Election of entire board

[Lowell]

Our organization has voted to change its form of governance to a board of nine lay leaders, all of whom are to be initially elected at this time from a list of 26 candidates placed on the ballot by the Nominating Committee. The Committee is considering having the members present at the Special Election vote initially for up to 13 members and then cull the list to the 13 candidates with the highest number of votes for a final runoff vote to elect the nine. The Bylaws of the organization state that an election is determined by a simple majority vote by the members present at the meeting.

It would appear that any election technique deviating from permitting each voting member to cast a vote for only nine must be moved, seconded, and approved by a 2/3 majority prior to the election since this is virtually modifying the bylaws for this election. Does it even seem logical to vote initially for more than the nine which will eventually be elected? Additional comments on this matter will be appreciated.

[hmtcastle]

Does it even seem logical to vote initially for more than the nine which will eventually be elected?

You seem to be giving your nominating committee far too great a role in the electoral process (though you're free to do so).

What if you want to elect someone who isn't on the nominating committee's list?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Our organization has voted to change its form of governance to a board of nine lay leaders, all of whom are to be initially elected at this time from a list of 26 candidates placed on the ballot by the Nominating Committee.

The Committee is considering having the members present at the Special Election vote initially for up to 13 members and then cull the list to the 13 candidates with the highest number of votes for a final runoff vote to elect the nine.

Oh, no!

You ought not have a committee instruct the voting body.

It should be the other way around. -- The organization tells its committees what to do.

You ought not allow the committee to specify a subset of semi-finalists.

You already have a rule in place:

The Bylaws of the organization state that an election is determined by a simple majority vote by the members present at the meeting.

Obey your bylaws!

[Lowell]

You seem to be giving your nominating committee far too great a role in the electoral process (though you're free to do so).

What if you want to elect someone who isn't on the nominating committee's list?

I did not mention that Bylaws specify (for first time ever for this organization) "No nominations from the floor will be allowed at the meeting". (This is to permit the Nominating Committee to restrict who gets on the ballot.)

[Kim Goldsworthy]

I did not mention that Bylaws specify (for first time ever for this organization) "No nominations from the floor will be allowed at the meeting". (This is to permit the Nominating Committee to restrict who gets on the ballot.)

You freely adopt a bylaw to restrict nominations.

Now you want to undermine that restriction.

What is going on? Why adopt a rule just to bypass it later?

[Lowell]

You freely adopt a bylaw to restrict nominations.

Now you want to undermine that restriction.

What is going on? Why adopt a rule just to bypass it later?

There is no contest on the number of nominees or to open nominations to the floor; nothing is planned to circumvent the slate nominated. Thus no rules are being bypassed that I can see. The question is simply how to go about performing the vote to elect nine of these nominees.

[Josh Martin]

The Committee is considering having the members present at the Special Election vote initially for up to 13 members and then cull the list to the 13 candidates with the highest number of votes for a final runoff vote to elect the nine

First of all, the role of the nominating committee is to nominate. When it has presented its report, its job is over. It's not the role of the nominating committee to determine the method of election. This method of election is not valid unless authorized by your Bylaws anyway.

It would appear that any election technique deviating from permitting each voting member to cast a vote for only nine must be moved, seconded, and approved by a 2/3 majority prior to the election since this is virtually modifying the bylaws for this election.

I'm more concerned about the "runoff" aspect of the proposed system. In my opinion, any "runoff" system would need to be authorized by the Bylaws as it affects the basic right of a member to vote for any eligible candidate. A rule protecting the basic rights of an individual member may not be suspended.

Does it even seem logical to vote initially for more than the nine which will eventually be elected?

No. Each member votes for nine candidates. The candidates which receive votes of a majority of the ballots cast are elected. If less than nine are elected, you proceed to another round of balloting. If some candidates are elected, then the members will vote only for the remaining seats. Rinse and repeat until all nine are elected. There is no "runoff."

(This is to permit the Nominating Committee to restrict who gets on the ballot.)

Personally, that seems like an awful lot of power to give to the Nominating Committee. But if you really want to do that, you might want to prohibit write-in votes as well.

[Gary Novosielski]

Additional comments on this matter will be appreciated.

A number of people have already told you why this is a bad plan, so I won't echo the reasons.

But I fully concur that it's bad.

[Lowell]

A number of people have already told you why this is a bad plan, so I won't echo the reasons.

But I fully concur that it's bad.

[Lowell]

And I agree with you and others addressing this voting situation. I thank you all for your confirmation that this odd voting method should not even be considered by the membership; I hope they will listen !