Nominations for election

[Guest Ric]

Nominations are due in March and are open until the vote in April. One member made a motion on the floor in April to keep all the officers in place for the next yera . Seconded and passed. Legal??

[hmtcastle]

Legal??

Probably not.

If your bylaws call for an election then an election you must have.

However if it ends up that [a] there is only one nominee for a particular office and your bylaws don't require a ballot vote, then the chair can declare the sole nominee elected "by acclamation".

[Gary Novosielski]

Probably not.

If your bylaws call for an election then an election you must have.

Well, yes but.... I think this effect can be accomplished by a 2/3 vote if the bylaws do not specify a ballot vote.

A motion to Suspend the Rules and Nominate All Current Officers for Re-election would be in order.

If that prevailed and no others were nominated, then the chair would be justified in declaring each office elected by acclamation.

I would not feel comfortable extending this to Suspend the Rules and Elect... but someone else might.

[Guest Ric]

What about the phrase that "Nominations will remain OPEN until the election in March" ??

[Gary Novosielski]

What about the phrase that "Nominations will remain OPEN until the election in March" ??

Earlier you said that the election was in APRIL.

And I'm assuming this would be done AT the election meeting (actually you said that too). So there's no problem, as nominations would have remained open until the election.

It should be noted that this would only work if a large portion (2/3 or more) of the members want it. There is no way to continue the old officers in their offices in the face of substantial opposition.

[Rob Elsman]

Well, yes but.... I think this effect can be accomplished by a 2/3 vote if the bylaws do not specify a ballot vote.

A motion to Suspend the Rules and Nominate All Current Officers for Re-election would be in order.

If that prevailed and no others were nominated, then the chair would be justified in declaring each office elected by acclamation.

I would not feel comfortable extending this to Suspend the Rules and Elect... but someone else might.

I do not agree. It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that only one main motion can be pending at a time, RONR (10th ed.), p. 56. The rule is not suspendable, except by unanimous consent.

[alanh49]

I do not agree. It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that only one main motion can be pending at a time, RONR (10th ed.), p. 56. The rule is not suspendable, except by unanimous consent.

A motion to suspend the rules is not a main motion it's an incidental motion

[Kim Goldsworthy]

A motion to suspend the rules is not a main motion it's an incidental motion

Except when it is a main motion.

[excerpt, page 257 line 6]

Through an incidental main motion

adopted by a majority vote, a standing rule can be suspended

for the duration of the current session.

[Gary Novosielski]

I do not agree. It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that only one main motion can be pending at a time, RONR (10th ed.), p. 56. The rule is not suspendable, except by unanimous consent.

I don't see the violation. Nominations are not main motions.

This is one motion: to Suspend the Rules that interfere with a member's making more than one nomination at once--and make them.

--If there even is such a rule. There is certainly no rule against a person making several nominations sequentially, even in quick succession. What interferes here is the usual process of opening nominations for only one office at a time. It is questionable whether or not that is actually a rule. There is an example that suggests doing it one office at a time, but no imperative that I could see. But even granting that it is a rule of order, it ought to be suspendable.

Certainly, nominating several people at once does more than one thing, but that is not the same as being more than one main motion. We have all seen resolutions with multiple RESOLVED clauses, and probably authored a fair number. The fact that one motion does multiple things, even if it comprises several arguably divisible questions, does not make it, or them, out of order.

[Josh Martin]

Nominations are due in March and are open until the vote in April. One member made a motion on the floor in April to keep all the officers in place for the next yera . Seconded and passed. Legal??

The motion was improper, but it's too late to complain about it after the fact unless the Bylaws require a ballot vote. Someone should have raised a Point of Order at the time.

What about the phrase that "Nominations will remain OPEN until the election in March" ??

You seem to be getting your months confused, but at any rate, that phrase doesn't change my answer.

A motion to suspend the rules is not a main motion it's an incidental motion

Well, sometimes it is an incidental main motion, but that wasn't really Mr. Elsman's point.

I don't see the violation. Nominations are not main motions.

This is one motion: to Suspend the Rules that interfere with a member's making more than one nomination at once--and make them.

--If there even is such a rule. There is certainly no rule against a person making several nominations sequentially, even in quick succession. What interferes here is the usual process of opening nominations for only one office at a time. It is questionable whether or not that is actually a rule. There is an example that suggests doing it one office at a time, but no imperative that I could see. But even granting that it is a rule of order, it ought to be suspendable.

Certainly, nominating several people at once does more than one thing, but that is not the same as being more than one main motion. We have all seen resolutions with multiple RESOLVED clauses, and probably authored a fair number. The fact that one motion does multiple things, even if it comprises several arguably divisible questions, does not make it, or them, out of order.

Nominations aren't main motions, but elections are. So far as I can tell, Mr. Elsman was objecting to you even considering the idea that some might feel comfortable with the motion to Suspend the Rules and Re-Elect All Current Officers. I agree with him that such a motion would be permissible only by unanimous consent. Your motion regarding nominations is in order, although I think it would rarely serve a useful purpose.

[Gary Novosielski]

Nominations aren't main motions, but elections are. So far as I can tell, Mr. Elsman was objecting to you even considering the idea that some might feel comfortable with the motion to Suspend the Rules and Re-Elect All Current Officers. I agree with him that such a motion would be permissible only by unanimous consent. Your motion regarding nominations is in order, although I think it would rarely serve a useful purpose.

Oh, okay, I misunderstood Mr. Elsman's objection, and with respect to elections I'd agree with him.

But I did see such a motion used only last month, and to good effect. Some members of this meeting were dreading what might be ahead if there were contested elections possibly meaning multiple ballots and late (if any) dinner. When someone asked if there was a way to nominate all the existing officers, none of whom were term-limited, the reaction was just shy of an actual cheer going up. On a show of hands (well, voting cards) it passed by, or very nearly by, a unanimous vote. On seeing the reaction, even if someone had planned to contest one of the offices, they probably reconsidered at that moment. The chair declared the existing officers nominated, none declined, and he then called for additional nominations from the floor. People looked nervously around the room, but nobody said a word.

All the candidates were then elected by acclamation, and we got out on time.

[J. J.]

Nominations aren't main motions, but elections are. So far as I can tell, Mr. Elsman was objecting to you even considering the idea that some might feel comfortable with the motion to Suspend the Rules and Re-Elect All Current Officers. I agree with him that such a motion would be permissible only by unanimous consent. Your motion regarding nominations is in order, although I think it would rarely serve a useful purpose.

I agree, but I would note that, barring a point of order while all these elections were active, the breach would "heal" upon the completion of the election. It is a violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law for more than one motion to be immediately pending, but once that situation ends, so has the violation.