Roberts Rules Regarding My Organization. Election Issue.

[Rez90]

I am a member of a local Hall Of Fame Executive Board in NJ. We are having an election of officers and there are discrepancies regarding procedure and what is allowed and what isn't. Our bylaws state that we always follow and revert back to Robert's Rules if any action is in question.

Here are my questions:

1) According to Roberts Rules an election needs to be won by a majority vote...is this correct?

An example would be an organization with 40 members. The winner needs to have at least 21 votes or the top two candidates must have a revote to establish a majority vote...and thus a winner. Is this correct?

2) The second question i have is regarding nominations and procedure for opening and closing nominations. I need to confirm that according to Roberts Rules that if the president or any officer of my organization wants to re-open nominations at a later date after they were already closed.....there needs to be a majority vote from the bored to do so....is this also correct?

Any help is appreciated as there is some discrepancy on these subjects by myself and my fellow board members.

-Rez

[Chris Harrison]

1) According to Roberts Rules an election needs to be won by a majority vote...is this correct?

Yes.

An example would be an organization with 40 members. The winner needs to have at least 21 votes or the top two candidates must have a revote to establish a majority vote...and thus a winner. Is this correct?

Not completely. If a candidate doesn't get a majority vote then you would have to vote again with all of the candidates (including anyone who is nominated later and excluding anyone who voluntarily withdraws from the election [RONR pp. 426-427]).

2) The second question i have is regarding nominations and procedure for opening and closing nominations. I need to confirm that according to Roberts Rules that if the president or any officer of my organization wants to re-open nominations at a later date after they were already closed.....there needs to be a majority vote from the bored to do so....is this also correct?

Nominations can be reopened by a majority vote by whichever body is holding the election (the Board has no role in Membership meetings) [RONR p. 277].

[Rez90]

Thanks very much.

[Robert B Fish]

#1. Your premise is correct but your example is quite wrong. An election must be held at a meeting at which a quorum is present. If the quorum for your organization is a majority of the membership, the quorum is 21. The winner in an election must receive a majority of the votes of those present and voting, not a majority of the entire membership. If several candidates are running ofr an office an no one receives a majority, you have an incomplete election and must revote. You may not drop the candidates receiving lowest number of votes without a provision to that effect in your bylaws.

#2. A majority vote (or unanimous consent) is required to reopen nominations.

-Bob

[David A Foulkes]

...

The winner needs to have at least 21 votes

...

Just to clarify this one point:

The winner needs to have more than half of all the votes cast. If 40 are present, and 20 abstain from voting, then 20 votes are cast. The winner needs at least 11 (more than half of 20, ergo a majority) to win.

Other posts have addressed your other issues.

[Gary Novosielski]

1) According to Roberts Rules an election needs to be won by a majority vote...is this correct?

Yes.

An example would be an organization with 40 members. The winner needs to have at least 21 votes or the top two candidates must have a revote to establish a majority vote...and thus a winner. Is this correct?

No.

That is not a majority vote, that is a majority of the ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP, which is not what is meant by "majority vote". A majority vote means that the winner's name must appear on more than half of the ballots ACTUALLY CAST for that office. I.e., the winner must get more votes than all the other candidates got, put together.

If nobody gets a majority, a second or subsequent ballot is held. There is no "top two" elimination, no runoff, no dropping of any candidates (unless they withdraw). Just another ballot, and another, and another....

2) The second question i have is regarding nominations and procedure for opening and closing nominations. I need to confirm that according to Roberts Rules that if the president or any officer of my organization wants to re-open nominations at a later date after they were already closed.....there needs to be a majority vote from the bored to do so....is this also correct?

I don't see what the board, whether bored or not, has to do with it. Elections are a membership issue, conducted at membership meetings, unless your bylaws are unusual (check them). Elections do not take place at board meetings. Board members have no more power than any other member at membership meetings, since the board itself is not in session at that time, and therefore does not exist.

A motion to (re)Open Nominations can be moved by any member, requires a second, and a majority vote.

A motion to Close Nominations is usually not required. When no more nominations are forthcoming, the chair can close nominations by unanimous consent, i.e., if nobody objects. Objection is unlikely because it is not in order to close nominations while any member is seeking to make another nomination. But if a motion to Close is in order and is moved and seconded it requires a 2/3 vote to pass.

As you can see, it is much easier to open nominations than to close them. This is intentional, to make sure no one can limit nominations by some cheap parliamentary trick.

---

[David A Foulkes]

I don't see what the board, whether bored or not, has to do with it.

Well, as you do know, it's not that the board has anything to do with it, but that it is a common (mis)conception that the Board is ever-present, regardless of the meeting type. This is a key educational point that is always worthy of stressing, in my opinion, and should always be clarified. Although there are many references to the inferiority of the board to the membership, I can't seem to point to any explicit "The Board is not present at membership meetings (etc)" anywhere in the book. That would be a good citation to provide Rez90 and others.

[Gary Novosielski]

Well, as you do know, it's not that the board has anything to do with it, but that it is a common (mis)conception that the Board is ever-present, regardless of the meeting type. This is a key educational point that is always worthy of stressing, in my opinion, and should always be clarified. Although there are many references to the inferiority of the board to the membership, I can't seem to point to any explicit "The Board is not present at membership meetings (etc)" anywhere in the book. That would be a good citation to provide Rez90 and others.

There won't be one that says specifically that, but it is a general principal of parliamentary law that the members of any deliberative body have the power to act only at a properly called meeting at which a quorum is present. If the board is not in session it does not, at that moment, exist. And the same goes for the general assembly of the membership.

Since a membership meeting is not a board meeting, nobody has any power beyond what their membership status in the assembly affords them. The fact that they may be board members, Whigs, or vegetarians in other contexts is immaterial.

Also, in the bylaws, boards are typically given the power to act between meetings of the membership. This would exclude any power to act during meetings of the membership. But even if that language is missing, the board cannot act when it is not in session.

[David A Foulkes]

There won't be one that says specifically that, but it is a general principal of parliamentary law that the members of any deliberative body have the power to act only at a properly called meeting at which a quorum is present. If the board is not in session it does not, at that moment, exist. And the same goes for the general assembly of the membership.

Since a membership meeting is not a board meeting, nobody has any power beyond what their membership status in the assembly affords them. The fact that they may be board members, Whigs, or vegetarians in other contexts is immaterial.

Also, in the bylaws, boards are typically given the power to act between meetings of the membership. This would exclude any power to act during meetings of the membership. But even if that language is missing, the board cannot act when it is not in session.

Understood, of course. But you don't have to convince me, but rather Rez90's board, I suspect.

[Gary Novosielski]

Understood, of course. But you don't have to convince me, but rather Rez90's board, I suspect.

I 'spect so.

I like the new sig.