Removing a name from the ballot

[Guest Brendan]

My organization held nominations for elected positions at the beginning of December.  Our elections are not until the first Tuesday of January.  One of the nominated positions has submitted a letter of intent to be removed from the ballot.  Our Secretary has stated that according to Robert's Rules of Order his name must remain on the ballot as it is the "official" ballot.  If he were to receive the majority of the votes, then he would have to decline the position and the Board of Directors would appoint that position at the January meeting.  I have not found this anywhere and would like the words of wisdom from someone else if at all possible.  Note:  There is another candidate for that position.  What I did find regarding balloting is that "Balloting must continue until a candidate receives a majority.  It's never proper to drop the candidates receiving the lowest vote totals from a ballot unless they withdraw voluntarily."  

 

As stated, our election has not taken place as of this date.  Is it authorized for a candidate to remove themselves from a ballot prior to election?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

"If he does decline, the election is incomplete, and another vote can be taken immediately or at the next meeting without further notice." - RONR 11th ed., p. 444, ll. 23-25

[Kim Goldsworthy]

1 hour ago, Guest Brendan said:

Our elections are not until the first Tuesday of January.  

One of the nominated positions has submitted a letter of intent to be removed from the ballot.  

Our Secretary has stated that according to Robert's Rules of Order his name must remain on the ballot as it is the "official" ballot. 

[...] Is it authorized for a candidate to remove themselves from a ballot prior to election?

No officer, like a secretary or a president, can remove a name from a ballot.

However, the organization, in a properly-called meeting, with a quorum present, can adopt a motion, "To grant the request of Mr. X, namely, to remove the name of Mr. X from the pre-printed ballot."

So, I say, "Don't YOU touch any ballot!"

It isn't for you, or your secretary, to mess with an official ballot. -- The "officialness" of the pre-printed ballot is controlled by the organization, so only the organization may edit its official pre-printed ballot.

[Gödel Fan]

So it's perfectly in order, if we are to believe the above, for this person to be elected, decine, and a new election held - with what ballots?  what names will be on them? but not for him to save the organization and himself the trouble by declining now?  I find that outcome unlikely and rather silly.  Whose rights are harmed if he takes his name off the ballot?  Any members wishing to vote for him can write him in, and if they get a majority, they get the fun of watching him decline.  

Certainly, I agree that the Secretary may not unilaterally strike names, but that seems a different matter.

[Gary Novosielski]

13 hours ago, Guest Brendan said:

My organization held nominations for elected positions at the beginning of December.  Our elections are not until the first Tuesday of January.  One of the nominated positions has submitted a letter of intent to be removed from the ballot.  Our Secretary has stated that according to Robert's Rules of Order his name must remain on the ballot as it is the "official" ballot.  If he were to receive the majority of the votes, then he would have to decline the position and the Board of Directors would appoint that position at the January meeting.  I have not found this anywhere and would like the words of wisdom from someone else if at all possible.  Note:  There is another candidate for that position.  What I did find regarding balloting is that "Balloting must continue until a candidate receives a majority.  It's never proper to drop the candidates receiving the lowest vote totals from a ballot unless they withdraw voluntarily."  

As stated, our election has not taken place as of this date.  Is it authorized for a candidate to remove themselves from a ballot prior to election?

Robert's Rules contain no such provision as your secretary claims.  Demand to see the page where it is allegedly to be found.  RONR makes no claims about "official ballots".  As far as RONR is concerned, a blank piece of paper makes a fine ballot.  

I would say that the candidate cannot remove himself from the ballot, but the assembly could grant his request to be removed.  

Even so, the ballots must contain a place for write-ins so, whether his name is removed, or whether it is simply publicized that he wishes no one to vote for him, it is still true that if he receives the majority of votes, he is elected.  At that point he can decline or, for that matter, accept--his prior unwillingness notwithstanding.

[Brendan]

Most appreciative of all the feedback thus far.  As I perused the forum more completely, it certainly is a popular topic of discussion.  Of course, in the meantime, candidate X has decided to rescind the withdrawal, and remain on the ballot.  My only hope now is that the membership will see that electing an individual who seemingly doesn't want the position, is in fact a poor decision.  Again, thank you all for your input.  Until the other day, I never really even knew what Robert's Rules of Order were other than what we are "supposed" to be following.  I must say, my inquisitive nature and willingness to debate with the best of them, has almost made me wish to seek Parliamentarian-ship.

[jstackpo]

2 hours ago, Brendan said:

  My only hope now is that the membership will see that electing an individual who seemingly doesn't want the position, is in fact a poor decision.  ............. I must say, my inquisitive nature and willingness to debate with the best of them, has almost made me wish to seek Parliamentarian-ship.

Hope:  Sometimes that is the best you can get. And often enough, the "doesn't wanter" turns out to do a good job just to prove his/her value.

