happens next if there is no repeated balloting?

Does the chair state the question on the motion to refer a pending main motion to a committee of three, consisting of Mr. Jones, Mr. Brown, and ________, with instructions to report at the next regular meeting?

If the assembly wanted to fill the blank, would a ballot vote be required or would another motion to vote by ballot have to be adopted to do so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

OK. Now suppose that the ruling of the chair is sustained, and voice votes are taken successively on Mr. Jones, Mr. Smith, Mr. Brown, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Johnson.

The results are as follows:
 


Jones - The ayes have it; elected
Smith - The noes have it; not elected
Brown - The ayes have it; elected
Williams - The noes have it; not elected
Johnson - The noes have it; not elected

What do you do next?

A number of things might happen at this point, I suppose. Suggestions may be reopened, and another name proposed and agreed upon to fill the remaining blank. Or the pending motion to commit might be amended by striking out "three" and inserting "two" (I would not rule a motion to make such an amendment out of order under these circumstances, although I haven't thought all that much about it). Or the main motion could be postponed or laid on the table.

But assuming that none of these things happens, I would put the pending motion to commit, still containing a blank for the third name, to a vote, explaining, before doing so, that if the motion is adopted the assembly will then be obligated to fill the blank before any new subject, except a privileged one, can be introduced. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...