I encountered a recent situation which totally scrambled my understanding of "acclamation." A slate of candidates had been selected by the chair (and possibly a small committee) for inclusion as voting members of a governing body. Other member of that body were notified of these candidates and their credentials ahead of time, but when the time came to discuss their appointment/election, the chair moved to suspend the rules to adopt the slate "by acclamation," which was clearly against the will of a dozen or so members of that organization. One such member was given the floor to ask a procedural question about "acclamation." The Parliamentarian conferred that "acclamation" according to the rules being followed at that time by that organization, required only a 2/3 majority voice vote.
From everything I have been able to research, under Roberts rules "acclamation" means "unanimous consent," and when there is not unanimous consent a discussion must follow along with standard voting procedures. Consequently there was allowed no discussion of the candidates, and a majority voice vote carried. The election of the slate concluded in a matter of minutes.
Is this experience unique, or are others familiar with "acclamation" as a 2/3 majority voice vote sans debate. Thoughts?
Acclamation by 2/3 majority voice vote
in General Discussion
Posted
I encountered a recent situation which totally scrambled my understanding of "acclamation." A slate of candidates had been selected by the chair (and possibly a small committee) for inclusion as voting members of a governing body. Other member of that body were notified of these candidates and their credentials ahead of time, but when the time came to discuss their appointment/election, the chair moved to suspend the rules to adopt the slate "by acclamation," which was clearly against the will of a dozen or so members of that organization. One such member was given the floor to ask a procedural question about "acclamation." The Parliamentarian conferred that "acclamation" according to the rules being followed at that time by that organization, required only a 2/3 majority voice vote.
From everything I have been able to research, under Roberts rules "acclamation" means "unanimous consent," and when there is not unanimous consent a discussion must follow along with standard voting procedures. Consequently there was allowed no discussion of the candidates, and a majority voice vote carried. The election of the slate concluded in a matter of minutes.
Is this experience unique, or are others familiar with "acclamation" as a 2/3 majority voice vote sans debate. Thoughts?