Ratify - Election

[George Mervosh]

An assembly, at a properly called regular monthly meeting with no quorum present, proceeds to elect their officers for the following year and hopes to ratify their action at the next monthly meeting when a quorum is hopefully present.  The election is held by ballot as required by the bylaws.  At the next meeting when a quorum is present a motion is made to ratify the action taken.  Must the vote to ratify be by ballot since the election itself (which isn't valid yet) required a ballot vote?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Since the "candidates" are not running, and are essentially "fixed" at "one person per office", then the concept of a secret ballot no longer makes sense, as the choice is already long-ago made.  The purpose of a secret ballot is to "hide one's choice." There is no choice, here, other that adoption or rejection of a single set of people, "in gross".

***

Q. Did you have the idea of ratifying the election "one position at a time"?

That might make an interesting question for another thread.

[Dan Honemann]

4 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

An assembly, at a properly called regular monthly meeting with no quorum present, proceeds to elect their officers for the following year and hopes to ratify their action at the next monthly meeting when a quorum is hopefully present.  The election is held by ballot as required by the bylaws.  At the next meeting when a quorum is present a motion is made to ratify the action taken.  Must the vote to ratify be by ballot since the election itself (which isn't valid yet) required a ballot vote?

 

This assembly should not have held these elections at a time when it was known that there was no quorum present.

I think that the answer to your question is yes, a motion to ratify the election of any one or more of the persons declared to have been elected is not in order unless the motion to ratify is also voted on by ballot (RONR, p. 413, ll. 1-9).

[George Mervosh]

16 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

This assembly should not have held these elections at a time when it was known that there was no quorum present.

Of course.  The example was simply a means to more fully understand the proper processing of the motion to ratify in that specific instance where the bylaws required a vote by ballot on the motion which is the subject of a motion to ratify.

16 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I think that the answer to your question is yes, a motion to ratify the election of any one or more of the persons declared to have been elected is not in order unless the motion to ratify is also voted on by ballot (RONR, p. 413, ll. 1-9).

Thank you.  I thought the answer was yes, but wasn't certain exactly what to cite to confirm it.  This makes sense.

[Dan Honemann]

15 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

This assembly should not have held these elections at a time when it was known that there was no quorum present.

 

18 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

Of course.  The example was simply a means to more fully understand the proper processing of the motion to ratify in that specific instance where the bylaws required a vote by ballot.

I only mentioned it because I think that informally conducting an election of officers for the following year when it is known that a quorum is not present (hoping for ratification at the next regular monthly meeting) is an even more egregious violation of the rules than are most instances in which action is taken informally, in the absence of a quorum, because of some perceived emergency situation. 

[J. J.]

On 8/31/2016 at 8:58 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

 

I only mentioned it because I think that informally conducting an election of officers for the following year when it is known that a quorum is not present (hoping for ratification at the next regular monthly meeting) is an even more egregious violation of the rules than are most instances in which action is taken informally, in the absence of a quorum, because of some perceived emergency situation. 

 

 

There would be normally other alternatives, e.g. holding an adjourned meeting.  This would be applicable in most circumstances.  I would agree on the base question, however, a ballot would be required. 

[George Mervosh]

On 8/30/2016 at 0:46 PM, Kim Goldsworthy said:

Q. Did you have the idea of ratifying the election "one position at a time"?

That might make an interesting question for another thread.

Since the answer to my original question was answered, what about this one?  In my original example of egregious behavior by the assembly, can the assembly at the next meeting, when a quorum is present, decide to divide the question to ratify one position at a time?

[Dan Honemann]

1 hour ago, George Mervosh said:

Since the answer to my original question was answered, what about this one?  In my original example of egregious behavior by the assembly, can the assembly at the next meeting, when a quorum is present, decide to divide the question to ratify one position at a time?

I think it would have to be divided if any member demanded it.