Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Howard Roark

Members
  • Posts

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Howard Roark's Achievements

  1. Our bylaws to provide a method for breaking multi-person ties. Basically, drawing names out of a hat. First name out is this highest ranked, etc. I agree with your intuition that 50 will lead to fewer ties, at least within the top 50 ranked nominees. But I suspect that it will lead to more ties among the alternates (the bottom ranked 50 nominees), as many of them will receive only one vote. I suspect that allowing 100 votes will result in more ties among the top 50 ranked nominees, where it doesn't matter, as those are all elected delegates which don't need to be ranked. And I suspect that allowing 100 votes will result in fewer ties among the bottom 50 ranked nominees (the alternates), where ties need to be minimized. So 100 would, at least intuitively, result in fewer ties amongst the alternates, where it really matters. Maybe I'll write a monte carlo simulation to get some quantitative results to supplement our intuition. In any case, the question is moot, as the organization has decided to go with 50.
  2. That would certainly nail down the question for us. Do you have a citation for that?
  3. What rule are you referring to? Our rules do not specify how the election is to be conducted.
  4. I see the advantage in that, but the additional time required to conduct two ballot elections would likely be an issue. Additionally, setting up the ballot for the alternates' election could not be done in advance since it would depend on the results of the delegates' election. BTW, I am told that the organization has just decided to use the "50 votes" option. If there is any interest, I'll post a "post-mortem" here after the meeting in a couple of months.
  5. Indeed, but our bylaws require those things. We would certainly be interested in amending them to specify a better procedure -- if we could find or develop a better one.
  6. Yes: if there are fewer nominees than the allowable quota, will a large number of ties result if 100 votes are allowed? For example, if there are 100 total slots to fill, but only, say, 75 nominees, a concern was expressed that all the members (each having up to 100 votes) will be able to vote for all 75 nominees, resulting in a massive tie. (Unlikely, perhaps, but Murphy's Law applies to our meetings.) It would seem that a tie among the top 50 nominees would be no problem as the delegates need not be ranked, but the alternates do need to be ranked, so a tie amongst them would need to be resolved. (Our bylaws provide for a lottery to resolve ties, but it would slow things down significantly in these already too-long meetings.) So the question boils down to: which option would result in fewer ties among the alternates? There seem to be two opposing forces at work here: Allowing only 50 votes would force members to be more selective and prevent them from "voting for everyone" and thus avoid a massive tie among the bottom vote getters. On the other hand, allowing only 50 votes would result in a large number of ties among the bottom vote getters, as there would be numerous nominees with only one vote. I'm stumped!
  7. RONR (12th ed.) 58:13 recommends electing an equal number of delegates and alternates, with the alternates being ranked in order of the number of votes received. In our organization, this will be a 'plurality at large' election, with 100 candidates to be elected. The top 50 vote getters will be delegates, and the next 50 will be alternates. When conducting 'majority at large' elections, each member gets one vote per position to be filled. This is reasonable since a majority is required for election. But is that still appropriate for a 'plurality at large' election? In the above situation, should members be given 100 votes, or only 50 votes?
  8. Ah, yes, I see. That is the crux of the matter. Does it seem, though, that this can lead to serious abuse? For example, a malicious incumbent chair (and I've seen many) could: Attempt to delay announcing the result until quorum is lost -- and by doing so earn himself another year in office. I suppose a point of order and appeal could counter that tactic if the membership is knowledgeable enough or a floor parliamentarian is present. Or, this malicious chair, knowing the result but before announcing it, could direct his supporters to depart and thus deny quorum. (In fact, this may not even be necessary: at many conventions, a large proportion of members depart immediately after casting their final vote.)
  9. I see that 45:37-39 provides the form for announcement of the results, but does not require that the announcement actually take place. Also, I was mistaken on 21:6 - that paragraph states that the motion to adjourn IS in order if all the ballots have been collected and before the results have been announced.
  10. I remember this rule regarding announcement of results, but strangely cannot find the reference for it in RONR. Can anyone here provide the citation? Thanks! EDIT: nevermind; I found it: 21:6.
  11. The first sentence in RONR (12th ed.) 12:70 appears to indicate that if a motion to substitute is a primary amendment, and no secondary amendments are involved, the motion to substitute is treated as essentially a simple strike out and insert motion. This seems consistent with the Form and Example that begins at 12:83. It is only when a secondary amendment to modify the original motion or the substitute motion is introduced (as Member L does in 12:83) that the Chair resolves the motion to substitute into the two elements, each to be perfected separately. "Perfecting" the initial motion or the substitute would seem to require secondary amendments. If none are offered, both the initial motion and the substitute are already by definition "perfect", so the situation reduces to simple strike out and insert, albeit with slightly modified wording. Yes?
  12. Actually, I'm referring to searching this forum, on a PC, using a web browser. By the way, I did try using a space rather than a colon here and that did not work either. I'm wondering if perhaps there is another wildcard character that would work.
  13. Entering a search term in the RONR 12th ed. format (i.e. 47:48 or whatever) always returns zero results. This is true regardless of whether the term in encased in quotes. Whenever searching for discussion on a particular paragraph, this feature would be extremely useful, and would be helpful to avoid posting redundant material. (This very question is a good example: I cannot imagine that this question has not already been asked!) Is there any formatting trick that would allow searching in this way?
  14. Thank you! That clears it up for me. So, any statement in RONR other than those 30 statements can be overridden by a Special Rule of Order, whereas those thirty require an actual bylaw to be overridden. Makes sense! Only remaining complexity that I can see is that, if any of those 30 statements are rules of order, overriding them would require placing rules of order into the bylaws. And bylaws that are clearly in the nature of rules of order can be suspended! With the exceptions, of course, listed in §25. I suppose the exceptions listed in §25 cover all of the applicable statements, making it airtight. From what I have seen of RONR so far, I have confidence that they are. Thanks again, Josh.
×
×
  • Create New...