Weldon Merritt

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.

Amen to that! But in all fairness I would have to say that the meeting George is referring to seemed to have exceptional difficulties that I have rarely experinced in a conference call. And when we finally switched to a different platform, we had far fewer difficulties.

That seems reasonable and logical, and the group to which I belong does that to a very high degree of conformance. It meets every one of the distinguishing characteristics listed at RONR (11th ed.), p. 1, l. 8 to p. 2, l. 17, with the sole exception that it does not “meet in a single room or area” (at least in the usual senses of those words), and communication during its meetings, while simultaneous, is not aural. Whether or not RONR would consider that group to be a deliberative assembly, we manage to function just as effectively as many groups that do meet every detail of the definition

I suppose a lot depends upon what is meant by “equivalent.” Certainly, it cannot mean “identical,” so how closely does it have to mimic what takes place “in a single room or area”? I definitely concur about teleconference meetings, which is why I believe chat room meetings actually are superior in the accuracy, if not the speed, of the information conveyed. And, I have no doubt that chat room meetings con use the rules in RONR; the one in which I participate has been doing so very successfully for at least a couple of years now. Which of course leads to the question: What is the real significance, if any, of whether a given meeting is or is not a “deliberative assembly”?

Fair enough. But I doubt most regular chat room users would consider this fourm to be a chat room, as the term normally is used. Perhaps part of the problem is a lack of understanding of the actual nature of a properly-conducted chat room meeting. If so, maybe a debate would help to dispel some of the concerns.

Oh, there was never any doubt in my mind what the intent was. Indeed, all of the other non-aural means of communication listed as examples could have been excluded just as effectively by simply requiring “simultaneous communication” without specifying “aural.” But I do not feel a need to "justify chat room meetings"; some of us have been conducting them for quite some time now, using RONR with a number of special rules of order to fit our unique circumstances. I suspect we will continue to do so whether or not RONR considers chat room meetings to be deliberative assemblies (and I agree that with the current wording, it does not). The question is: Why is the aural component of communication considered important only for meetings that are not conducted "in a single room or area"? The need for simultaneous communication seems reasonably obvious, at least to me; the need for that communication to be aural is not. Yes, I know that the reason for a rule (at least one that is unambiguous) is irrelevant; the rule is what it is. But one can still wonder and seek to understand what it is about chat room meetings, which clearly can be conducted with simultaneous (but non-aural) communication, makes the authors believe they are not true deliberative assemblies. Having participated in both teleconference and chat room meetings, it has been my experience that once you have more than just a very small number of participants, it is much easier (albeit very much slower) to keep track of what is going on in a chat room. If there is indeed a rational reason for excluding chat room meetings from being considered deliberative assemblies (not just “we don’t like them”), I would love to know it.

As the initiator of this thread, I actually did not think it was the intent of the authors to deny the right of the deaf to form deliberative assembles. Rather, I thought it might be an unintended consequence of the attempt to limit how electronic meetings can be conducted. I recognize the use of the conjunction “or” between the elements of the criterion; but it certainly appeared to me that the reference to “equivalent conditions” included both adjectives, “simultaneous” and “aural.” If the authors are now saying that the aural component is not necessary when the group is meeting “in a single room or area,” I have to ask why that component is so important when the group is meeting via the internet. I agree that deliberation by postal mail, e-mail, and fax do not constitute a “deliberative assembly.” But to me, the critical issue is not the absence of an aural component, but the absence of simultaneity of the communication. Chat room meetings, on the other hand, are conducted through simultaneous (but non-aural) communication. Granted, such meetings require a lot of special rules of order to make them work; but as already discussed, the same is true of a meeting of the deaf that takes place “in a single room or area.” As you note, meetings “by webcam, and the like, are rapidly developing and, as they become more common, are becoming less and less expensive,” but that does not necessarily mean that those are the only way to conduct simultaneous communication. And as you now acknowledge, even those means may be used for non-aural communication. So if a meeting of the deaf participants using ASL “in a single room or area” constitutes a deliberative assembly, does a meeting of the same participants “with webcams using ASL” also constitute one? If not, what is the critical difference? And if so, why could groups, deaf or not, using other simultaneous but non-aural means of communication over the internet not also constitute deliberative assemblies? Note that the question is not whether groups other than deliberative assemblies can adopt and use at least some aspects of RONR; clearly they can. The question is why groups using simultaneous but non-aural means of communication over the internet should not be considered deliberative assemblies. Perhaps it makes no practical difference, but for whatever reason, the authors chose to make the distinction.

What I make of page 2, lines 19-24, is that a group that does not have all of the characteristics of a deliberative assembly (as listed in the preceding six bullets) nevertheless may elect to follow some of the rules in RONR. But that does not really answer my question. Must a group possess all of the listed “distinguishing characters” in order to be considered a “deliberative assembly”? If so, then a literal interpretation of the unambiguous language of the second bullet certainly would seem to preclude a group of deaf participants from being a deliberative assembly, no matter if the group possesses all of the other listed attributes. But if (as Mr. Balch seems to indicate) some other means of simultaneous communication may be substituted for “aural” among a group of deaf participants, then can it really be said that “simultaneous aural communication” is a requirement. And is it only deaf participants who may substitute another means? Suppose a group composed of sign language interpreters want to form an organization that conducts all of its meetings in ASL, so they can hone their skill. Can they do so and still be considered a “deliberative assembly”? As for what difference it makes, that is part of what I am trying to find out. I frankly am not sure what the possible ramifications of being or not being a true “deliberative assembly” may be. If a group that does not meet the criteria for being a “deliberative assembly” nevertheless can adopt and agree to be bound by RONR, with only those changes necessary to accommodate its unique characteristics, then maybe it does not matter. But apparently the authors thought it was important to make a distinction. Perhaps it is too much to hope for, but what I would really like is a clear answer from a member of the authorship team: Is or is not “simultaneous aural communication” a necessary criterion for a “deliberative assembly”? (Yes, I know that the group would have to adopt some special rules to include what means of simultaneous non-aural communication they would use. But if they do so, and assuming they meet all of the other “distinguishing characteristics” are they then a “deliberative assembly”?)