1bruni Posted April 5, 2011 at 12:37 PM Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 at 12:37 PM If all criteria are met and an elected office(s) of a society is uncontested it is a commmon practice for "the secretary to cast one vote" to acknowledge the election of officers. Is this an accepted practice and is it referred to in Robert's Rules of Order? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted April 5, 2011 at 12:44 PM Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 at 12:44 PM If all criteria are met and an elected office(s) of a society is uncontested it is a commmon practice for "the secretary to cast one vote" to acknowledge the election of officers. Is this an accepted practice and is it referred to in Robert's Rules of Order?It may be a common practice but the proper procedure, if there is only one nominee for a particular office and the bylaws do not require a ballot vote, is for the chair to declare the sole nominee elected "by acclamation". See p. 428. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted April 5, 2011 at 12:51 PM Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 at 12:51 PM It may be a common practice but the proper procedure, if there is only one nominee for a particular office and the bylaws do not require a ballot vote, is for the chair to declare the sole nominee elected "by acclamation". See p. 428.... and if the bylaws do require a ballot vote, it is definitely not in order (p. 398-99). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert B Fish Posted April 5, 2011 at 01:11 PM Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 at 01:11 PM It may be a common practice but the proper procedure, if there is only one nominee for a particular office and the bylaws do not require a ballot vote, is for the chair to declare the sole nominee elected "by acclamation". See p. 428.While we on this forum regularly quote page 428 to say that, the actual quote is "When only one nominee is put up and the bylaws do not require a ballot, the chair can take a voice vote, or can declare that the nominee is elected..." From personal experience, I've found that the chairman declaring the election leaves the assembly members feeling they did not actually get to vote for their officers. Execising the other option, "the chair can take a voice vote", seems to better suit some groups.-Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted April 5, 2011 at 01:14 PM Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 at 01:14 PM Execising the other option, "the chair can take a voice vote", seems to better suit some groups.Yes and, in fact, I noticed that option (for the first time?) this morning. Thanks for citing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted April 5, 2011 at 01:41 PM Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 at 01:41 PM While we on this forum regularly quote page 428 to say that, the actual quote is "When only one nominee is put up and the bylaws do not require a ballot, the chair can take a voice vote, or can declare that the nominee is elected..." From personal experience, I've found that the chairman declaring the election leaves the assembly members feeling they did not actually get to vote for their officers. Execising the other option, "the chair can take a voice vote", seems to better suit some groups.-BobTaking a voice vote when there is only one nominee is a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted April 5, 2011 at 01:51 PM Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 at 01:51 PM Taking a voice vote when there is only one nominee is a bad idea.Then why is it presented as an (unqualified) option?Not that I'm not perfectly happy to only cite the "acclamation" option but I thought Mr. Fish raised a valid point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert B Fish Posted April 5, 2011 at 02:10 PM Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 at 02:10 PM Taking a voice vote when there is only one nominee is a bad idea.As I posted, the issue with declaring the sole candidates to have been elected is that the assembly is deprived of the opportunity to vote for them. The problem with taking a voice vote is that the assembly may not understand they will not be given the option to vote against the candidate. Dan, are we getting an advance peek at the 11th Edition?-Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted April 5, 2011 at 02:15 PM Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 at 02:15 PM The problem with taking a voice vote is that the assembly may not understand they will not be given the option to vote against the candidate. Or, perhaps the "problem" with the voice vote is that the assembly is given the option to vote against the candidate. After all, when you vote there's always an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted April 5, 2011 at 02:33 PM Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 at 02:33 PM Taking a voice vote when there is only one nominee is a bad idea.Dan, are we getting an advance peek at the 11th Edition?-BobHasn't it always been a bad idea? The only reponsible way to vote against the lone nominee or object to the chair's declaration that a lone nominee is elected, is to vote for someone else. The fact a voice vote is permitted doesn't mean it's a good idea, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted April 5, 2011 at 02:35 PM Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 at 02:35 PM The fact a voice vote is permitted doesn't mean it's a good idea, that's all.So why mention it (and mention it first) as an unqualified option? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted April 5, 2011 at 02:37 PM Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 at 02:37 PM So why mention it as an unqualified option?You really expect Robert's Rules to say taking a vote on something is absolutely prohibited? This case is hardly different from a motion to approve the minutes.......don't do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert B Fish Posted April 5, 2011 at 03:01 PM Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 at 03:01 PM You really expect Robert's Rules to say taking a vote on something is absolutely prohibited? This case is hardly different from a motion to approve the minutes.......don't do it.The analogy may fit in theory but not in practice. Approving the minutes (which can be changed fairly easily if an error is discovered after the fact) is quite different from electing officers. I'm not making this up; people liken the chair's announcement of an election without their vote to the same thing being done in public elections. You get to go to your public polling place and cast your vote, even if all the candidates are unopposed. I think the problem can be dealt with in a way that should be fairly satisfying to all:Chairman: Are there any nominations from the floor? [pause] If there are no nominations from the floor, a motion to close nominations would be in order.Member: I move that nominations be closed. [second]Chairman: It is moved to close nominations. As all the candidates are unopposed, closng nominations will have the effect of electing these candidates. The motion is not debatable and requires a 2/3 vote. ... The motion has been adopted, the nominations are closed and these candidates are elected. The chair congratulates our new officers.-Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted April 5, 2011 at 03:12 PM Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 at 03:12 PM Dan, are we getting an advance peek at the 11th Edition?-BobWell, yes, you will find the wording in the next edition a bit more forceful in this connection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted April 5, 2011 at 03:28 PM Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 at 03:28 PM You really expect Robert's Rules to say taking a vote on something is absolutely prohibited?I expect it not to suggest, as the first of two unqualified options, something it advises against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted April 5, 2011 at 03:48 PM Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 at 03:48 PM The analogy may fit in theory but not in practice. Approving the minutes (which can be changed fairly easily if an error is discovered after the fact) is quite different from electing officers. I'm not making this up; people liken the chair's announcement of an election without their vote to the same thing being done in public elections. You get to go to your public polling place and cast your vote, even if all the candidates are unopposed. But in reality, aren't your only choices in this approach to either vote for the candidate, write in, or abstain? You don't actually get to vote no for an unopposed candidate, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted April 5, 2011 at 04:22 PM Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 at 04:22 PM Taking a voice vote when there is only one nominee is a bad idea.Bad ideas are sometimes (perhaps often) in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted April 5, 2011 at 06:28 PM Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 at 06:28 PM Bad ideas are sometimes (perhaps often) in order.Not in this case (at least, not for long). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted April 5, 2011 at 06:34 PM Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 at 06:34 PM I'm not making this up; people liken the chair's announcement of an election without their vote to the same thing being done in public elections. You get to go to your public polling place and cast your vote, even if all the candidates are unopposed. If members really want to compare it to public elections, then they should have a ballot vote like in public elections, so that the individuals may write-in the candidate of their choice.But in reality, aren't your only choices in this approach to either vote for the candidate, write in, or abstain?Yes.You don't actually get to vote no for an unopposed candidate, do you?Of course not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted April 5, 2011 at 07:16 PM Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 at 07:16 PM Bad ideas are sometimes (perhaps often) in order.Not in this case (at least, not for long).Thank goodness........and who said it wasn't in order (for now, at least)? You just said it was a bad idea.....regardless of the rule, I concur with that opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted April 5, 2011 at 08:47 PM Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 at 08:47 PM I recognize what Mr. Fish is saying about the uneasy feeling that would exist in some organizations if a person just get's "declared" elected. It would be more of a problem in some than in others, naturally. But remember, we did have a question posted here recently from someone asking what the (presumably different) removal procedures would be to get rid of an officer who had been "acclaimed" into office as opposed to actually having been elected. If there had been some sort of vote, if only ceremonial in nature, to make people feel as if they "voted" the candidate in, that might make a difference in some societies. Maybe this should be one of those rare times when a voice vote may be put, but the negative not called for. If the same vote were taken by ballot, a "No" vote would not be counted, which suggests it could be omitted from a voice vote without causing any new problem, and perhaps bypassing an old one.I guess we'll just have to see what Eleven brings us in the way of new rules. I'll be bating with weighted breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted April 5, 2011 at 08:55 PM Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 at 08:55 PM Taking a voice vote when there is only one nominee is a bad idea.I would go a little further to say that a voice vote in this situation is not in order on account that the question does not have a rational, negative side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted April 5, 2011 at 11:14 PM Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 at 11:14 PM I would go a little further to say that a voice vote in this situation is not in order on account that the question does not have a rational, negative side.You don't think there's a rational negative side to the question "Shall Mr. A be elected president?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted April 5, 2011 at 11:17 PM Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 at 11:17 PM You don't think there's a rational negative side to the question "Shall Mr. A be elected president?"If the bylaws require the election of a president, the only question left for the assembly to decide is whether Mr. A or someone else shall be elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted April 6, 2011 at 12:45 AM Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 at 12:45 AM Not in this case (at least, not for long).I'll be waiting for the 11th edition.I do think however that the proper question is "That ___ be elected president." (That is for SG.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.