Guest Tanya Posted April 18, 2011 at 09:38 PM Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 at 09:38 PM Hi, if every position is unopposed does voting still take place? Someone told me the secretary can cast one ballot and that will be sufficient. What is protocol? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted April 18, 2011 at 09:40 PM Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 at 09:40 PM Hi, if every position is unopposed does voting still take place? Someone told me the secretary can cast one ballot and that will be sufficient. What is protocol?If your bylaws require a ballot vote, then a ballot vote you shall have. Otherwise, the chair can declare a sole nominee elected "by acclamation". Having the secretary cast a single vote is not appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted April 19, 2011 at 03:10 PM Report Share Posted April 19, 2011 at 03:10 PM Having the secretary cast a single vote is not appropriate.As I understand, it's an old custom. What exactly is problematic with it? I'm asking out of curiosity, not arguing. Is it because it violates a member's right (the Sec) to vote as that member pleases? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted April 19, 2011 at 03:20 PM Report Share Posted April 19, 2011 at 03:20 PM As I understand, it's an old custom. What exactly is problematic with it? I'm asking out of curiosity, not arguing. Is it because it violates a member's right (the Sec) to vote as that member pleases?"When the bylaws require a vote to be taken by ballot, this requirement cannot be suspended, even by a unanimous vote. Thus, it is out of order in such a case to move that one person - the secretary, for example - cast the ballot of the assembly." RONR, p. 398-399It's just plain out of order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted April 19, 2011 at 03:43 PM Report Share Posted April 19, 2011 at 03:43 PM And if the bylaws state ballot vote unless only one nominee, as seems to be common, they should allow the nominee to be elected by acclamation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted April 19, 2011 at 07:55 PM Report Share Posted April 19, 2011 at 07:55 PM And if the bylaws state ballot vote unless only one nominee, as seems to be common, they should allow the nominee to be elected by acclamation.Understood. Yes, I was asking about the practice in a case where it IS in order (called for in the bylaws and ballot vote not required) when there is 1 candidate. Apparently it is common, as you note, which seems odd to me if it's such a clearly frowned upon practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted April 19, 2011 at 09:22 PM Report Share Posted April 19, 2011 at 09:22 PM Understood. Yes, I was asking about the practice in a case where it IS in order (called for in the bylaws and ballot vote not required) when there is 1 candidate. Apparently it is common, as you note, which seems odd to me if it's such a clearly frowned upon practice.It's just that it's been thoroughly obsolete since, probably, the 18th century, or earlier. I know old habits die hard, but, really... Isn't it time to move on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted April 19, 2011 at 09:32 PM Report Share Posted April 19, 2011 at 09:32 PM It's just that it's been thoroughly obsolete since, probably, the 18th century, or earlier. I know old habits die hard, but, really... Isn't it time to move on? It still seems to be a common practice in organizations where solidarity is considered very important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted April 19, 2011 at 09:40 PM Report Share Posted April 19, 2011 at 09:40 PM It still seems to be a common practice in organizations where solidarity is considered very important.And where oral tradition is strong. It's probable that it hasn't appeared in print in any parliamentary authority published within the living memory of any member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted April 19, 2011 at 10:04 PM Report Share Posted April 19, 2011 at 10:04 PM It's just that it's been thoroughly obsolete since, probably, the 18th century, or earlier. I know old habits die hard, but, really... Isn't it time to move on? Absolutely. I'm fairly certain it will be done away with when we revise our bylaws which starts soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted April 19, 2011 at 10:45 PM Report Share Posted April 19, 2011 at 10:45 PM As I understand, it's an old custom. What exactly is problematic with it? I'm asking out of curiosity, not arguing. Is it because it violates a member's right (the Sec) to vote as that member pleases?That may be part of it.I suspect it also may be that it gives the appearance of granting greater status to the secretary's vote than any other "ordinary" member. If you're going to have someone cast a single deciding vote, any member could do it.If this discouraged practice were followed, a member might reasonably ask, "Hey! Why does the secretary get to vote?". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted April 20, 2011 at 03:00 AM Report Share Posted April 20, 2011 at 03:00 AM As I understand, it's an old custom. What exactly is problematic with it? I'm asking out of curiosity, not arguing. Is it because it violates a member's right (the Sec) to vote as that member pleases?In organizations where a ballot vote is not required, it's mostly just a waste of time. The chair should just declare the candidates elected by acclamation. Additionally, in organizations where this practice is followed it is usually the case that someone makes a motion to have the Secretary cast a ballot for the unopposed candidate, and this is essentially "yes/no" voting in an election, which is improper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.