Weldon Merritt

Not quite. There initially were three (now four) nominees for three terms, one of which is a partial term. Although it is expected that the person who was appointed to fill the partial term in the interim (until the election) is one of the nominees, which one receives the partial term and which two the full terms will be determined by the election. When I thought there would be only three nominees (based on inaccurate information I was given), I was trying to see if there was a way to avoid the possibility of multiple tree-way ties. Dan and Shmuel came up with a good suggestion, but since I now know that there will be four nominees, the election will need to be held in the usual manner. Then the two nominees who receive the largest majorities will get the full terms, and the one with the third largest majority will get the partial term.

And a Happy New Year to you, Larry.

That was the part that initially had me puzzled as well. While I don't purport to speak for Dan, what I understand from his most recent post is that, with only three candidates for three positions (one of which is the unexpired term), and no opportunity to nominate anyone else or to cast a write-in vote, the same majority that elects two of the three to full terms simultaneously elects the third one to the unexpired term. As it turns out, however, the issue is now moot, except possibly for future reference. The senior minister informed me yesterday that there actually will be four candidates for the three terms. Given the rush of the Christmas service, I didn't get all of the details, but either the nominating committee submitted one more candidate than required (which is, of course, their right) or someone took advantage of the alternate nomination by petition process. Either way, we now clearly will need to have all three positions filled by majority vote, with the full terms filled by the candidates with the two largest majorities, and the unexpired term filled by the one with the next largest. Or, of course, we may need to revote if fewer than three receive a majority. As for the future, I am going to recommend that we amend the bylaws to go back to letting the board choose which newly-elected trustee will get the unexpired term if the same situation arises in the future (which it quite likely will).

Fair enough. But I wasn't really thinking of your opinions as an interpretation of the bylaws, but rather whether the RONR rule on non-supendability of a ballot vote must be taken literally in the particular circi\umstance I described. What I have gleaned so far (if I am understanding you and Dan correctly) is: The requirement for a ballot vote cannot be suspneded, but the voters can be instructed to vote for just the two candidates that they want to have take the full terms. But it still is not clear to me whether this would require a suspension of the rules. Once it is determined (by ballot) which two of the three candidates will get the full terms, the chair may declare the sole remaining canddidate elected to the sole remaining position (the unexpired term), even if he or she received less than a majority. If my understanding of your opinions is incorrect, please let me know. I know that Mr. Novosielski, and possibly others, probably will disagree, but it makes sense to me. I find it hard to believe that RONR would require a reballiting for the third position when the only possible outcoime is election of the sole remaining candidate.

Yes, while I was hoping that there might be a way to avoid a ballot vote, I was not at all confident that there would be. The responses I have received have all confirmed that indeed a ballot vote is required, with the only issue being exactly how it is conducted. I was preceding under the assumption that if a ballot vote is required voters would have to be instructed to vote for up to three candidates, and we would need to hope that the election would not result in repeated three-way ties. Thus my follow-up question whether, in the event of a tie on the initial vote, the rules could be suspended to provide for a different way to select which candidate gets the short term so that repeated balloting would not be necessary. The answer to that question seems to be yes; but the suggestion to instruct voters to vote for only two candidates (to get the full terms) seems to be a better suggestion. I still have a couple of remaining questions Would the rules have to be suspended to require (rather than just suggest) that voters vote for no more than two candidates? One of your responses implies that you don’t think suspending the rules would be necessary. If voters are instructed to vote for up to two candidates, and some of the voters ignore the instructions and vote for all three, how should those ballots be treated? As abstentions (as Shmuel suggests) since they do not indicate a presence among the three? Or as illegal votes, since they voted for too many candidates?

That's what I started out thinking, even though I was looking for a possible way around it. But If I am understahnding Dan and Shmuel correctly, they seem to disagree with your view, at least with regard to election to the unexpired term. And while I don't necessarilly agree with them all of the time, I do put a lot of credence in their opinions, especially when they agree with each other. Now if any of the other authors would care to weigh in, so much the better.

Darn that spell check again! I really need to do a better job of proofreading. Spell check doesn't help much when the wrong word is correctly spelled..

That's actually what I thought. I was just seeing if there might possibly be a tiny loophole if the nominees were willing to agree in advance on who gets the short term (as I am pretty sure they would be). But the assembly might decide that a different candidate should get the short term.

