Presiding Officer during election

[Guest Janny]

If a presiding officer is 1 of 2 candidates for election, should the presiding officer vacate the chair during elections?

[hmtcastle]

If a presiding officer is 1 of 2 candidates for election, should the presiding officer vacate the chair during elections?

No. See p. 436.

[Rev Ed]

He/she does not have to - however this does not bar the organization from creating a standing rule for this, or for the Chairman to do so voluntarily. Most Chairman I know of, when running for re-election, will hand over the chair to someone who is not running for re-election. From anyone of them that I have spoken to, it is to avoid the appearance of bias to anyone who may wish to run against them.

[Gary Novosielski]

If a presiding officer is 1 of 2 candidates for election, should the presiding officer vacate the chair during elections?

Absolutely not.

[Gary Novosielski]

He/she does not have to - however this does not bar the organization from creating a standing rule for this, or for the Chairman to do so voluntarily. Most Chairman I know of, when running for re-election, will hand over the chair to someone who is not running for re-election. From anyone of them that I have spoken to, it is to avoid the appearance of bias to anyone who may wish to run against them.

No, this could not be a standing rule. It would have to be in the bylaws or a special rule of order.

And without such a rule, it would be improper of the presiding officer to leave the chair in this situation. The chair has the duty to preside. Nobody is likely to assume that the chair would be unfavorable toward his own re-election, but that is not the issue. As always he should not vote except during a ballot vote, nor should he speak from the chair in favor of his own election.

Besides, in the process of election, if the rules are followed, the chair has no discretion in determining the winner. He does not (hopefully) sit on the nominating committee (and if he did, leaving the chair would not help). He has no discretion to turn down nominations from the floor, or to close them prematurely. He has no voice in who is elected except his own ballot. And no discretion to rule someone elected by acclamation unless the office is uncontested, which is no discretion at all.

Since he did not decline his nomination, he probably cannot convince anyone that he does not want to win. What they are more likely to believe if he steps down is that the he truly does not trust his own capability to preside fairly on issues on which he may have an opinion. And that is a serious liability for a chair because, even as he is maintaining the appearance of impartiality by not voting or debating, he will nearly always have an opinion on the outcome of the questions that come before the assembly while he presides.

[Josh Martin]

No, this could not be a standing rule. It would have to be in the bylaws or a special rule of order.

And without such a rule, it would be improper of the presiding officer to leave the chair in this situation. The chair has the duty to preside.

Let's slow down a bit. I agree that if the organization wishes to adopt a written rule on the subject, it would need to be at least on the level of a special rule of order, but I think this is also an area where a great deal of weight should be given to the organization's customs. I've seen a lot of organizations where the chair acts precisely as Rev Ed describes, and in many cases I expect the assembly would react badly if he didn't. Additionally, if the chair wishes to speak in debate on the election, he certainly should relinquish the chair. I realize debate in elections is unheard of in many assemblies, but it's quite the opposite in others.

What they are more likely to believe if he steps down is that the he truly does not trust his own capability to preside fairly on issues on which he may have an opinion. And that is a serious liability for a chair because, even as he is maintaining the appearance of impartiality by not voting or debating, he will nearly always have an opinion on the outcome of the questions that come before the assembly while he presides.

I'm not sure all chairs are as opinionated as you believe, but in any event, I think the members' perceptions of the chair's actions will depend on the customs and character of the assembly.

[Gary Novosielski]

I'm not sure all chairs are as opinionated as you believe, but in any event, I think the members' perceptions of the chair's actions will depend on the customs and character of the assembly.

Well, I wouldn't equate having an opinion with being opinionated. The latter carries a connotation of being unreasonable in support of one's own opinions. And I think that's generally a rarity in presiding officers, and rightly so. Although, as we've seen in a number of threads here, it is not unheard of.

I only mean that someone who is perceived as being unable to have his own opinions and still rule fairly, i.e., one who is opinionated to the point that it affects his fairness, or who appears not to trust his own ability to be fair, would be suffering a liability as a chair. I do not mean to suggest that it is commonplace.

And yes, I would personally be less than well disposed to someone who left the chair during an election, all things being equal, and absent a rule requiring it. But maybe that's just me.

[Josh Martin]

Well, I wouldn't equate having an opinion with being opinionated. The latter carries a connotation of being unreasonable in support of one's own opinions. And I think that's generally a rarity in presiding officers, and rightly so. Although, as we've seen in a number of threads here, it is not unheard of.

I only mean that someone who is perceived as being unable to have his own opinions and still rule fairly, i.e., one who is opinionated to the point that it affects his fairness, or who appears not to trust his own ability to be fair, would be suffering a liability as a chair. I do not mean to suggest that it is commonplace.

My mistake, and your clarified point is well taken.