Electioneering

[TheAdvocate]

Well, I was going to post this a month later, but let me give it a go now.

At my high school, we hold an annual mass meeting to determine which students will receive gold medals for excellence in athletics, leadership, and citizenship. Here is how we do it:

1. A week or two before the meeting begins, teachers nominate students in the categories mentioned above; this is done in writing by checking names off a list of all high school seniors; this is submitted to the school administration;

2. The school administration publishes the list of nominated students, having first weeded out certain students who do not meet the criteria for receiving such awards;

3. At the meeting, the chair (principal) announces that "we are ready to receive nominations for the Gold Medal for Leadership." (This is, in effect, an opportunity to further weed out the nominees; in other words, we then nominate from the "initial" list.);

4. A member (=faculty member) rises and says, "I nominate Joe Stone." The chair asks for a second. If there is no second, the nominee for that gold medal is axed, and we then let other students get nominated (but the way we do it, it requires a second, as mentioned above);

5. Once we have all the nominees for the various award categories, speeches are given in support of the nominees. According to our rules, the nominator speaks for up to 2 minutes, then other members may speak for one minute each. Since we don't want to trash students, we only allow teachers to say positive things about the students;

6. Once all the speeches are completed, the nominator then has the right to do a "wrap-up" speech for one minute. After this speech, we vote for who receives the award.

7. We use RR for the voting; but here's the thing: in order to speed things up, we decided that whoever comes in second receives the honorable mention award; this is a relatively new rule for us—in the past we used to have a separate vote for "honorable mention."

We do this for each award category separately. And while these rules might seem strange (in the sense that they seem to have little semblance to RR) they are published and accepted by the assembly.

Here are some of the issues at hand:

1. If everyone accepts these rules, can they be used despite the fact they're so different from RR?

2. We're dealing with elections here; is it proper, during a mass meeting, to give speeches in support of candidates?

3. Please comment on anything else worth commenting on.

[Rob Elsman]

An election is a particular form of a debatable main motion, RONR (10th ed.), p. 98, l. 24.

[Chris Harrison]

1. If everyone accepts these rules, can they be used despite the fact they're so different from RR?

Yes. I don't see anything in your procedures that is a bylaws level rule.

2. We're dealing with elections here; is it proper, during a mass meeting, to give speeches in support of candidates?

As was noted nominations are debatable.

3. Please comment on anything else worth commenting on.

I don't see anything inherently wrong with your procedures. However, since these rules would have to be approved every mass meeting (they can't be binding on future assemblies) and thus could be drastically changed from year to year I would recommend that there be a formation of a permanent organization with bylaws to codify these rules so there would be more stability in the year-to-year meetings.

[Josh Martin]

1. If everyone accepts these rules, can they be used despite the fact they're so different from RR?

Sure. A mass meeting can adopt rules which modify the general rules either at the same time as the adoption of the parliamentary authority or at a later time. Since the rules are more in the nature of special rules of order, this requires a 2/3 vote. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 529, lines 16-26; pg. 600, line 27 - pg. 601, line 17) The rules supersede RONR in the areas they cover, and you'd follow RONR for everything else.

2. We're dealing with elections here; is it proper, during a mass meeting, to give speeches in support of candidates?

Yes. And per RONR, against candidates as well, so long as the rules of decorum are observed, although your rules supersede this. (RONR, 10th ed., tinted pg. 18; pgs. 379-382)

[TheAdvocate]

Yes. I don't see anything in your procedures that is a bylaws level rule.

As was noted nominations are debatable.

I don't see anything inherently wrong with your procedures. However, since these rules would have to be approved every mass meeting (they can't be binding on future assemblies) and thus could be drastically changed from year to year I would recommend that there be a formation of a permanent organization with bylaws to codify these rules so there would be more stability in the year-to-year meetings.

Thanks for all the help. Since the rules would have to be approved at each meeting (if we're going to use RR strictly), would that require a simple majority or 2/3?

Also, our situation is tricky. In terms of our rules, since it is a high school, the principal and the administration create many of our rules from the top down--they might even claim to be able to put the rules I cited as law. Our school can't be run by democracy.

[Josh Martin]

Thanks for all the help. Since the rules would have to be approved at each meeting (if we're going to use RR strictly), would that require a simple majority or 2/3?

It would require a 2/3 vote. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 529, lines 16-26; pg. 600, line 27 - pg. 601, line 17)

Also, our situation is tricky. In terms of our rules, since it is a high school, the principal and the administration create many of our rules from the top down--they might even claim to be able to put the rules I cited as law. Our school can't be run by democracy.

What authority your school's principal and administration have under the school's rules and applicable law is beyond the scope of RONR and this forum.

[TheAdvocate]

An election is a particular form of a debatable main motion, RONR (10th ed.), p. 98, l. 24.

Hi, Rob. I looked it up on p. 98, line 24. It says that main motions are debatable. What I can't find is where it says that elections and nominations are types of main motions. Also, there is nothing in RR that I can find regarding debating the actual nominations themselves. There is a section about motions relating to nominations, but that's not what I am talking about.

I appreciate your patience, and that of all you other experts. I bought the "right book" only four days ago. Bigtime newbie!

[Chris Harrison]

What I can't find is where it says that elections and nominations are types of main motions. Also, there is nothing in RR that I can find regarding debating the actual nominations themselves.

Regarding nominations being debatable see tinted pages 18-19 #49 (tinted pages are near the end of the book).

[Kim Goldsworthy]

What I can't find is where it says that elections and nominations are types of main motions.

No wonder.

Nominations are not motions.

The act of nominating is already a process or a phase within a main motion.

RONR says a nomination is similar to (but not the same thing as) filling a blank.

And blanks, as you may guess, are never moved on their own - blanks are part of a motion.

E.g., You'd never say, "I nominate Col. Mustard", out of the blue, under "New Business".

There must be an adoptable something, pending or soon to be pending, where the variable "Col. Mustard" can be plugged into a gap - like a motion "To elect _____ as Sergeant-At-Arms" or "That the Board appoint _____ as Grand Poo-Bah."

[Josh Martin]

What I can't find is where it says that elections and nominations are types of main motions.

Well, as Mr. Goldsworthy notes, a nomination is not a main motion, but Chris H. provided the citation you need.

RONR also isn't going to tell you that an election is a main motion because that's not always true. An election might, for instance, be part of the process for a motion to commit, which is a subsidiary motion. But in this particular case, I think it's clear that the election for the medal winners "brings business before the assembly" and "introduces a substantive question as a new subject," and it is therefore an original main motion. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 95, lines 2-4, 12-13)

[TheAdvocate]

Well, as Mr. Goldsworthy notes, a nomination is not a main motion, but Chris H. provided the citation you need.

RONR also isn't going to tell you that an election is a main motion because that's not always true. An election might, for instance, be part of the process for a motion to commit, which is a subsidiary motion. But in this particular case, I think it's clear that the election for the medal winners "brings business before the assembly" and "introduces a substantive question as a new subject," and it is therefore an original main motion. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 95, lines 2-4, 12-13)

Thank you! Everyone on this board rocks!

[hmtcastle]

Everyone on this board rocks

And some have been rocking longer than others.

[Gary c Tesser]

And some have been rocking longer than others.

And I had been ascribing the occasional seasick feeling to something else.