I think that makes a lot of sense. But I also think there is a good possiblity (perhaps even a high probabilit) that most of the voters will vote for the same two candidates (not becasue of any dislike for the third one, but solely because they know that he was appointed to a vaacancy for a term that is not expiring). If I am right, that will mean that he will receive less than a majority. So what do you sugget at that point. Could the chair then declare him (as the sole remaining candidate) elected to the sole remaining position without taking a ballot vote? Or even more radical, if the nominees all agree on who should receive the unexpired term, and since there is no opportunity for write-ins, could the ballot requirement be suspended in this rathar unusual situation?

Your assessment of the treason reason that a ballot vote is needed is correct. Otherwise, with three nominees for three positions, the chair could just declare all three elected. And under the previous bylaws, that also would have happened, with the determination of who gets the short term decided at the first post-election board meeting. This is the first election we have held under the revised bylaws, and quite frankly, I don't think this provision was thought through completely. What I would like to be able to do is advise them that if the candidates all agree on which one are to get the short term, they can forego the ballot vote and declare all three elected. But if RONR is taken literally (as it usually should be) they can’t do that. I think one of the reasons that RONR says that the requirement for a ballot vote cannot be suspended even when there are no more candidate than position to be filled (unless the bylaws provide for it) is to allow for write-in votes. But since our bylaws do not allow write-ins, I have been wondering if that would make a difference in whether the ballot requirement could be suspended. Do you have an opinion on that? Edited to correct a typo.

Suggesting that they vote for only two would not. But it seems to me that if the intent is to require that they vote for only two, the rules would have to be suspended (assumming that it is even legitimate to impose such a requirement at all). But that opens the real posssibility that one candidate will not receive a majority. (Possible even if they are instructed to vote for "up to theree," but probably a lot less likely). So what do we do at that point? Conduct another ballot vote for the sole remiaining candidate? Or could we then just declare that candidate elected to the sole remaining position? (Recall that our bylaws disallow floor nominations unless there are too few candidates to fill all postions, and write-ins also are not allowed.)

I don't know what Josh meant, but what I had in mind was to go ahead and have the required ballot vote, with voters instructed to vote for up to three. If that results in one of the candidates having a smaller majority than the other two (because some voters did not vote for all three), fine; that candidate gets the short term. But if there is a three-way tie, or a tie for smallest majority, then we would suspend the rules, declare all three elected, and use an alternate method (agreement of the candidates or by lot) to select which one gets the short term. I am, of course, open to other suggestions. I am confident that the interim candidate would be fine with getting the short term, since that is what he was expecting anyway. And I am equally confident that the assembly will go along with whatever procedure is suggested, if it will help them get through the meeting quickly. I just want to make sure that whatever we do is legitimate under the rules (including, of course, a legitimate suspension of the rules). For that matter, I doubt anyone would raise an objection to dispensing with the ballot and declaring all three elected, with the interim appointee getting the short term. But I certainly am not going to advise them to do that when the bylaws require a ballot in these circumstances. (I probably will suggest that they amend the bylaws to go back to the old way of determining who gets the short term; but that won't help for this election.)

Thanks, Josh. You have confirmed my thinking on the issue. To take it a bit further, even though the requirement for a ballot vote can’t be suspended, do you think the method for choosing which candidate gets the short term could be? If we conduct a ballot vote and one of the candidates has a lower majority than the other two, then that candidate gets the short term. End of story. But say we have a three-way tie (or for that matter, a tie for the lowest majority). At that point, could the candidates agree on which one is to receive the short term (or on an alternate method of deciding), to avoid having to do repeated balloting? It seems to me that the requirement for a ballot vote and the method for choosing who gets the short term are both rules of order. RONR specifies that the requirement for a ballot vote cannot be suspended, but I am not so sure that would be true of the method for choosing who gets the short term.

It's a typo that either didn't get corrected or was "corrected" with the wrong word. Thanks for cathcing it.

