Voting order of a contested officer position

[Guest Sidney Glick]

Our organization holds its annual election of officers in about two weeks and the organization's nominating committee has presented its slate of offices for the coming year to the members per our bylaws.

Two of the current officers will be retiring at the end of their term but plan to attend this meeting and cast their votes for the new slate of officers.

One of the positions held by these two retiring officers is being contested, however. A majority of voting members, including our Secretary/Parliamentarian believe that the contested position should be voted on first before the remaining (uncontested) slate of officers is brought to a vote. A few people believe otherwise however, and insist that the second vacated position should be voted on first, to allow this newly elected officer to then vote in the follow up election for the contested position and in doing so take away the vote of the officer being replaced. In all likelihood, doing it this way will result in one less vote for the nominating committee's choice for that second position.

We have no rules covering this type of situation and hope that a Parliamentarian here will be able to give us some guidance.

[Chris Harrison]

RONR p. 418 says that nominations for offices are called in the order they are listed in the bylaws and I believe the general consensus around here is that the elections should be handled that way. However, there is no reason why the assembly couldn't decide to do it otherwise.

Edited for some clarity.

[Thomas Ralph]

There is no such thing as a slate. The practice of a group of nominees being put together and voted on en banc on an up/down basis is not compatible with RONR and is highly discouraged (by me at least).

[George Mervosh]

There is no such thing as a slate.

Did you ever try googling the word slate, Thomas? 15 million + hits on election slate. Is the term confusing as it relates to RONR......sure.

[David A Foulkes]

Our organization holds its annual election of officers in about two weeks and the organization's nominating committee has presented its slate of offices for the coming year to the members per our bylaws.

Two of the current officers will be retiring at the end of their term but plan to attend this meeting and cast their votes for the new slate of officers.

One of the positions held by these two retiring officers is being contested, however. A majority of voting members, including our Secretary/Parliamentarian believe that the contested position should be voted on first before the remaining (uncontested) slate of officers is brought to a vote. A few people believe otherwise however, and insist that the second vacated position should be voted on first, to allow this newly elected officer to then vote in the follow up election for the contested position and in doing so take away the vote of the officer being replaced. In all likelihood, doing it this way will result in one less vote for the nominating committee's choice for that second position.

We have no rules covering this type of situation and hope that a Parliamentarian here will be able to give us some guidance.

I'm confused. The membership is voting at the election, correct? Unless the unopposed nominee for vacancy #2 is not a member, why would he not be able to vote in all the election voting rounds? And unless the "outgoing" officer is not a member, why would he also not be able to vote in all the election voting rounds?

You seem to be suggesting that only officers can vote. Now, there are organizations in which the membership elects the Board (just to that level) and then the Board elects its own officers, without the membership participation. But I haven't gotten the sense from your post that this is the case.

So, what am I missing? Is it me? (and it often is, that's why I ask)

[Thomas Ralph]

Did you ever try googling the word slate, Thomas? 15 million + hits on election slate. Is the term confusing as it relates to RONR......sure.

We are an RONR board. I would therefore politely suggest that most things on the board are discussed in terms of what is and is not in RONR. Not possessed of the electronic version I am unable to search for slate therein, but I doubt it appears.

[David A Foulkes]

We are an RONR board. I would therefore politely suggest that most things on the board are discussed in terms of what is and is not in RONR. Not possessed of the electronic version I am unable to search for slate therein, but I doubt it appears.

With George's sufferance, I believe his point was that there is in fact such a thing as a slate. Perhaps your reply might have been better framed with an initial "Under RONR....", for example. That's all.

[Rob Elsman]

Our organization holds its annual election of officers in about two weeks and the organization's nominating committee has presented its slate of offices for the coming year to the members per our bylaws.

Two of the current officers will be retiring at the end of their term but plan to attend this meeting and cast their votes for the new slate of officers.

One of the positions held by these two retiring officers is being contested, however. A majority of voting members, including our Secretary/Parliamentarian believe that the contested position should be voted on first before the remaining (uncontested) slate of officers is brought to a vote. A few people believe otherwise however, and insist that the second vacated position should be voted on first, to allow this newly elected officer to then vote in the follow up election for the contested position and in doing so take away the vote of the officer being replaced. In all likelihood, doing it this way will result in one less vote for the nominating committee's choice for that second position.

We have no rules covering this type of situation and hope that a Parliamentarian here will be able to give us some guidance.

If a consolidated ballot is not used, the elections should be held in the order that the officers are mentioned in the bylaws.

[Shmuel Gerber]

RONR p. 418 says that nominations for offices are called in the order they are listed in the bylaws and I believe the general consensus around here is that the elections should be handled that way. However, there is no reason why the assembly couldn't decide to do it otherwise.

Although the assembly could decide to vary from traditional practice in the absence of a written rule, RONR also says that "details relating to voting [--] should be fixed by rule or custom in the organization and should not be subject to haphazard variation from occasion to occasion." (p. 401, ll. 8-10)

[Gary Novosielski]

I'm confused. The membership is voting at the election, correct? Unless the unopposed nominee for vacancy #2 is not a member, why would he not be able to vote in all the election voting rounds? And unless the "outgoing" officer is not a member, why would he also not be able to vote in all the election voting rounds?

I'm equally confused. Why would officers gain and lose the right to vote as they enter and leave office? If the report of the nomination committee was presented to the membership, and this is a membership election, then any member should be able to vote.

I await clarification (if not enlightenment).