Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Consideration as a whole


Guest Sharon W

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

If you have no specialized rules on elections, if there is only one candidate for each open position, the chairman can declare those candidates to have been elected or he/she can take an actual vote. (However, that vote would be whether a majority of those present and voting favor those candidates, not a yes or no vote.)

Since your bylaws contain specialized rules, it's up to you to determine the answer to your question as we cannot know exactly what your bylaws say and how those sections relate to the bylaws as a whole.

-Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can a chair ask, without objection, to consider a slate of officers 'as a whole' ? Or because Bylaws state majority, voice vote if but one candidate, must they be voice voted individually? Thank You.

This seems to be a question about your bylaws. Your organization will have to determine their meaning.

On the bright side, you don't appear to have a parliamentary problem, except that you want to shave some time off the election process. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can a chair ask, without objection, to consider a slate of officers 'as a whole' ? Or because Bylaws state majority, voice vote if but one candidate, must they be voice voted individually? Thank You.

No, absolutely not. The chairman has absolutely no business making an obviously partisan parliamentary move to get his preferred "slate" elected as a whole. Each election must be handled individually, the fundamental principle of parliamentary law being that only one main motion can be pending at a time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can a chair ask, without objection, to consider a slate of officers 'as a whole' ? Or because Bylaws state majority, voice vote if but one candidate, must they be voice voted individually? Thank You.

It's bad form for the chair to assume or solicit unanimous consent for this sort of action. If there is only one nominee for a particular office, and since your bylaws (appear to) require it, a voice vote would be taken then and there.

In the typical case, however, RONR would simply allow the chair to announce each unopposed candidate to be elected by acclamation, but not before seeking other nominations from the floor. Even so, it would usually take no more time that asking for a unanimous consent request.

In either event, the time savings of voting on a "slate" vs. individual offices would be minimal at best. And, more importantly, it is not (apparently) allowed by your bylaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, absolutely not. The chairman has absolutely no business making an obviously partisan parliamentary move to get his preferred "slate" elected as a whole. Each election must be handled individually, the fundamental principle of parliamentary law being that only one main motion can be pending at a time.

I don't see any nefarious intent connected to the circumstance in the question. I envision the chair calling for further nominations on all offices and finding that there is only a single nominee foe each. Then, the original poster wonders if a voice vote has to be taken on each. RONR is clear that the chair can declare each elected, but apparently the bylaws in this case have a thing or two to say on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see any nefarious intent connected to the circumstance in the question. I envision the chair calling for further nominations on all offices and finding that there is only a single nominee foe each. Then, the original poster wonders if a voice vote has to be taken on each. RONR is clear that the chair can declare each elected, but apparently the bylaws in this case have a thing or two to say on the subject.

The chairman will do well enough to preside over the normal nomination/election procedure and, otherwise, keep his mouth shut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The chairman will do well enough to preside over the normal nomination/election procedure and, otherwise, keep his mouth shut.

But isn't it the duty of the presiding officer to "expedite business in every way compatible with the rights of members"?

(RONR, 11th ed., p. 450, ll. 12-13)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A requirement for a voice vote is suspendable, though, since a member would have to publicly voice objection in any case. Thus I believe it would be in order for the chair, expecting no opposition, to ask for unanimous consent to elect the candidates. He should only do this after having called for nominations from the floor and not received any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But isn't it the duty of the presiding officer to "expedite business in every way compatible with the rights of members"?

(RONR, 11th ed., p. 450, ll. 12-13)

Not at the expense of losing the appearance of impartiality, no.

I don't understand how you know the motivation of the presider here and your answer could be given anytime the presiding officer makes such a suggestion regardless of the subject at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand how you know the motivation of the presider here and your answer could be given anytime the presiding officer makes such a suggestion regardless of the subject at hand.

Take a look at FAQ #1 and Off. Interp. 2007-1 at the official Robert's Rules of Order website, www.robertsrules.com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Mr. Gerber's citation is chopped liver?

The chair should not sacrifice his appearance of impartiality and insert himself actively into the proceedings in any way that might reasonably appear to be partisan just to expedite business. In this case, what is suggested is that the presiding officer make a unanimous consent request that violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that only one main motion can be pending at a time, which gives the appearance that the presiding officer is acting in a way that could reasonably be construed as a partisan move to get his preferred "slate" elected in one improper step.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The chair should not sacrifice his appearance of impartiality and insert himself actively into the proceedings in any way that might reasonably appear to be partisan just to expedite business. In this case, what is suggested is that the presiding officer make a unanimous consent request that violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that only one main motion can be pending at a time, which gives the appearance that the presiding officer is acting in a way that could reasonably be construed as a partisan move to get his preferred "slate" elected in one improper step.

Ok, I'll just disagree with almost all of what you're suggesting, including the fundamental principle of parliamentary law violation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Mr. Gerber's citation is chopped liver?

The reason that Messrs. Elsman and Gerber are at odds is that they are painting different pictures of the situation.

In the picture that I sketch, after the chair calls for nominations and finds only one candidate for office, whether in accordance with the bylaws or not, there is no appearance of partiality if the chair assumes that the will of the assembly is to elect the current nominees.

Mr. Elsmam, it seems, is picturing a chair who asks for unanimous consent to elect a select few nominees from a larger pool of nominees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason that Messrs. Elsman and Gerber are at odds is that they are painting different pictures of the situation.

In the picture that I sketch, after the chair calls for nominations and finds only one candidate for office, whether in accordance with the bylaws or not, there is no appearance of partiality if the chair assumes that the will of the assembly is to elect the current nominees.

Mr. Elsmam, it seems, is picturing a chair who asks for unanimous consent to elect a select few nominees from a larger pool of nominees.

My replies are not contingent on which of the two of your pictures are painted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I was just being argumentative because Mr. Elsman greatly overstates his case. Whether or not combining the several elections is proper procedure, there seems to be no reason to think that the chairman's suggestion to do so is in any way not impartial. It can hardly be said that the chair is pushing "his preferred 'slate'" when in fact the uncontested list of nominees is the assembly's preferred slate -- by what is effectively unanimous consent, no less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I was just being argumentative because Mr. Elsman greatly overstates his case. Whether or not combining the several elections is proper procedure, there seems to be no reason to think that the chairman's suggestion to do so is in any way not impartial. It can hardly be said that the chair is pushing "his preferred 'slate'" when in fact the uncontested list of nominees is the assembly's preferred slate -- by what is effectively unanimous consent, no less.

But, the new language in RONR (11th ed.), p. 263, ll. 17, 18, "...even by unanimous consent", which did not appear in the 10th ed., clearly precludes this kind of request, since it proposes to dispose of several main motions by one improper parliamentary action. This is why, in my opinion, the move seems so partisan on the very face of it. I can't think of any other legitimate purpose--certainly not the expediting of business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about p. 439 ll. 12-14? This seems to indicate very clearly that performing an election to multiple offices simultaneously is not a violation of a FFPL.

Even in that case, the nominations for each office are taken up one at a time. Nominations are not opened simultaneously for multiple, different offices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...