I am pretty certain that I already know the answer to my question, but I wanted to post it here to see if any of my colleagues could see a way around the problem. The issue is that the recently revised bylaws of my church specify: The election shall be by ballot if there are any partial terms to be filled or there are more nominees than positions to be filled, with majority being necessary to elect.…. The nominees receiving the largest majorities will be elected to full three year terms. The candidate receiving the next largest, majority will be elected to the longest unexpired term, if any, and so on until all terms are filled. At our coming annual meeting in February, we will have two full terms and one unexpired term to be filled, and we have a total of three candidates (one of whom will be the member who was appointed to the unexpired term in the interim). Normally, with three candidates for three positions, our bylaws would not require a ballot vote; but because one of the positions is for an unexpired term, a ballot vote is required. The board was intending to simply have the appointment to the unexpired term ratified at the annual meeting. But by my reading of the above provision, I believe that lsimony simply ratifying the appointment is not sufficient. Instead, I believe that a ballot vote must be held, with which candidate receiving the unexpired term determined by the result of the vote. I know that we don’t interpret bylaws here, but my question is whether anyone sees a way around the apparent requirement for a ballot vote in this circumstance. The member appointed in the interim is perfectly willing to take the short term (and in fact, thought that would be automatic). And prior to the recent revision, a ballot election would not have been required in this circumstance. Instead, the member receiving the unexpired term would have been determined by the board itself after the election (either by agreement among those elected or, failing that, by lot). Also, for whatever it is worth, our bylaws disallow nominations from the floor unless at the time of the election there are fewer nominees than positions to be filled. (There is an alternate way for someone other than those nominated by the Nominating Committee to be nominated ahead of the meeting.) As I said, I am pretty sure that my interpretation is correct, but I just want to see if anyone else sees a way around it. [Edited to correct a typo.]

I appreciate your faith, George. As it turns out, my ruling that Adjourn was not in order at the time it was made (after the vote on one motion under an order for the Previous Question but before the vote on the second motion in the series) was erroneous. So if I had allowed an appeal (which I still think was untimely, but maybe I should have been more lenient), my ruling most likely would have been overturned. Interestingly enough, if Adjourn had been voted on at the time it was made, and had passed, the motion that was next in the series under the order for the PQ would have come up at our next meeting as unfinished business. As it stands now, however, that motioin (for a new Special Rule of Order) was defeated, so it would now have to be re-noticed and moved again if anyone still wants to have it adopted.

I wouldn't quite agree. They require a good bit of adaptation, but for the most part, they work pretty well. Confession: I was the chair of the meeting to which Richard is referring. And in retrospet, I perhaps should have been more lenient in allowing the appeals. At the time, I believed that I had allowed ample time for appeals of other interruting motions before moving on, but I know that there were some members who felt otherwise. I thiunk part of the problem was that the meeting already had been going longer than usual, and many of us were getting tired. BTW, George, if I recall correctly, you agreed with me a couole of years ago when I was having a discussion on this forum about whether "simultaneous aural communiction" really was "essential" to a deliberative assembly, and I pointed out that teleconferrence meetings (which do provide the aural component) ofteh are more problematic than chat room meetings (which do not). That discussion took place just a day or two after we both had particpated in a teleconference meeting of the NAP Membership Extension and Retention Committee in which there were all sorts of technical problems that made it very difficult to have a coherent meeting.

I don't always agree withg Kim, but I think he was making a good point by illustrartion of the problem with the OP's post.. I certainly agree that it is pretty much impossible toi tell what the OP's concern is.

Give it up, Kim! You're just plain wrong! Of course the assembly didn't adopt a unique rule when it referred the item to the committee; but it did adopt the rule when it adopted RONR as its parliamentary autority.

I don't think the p. 500 footnote at all supports the notion that the rule is suspendaable. It is simply a very specific excepotion to the rule, with limited applicability. If the rule were suspendable, there would be no need for the foothote.

As he usually does.

I agree with Paul that it is the assembly's right to have the benefit of the committee's full and free deliberation that is protected by the rule, and it therefore can't be suspeced by the commiottee, by any vote. If I were chairing the committee, I would rule a motion to end debate (or to suepsnd the rules to allow the motion to end debate) not in order; but I would then ask if there is anyone else who wishes to debate. This really differs only in formn from Paul's suggested response by the chair, but it seems to be more parliamentarilly proper. I also agree with Richard that the assembly could adopt a special rule allowing the motion to close debate in committees. Finally, I think George's "devil's advocate" question is moot, since all three motions require a two-thirds vote (or maybe higher for suspend the rules, depending ion the rule that is to be suspended).

It violates no rule in RONR. If you don't like it, nominate and vote for someone else.

Please post your question as a new topic here.

Any time someone seems to be getting complacent about running unoppsed, I like to tell them about a special election in a state I used to libve in, held to fill a congressional vacancy, in which the only candidate listed on the ballot came in third in the election. It seems stange to me that you don't like last minute nominations but don't object to write-ins. Since nominations are debatable, the nominees (original and "last minute") and their supporters have a chance to try to convince the voters. But if someoen really wants to "steal the election," their best strategy might be to lie low and run a quiet write-in campaigh, hoping to catch the (sole) nominee unaware until it is too late to counter. The moral is that a nominee shuold never take election for granted.