Don't stop with "almost made me wish..."  Get a copy of

RONRIB:

"Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief", Updated Second Edition (Da Capo Press, Perseus Books Group, 2011). It is a splendid summary of all the rules you will really need in all but the most exceptional situations. And only $7.50! You can read it in an evening. Get both RONRIB and RONR (scroll down) at this link. Or in your local bookstore.

and you will be well under way.

[Rev Ed]

3 hours ago, Brendan said:

My only hope now is that the membership will see that electing an individual who seemingly doesn't want the position, is in fact a poor decision.

Well, ultimately it doesn't matter what you hopes happen.  I hoped to win the lottery last week, but it did not happen.  But, as the election is debatable, the member who does not want to get elected should try to get the floor and explain that he/she has decided that he/she does not want to be elected and that he/she would refuse to accept being elected.  But if the members choose to ignore this member and elect him/her anyway then there is not much that can be done.

[Dan Honemann]

2 hours ago, Rev Ed said:

Well, ultimately it doesn't matter what you hopes happen.  I hoped to win the lottery last week, but it did not happen.  But, as the election is debatable, the member who does not want to get elected should try to get the floor and explain that he/she has decided that he/she does not want to be elected and that he/she would refuse to accept being elected.  But if the members choose to ignore this member and elect him/her anyway then there is not much that can be done.

Where in the world did you get the idea that an election is debatable?

[Josh Martin]

13 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Where in the world did you get the idea that an election is debatable?

I assume that Rev Ed meant to say that nominations are debatable.

[Dan Honemann]

3 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

I assume that Rev Ed meant to say that nominations are debatable.

Oh, I doubt it. That might be a reasonable assumption if there was any indication that nominations will be reopened at the January meeting, but all indications are that this is not going to happen, hence the preprinted ballots. 

[jstackpo]

45 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

I assume that Rev Ed meant to say that nominations are debatable.

Wouldn't it be a tad more precise if the statement was "nominees are debatable", not "nominations".   After all, the incidental motion to open (or re-open) nominations is not debatable (p. 287), and that motion seems to me to be the only time that there might be any occasion to "debate" re-opening nominations per se.

 

[Dan Honemann]

3 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

Wouldn't it be a tad more precise if the statement was "nominees are debatable", not "nominations".   After all, the incidental motion to open (or re-open) nominations is not debatable (p. 287), and that motion seems to me to be the only time that there might be any occasion to "debate" re-opening nominations per se.

 

No, its nominations that are debatable, and they are debatable at any time when the floor is open to nominations.

[jstackpo]

Yes...  but isn't the assembly actually debating the (relative) merits of the nominees, not arguing over whether to actually make (more) nominations.

Page 287 line 21 seems about as UN-ambiguous as a sentence (fragment) can be.

[Dan Honemann]

13 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

Yes...  but isn't the assembly actually debating the (relative) merits of the nominees, not arguing over whether to actually make (more) nominations.

Page 287 line 21 seems about as UN-ambiguous as a sentence (fragment) can be.

Yes, to debate a nomination is to debate the merits of the nominee, just as to debate a motion is to debate the merits of what it proposes.

Yep, the rule on page 287, line 21, is perfectly clear, and has nothing to do with debating nominations.

[Rev Ed]

On 12/22/2015 at 2:12 PM, Josh Martin said:

I assume that Rev Ed meant to say that nominations are debatable.

Thanks, Josh!!!!  Yes, the nominations are debatable - but then why do the nominations need to be re-opened?  If necessary, the organization can have an Q+A session prior to starting the election process if nominations are already closed.  Although the organization may be wise, if necessary, to require some sort of Q+A session/Candidates' statements prior to the election - or just do nominations right before the election like many other organizations.

[Gary Novosielski]

 

36 minutes ago, Rev Ed said:

Thanks, Josh!!!!  Yes, the nominations are debatable - but then why do the nominations need to be re-opened? 

Because debate is (usually) not in order except when germane to the immediately pending question.  It is necessary to reopen nominations in order to make that the pending question.

I believe that suspension of the rules could be used to allow a Q&A discussion in the absence of any pending question, but that would take a 2/3 vote, while reopening nominations would take only a majority.

[Rev Ed]

On 12/26/2015 at 0:04 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I believe that suspension of the rules could be used to allow a Q&A discussion in the absence of any pending question, but that would take a 2/3 vote, while reopening nominations would take only a majority.

While we do not know all the details of how the organization deals with elections, it is likely that a number of members, especially any who were not at the previous meeting, may be interested in suspending the rules to allow for the Q+A before the election.  Of course, the organization could, and I would recommend if asked, decide to either have nominations right before the election, or amend the By-law requiring the nominations to be in advance to require a Q+A prior to the election.  That would free up the problem.