Officer Elections

[Guest CJ Jones]

I am running for President in our upcoming officer elections.

I am concerned about ballot counting. How do I ensure all votes are counted

correctly via ballot for the appropriate candidate?

Do I have the option as a nominee to request a member from the organzation

to oversee the counting of ballots?

We do have nominating chairperson, however, I am still highly concerned.

[hmtcastle]

Do I have the option as a nominee to request a member from the organization to oversee the counting of ballots?

The tellers should be selected by the assembly based on their honesty and integrity. The ability to add count is also helpful.

[David A Foulkes]

The tellers should be selected by the assembly based on their honesty and integrity. The ability to add count is also helpful.

To be clear, the tellers are appointed by the chair.

CJ - take a look at page 400 (RONR 10th Ed.) to see some guidelines in the selection process.

[hmtcastle]

To be clear, the tellers are appointed by the chair.

Clarity appreciated.

Though this seems like one of those rules of order that could be suspended if the chair's choices are not acceptable to the assembly.

[David A Foulkes]

Clarity appreciated.

Though this seems like one of those rules of order that could be suspended if the chair's choices are not acceptable to the assembly.

I expect a Point of Order could be raised if it seemed the President was being inappropriately selective in the choice of tellers? Then only a majority vote (in the negative) instead of a 2/3 vote would be enough.

[Josh Martin]

Though this seems like one of those rules of order that could be suspended if the chair's choices are not acceptable to the assembly.

Agreed.

I expect a Point of Order could be raised if it seemed the President was being inappropriately selective in the choice of tellers?

Of course not. There's no rule regarding how "selective" the President may be in selecting tellers. Furthermore, since all the rules are couched in "should" with respect to appointing tellers, I don't think a Point of Order and Appeal would invalidate the President's choices. The appropriate course of action is to Suspend the Rules.

[David A Foulkes]

Of course not. There's no rule regarding how "selective" the President may be in selecting tellers. Furthermore, since all the rules are couched in "should" with respect to appointing tellers, I don't think a Point of Order and Appeal would invalidate the President's choices. The appropriate course of action is to Suspend the Rules.

So p. 400 ll. 12-17 can be ignored? The president could appoint tellers he knows are favorable towards one candidate, or possibly are candidates themselves? And it all hinges on a "should" in place of a "shall?" Okay, perhaps it's not a rule but more of a guideline, or suggestion, but it's not in the book just to fill space.

[Josh Martin]

So p. 400 ll. 12-17 can be ignored? The president could appoint tellers he knows are favorable towards one candidate, or possibly are candidates themselves? And it all hinges on a "should" in place of a "shall?" Okay, perhaps it's not a rule but more of a guideline, or suggestion, but it's not in the book just to fill space.

I am not suggesting, by any means, that what is said on pg. 400, lines 12-17 is "in the book just to fill space" or that it can or should be ignored. All I am saying is that a Point of Order and an Appeal would not be sufficient to invalidate the President's selections. A motion to Suspend the Rules would be necessary. I think it partially hinges on a "should" rather than a "shall," but I think it's inevitable that this must be a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule, as everything in pg. 400, lines 12-17 involves a judgment call on the part of the chair.

[David A Foulkes]

I am not suggesting, by any means, that what is said on pg. 400, lines 12-17 is "in the book just to fill space" or that it can or should be ignored. All I am saying is that a Point of Order and an Appeal would not be sufficient to invalidate the President's selections. A motion to Suspend the Rules would be necessary. I think it partially hinges on a "should" rather than a "shall," but I think it's inevitable that this must be a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule, as everything in pg. 400, lines 12-17 involves a judgment call on the part of the chair.

Let me see if I have this straight.

The selection process of tellers itself is not a "rule of order" and therefore a Point of Order would be inapplicable as a form of objection to the President's selections.

However, since RONR says the President selects that tellers, that itself is a rule of order, and could be suspended by the membership to allow them to select the tellers, perhaps by filling blanks, for instance.

Close?

[Josh Martin]

Let me see if I have this straight.

The selection process of tellers itself is not a "rule of order" and therefore a Point of Order would be inapplicable as a form of objection to the President's selections.

However, since RONR says the President selects that tellers, that itself is a rule of order, and could be suspended by the membership to allow them to select the tellers, perhaps by filling blanks, for instance.

Close?

Well, the "process" is simply that the President selects the tellers. The rest is a series of guidelines about who would make good or bad tellers. I don't think that's subject to a Point of Order. Not to mention that it would be really difficult to raise a Point of Order on those guidelines without violating decorum.

[Gary Novosielski]

Let me see if I have this straight.

The selection process of tellers itself is not a "rule of order" and therefore a Point of Order would be inapplicable as a form of objection to the President's selections.

However, since RONR says the President selects that tellers, that itself is a rule of order, and could be suspended by the membership to allow them to select the tellers, perhaps by filling blanks, for instance.

Well, the way I see it, the rule is that the President selects tellers. It is a rule of order, and is subject to a Point of Order that the president failed to select tellers. But if he didn't fail to do so, the point would certainly not be well taken.

If the president selects tellers that the assembly does not like, I suppose they can relieve him of the duty, but that would surely be a suspension of the rule. Of course if they decide to select those tellers by a ballot vote, it could be turtles all the way down.

[David A Foulkes]

Well, the way I see it, the rule is that the President selects tellers. It is a rule of order, and is subject to a Point of Order that the president failed to select tellers. But if he didn't fail to do so, the point would certainly not be well taken.

If the president selects tellers that the assembly does not like, I suppose they can relieve him of the duty, but that would surely be a suspension of the rule. Of course if they decide to select those tellers by a ballot vote, it could be turtles all the way down.

Much as Josh's reasoning seems clear, yours was very helpful as well.