Teller Counting Ballots When Teller is candidate on ballot

[Guest Camellia Rose]

My organization will conduct our biennial election of officers next month. Only one candidate has been nominated for each office. There were no additional nominations from the floor after the Nominations Committee made their report (presented the slate). Although nominations are formally closed, members can "write-in" candidates. The chair cannot declare the nominees elected by acclamation because our bylaws require a ballot vote. The chair of Tellers is a candidate on the ballot. Section 45 of the 11th edition of Roberts on pages 407-408 address the rule on abstaining from voting on a question of direct personal interest, specifically excluding the prohibition of voting for oneself for an office or other position.

Should the chair of Tellers abstain from facilitating the counting of ballots for the election of officers when there is only one candidate and the chair of Tellers is a candidate when there is a possibility of write-in candidates?

Where is this issue addressed in Roberts?

[J. J.]

While it may not be advisable for a candidate to be a teller, there is no rule in RONR prohibiting the practice. Specifically, it is not in found on pp. 1-669.

[George Mervosh]

If the chair appoints the tellers as shown in RONR, does it require a motion to suspend the rules to appoint other tellers if the assembly is not satisfied with the chair's appointments? I know we discussed this once but I don't remember if the proper answer was something other than suspending the rules?

[Trina]

If the chair appoints the tellers as shown in RONR, does it require a motion to suspend the rules to appoint other tellers if the assembly is not satisfied with the chair's appointments? ...

I was just wondering the same thing a day or two ago, in connection with this thread:

I'm not sure why it would require something other than suspend the rules, but I'll be checking back on this thread with interest.

[George Mervosh]

I was just wondering the same thing a day or two ago, in connection with this thread:

http://robertsrules....g-and-counting/

I'm not sure why it would require something other than suspend the rules, but I'll be checking back on this thread with interest.

I'm happy with the assembly suspending the rules and appointing whomever they choose, but my recollection was something less would do the trick. Maybe not. Dan or SG will straighten me out, as usual.

[J. J.]

If the chair appoints the tellers as shown in RONR, does it require a motion to suspend the rules to appoint other tellers if the assembly is not satisfied with the chair's appointments? I know we discussed this once but I don't remember if the proper answer was something other than suspending the rules?

I wonder if this might be a standing rule included in RONR? Technically, the tellers may act outside of the assembly.

I am, however, skeptical, that a majority vote could suspend this rule.

[Trina]

Bumping this thread in hopes of a bit more input, especially since another recent poster asked a related question.

[George Mervosh]

Maybe we're just all content that a motion to suspend the rules and have the assembly elect tellers does the trick?

[Trina]

Perhaps so. I was just nudging, in case some people had simply missed this thread. Since the poster in the thread I linked (in post #7) seemed to have serious doubts about the honesty of tellers appointed by the President, I thought the necessary steps for the assembly to appoint different tellers could be of immediate concern to her.

[Gary c Tesser]

I wonder if this might be a standing rule included in RONR? Technically, the tellers may act outside of the assembly.

Huh. In view of that astonishing discussion a few weeks ago, which determined that rules-of-order dictate the activities of the secretary's home life, I'd venture that maybe it's not standing rules, but rules of order, that determine what the tellers do elsewhere.

But if it *is* a standing rule that deals with outside-of-meeting activities, I'm wondering whether it could be suspended at all. I confess that I haven't entirely absorbed what RONR's 11'th Edition has said that replaces RONR 10th's top of p. 257, and I've already got one of the A-Team's members mad at me for possibly misunderstanding that.

[Gary c Tesser]

Also.

I think we should recognize that the role of the tellers, something like a committee even if often it can be a job that one person does, is not that of an ordinary committee

-- to investigate, consider, mull, argue, whine, and concentrate whatever nastiness or tedium that the main assembly prefers to hand off to somebody else,

and ultimately to draft a cheery report --

but the tellers are to do a job that is essentially administrative, not procedural: counting the ballots.

The problem perhaps is that the person that is now the chair of tellers should never have been appointed a teller in the first place, if the appropriateness of the appointment is questionable. That is, if we don't want her being one of the people counting the ballots for her or any opponents, which is what a teller is, then we shouldn't at all give her the job of counting the ballots, yes?

(Note that RONR does not mention a chair of tellers, though Guest Camilla Rose says her organization has one. I can't tell if the chairmanship itself is involved here.)