George Mervosh Posted May 6, 2012 at 06:15 PM Report Share Posted May 6, 2012 at 06:15 PM Regarding the rule on p. 440, lines 3-17.If the member is elected to more than one office and is absent, RONR notes "the assembly decides by vote which office is assigned to him." Is it correct to say that if a ballot is required by the bylaws for the election itself, this vote must also be taken by ballot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted May 6, 2012 at 06:40 PM Report Share Posted May 6, 2012 at 06:40 PM Regarding the rule on p. 440, lines 3-17.If the member is elected to more than one office and is absent, RONR notes "the assembly decides by vote which office is assigned to him." Is it correct to say that if a ballot is required by the bylaws for the election itself, this vote must also be taken by ballot?It seems as correct to me as it does to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted May 6, 2012 at 07:52 PM Report Share Posted May 6, 2012 at 07:52 PM It seems correct to me.Mind you shouldn't this issue (i.e. absent member running for more than one position and the assembly making the final decision should the member be elected to at least two of those positions) be debated/discussed prior to voting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted May 6, 2012 at 08:33 PM Report Share Posted May 6, 2012 at 08:33 PM Mind you shouldn't this issue (i.e. absent member running for more than one position and the assembly making the final decision should the member be elected to at least two of those positions) be debated/discussed prior to voting?My first thought was are elections debatable? But this is really a motion "which office shall Mr. X hold?", as if filling blanks. He's already been elected, to multiple offices in fact, so even though it's a bit like another election, it seems like it should be debatable. I'll be interested to see the replies that follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted May 6, 2012 at 09:17 PM Report Share Posted May 6, 2012 at 09:17 PM My first thought was are elections debatable? But this is really a motion "which office shall Mr. X hold?", as if filling blanks. He's already been elected, to multiple offices in fact, so even though it's a bit like another election, it seems like it should be debatable. I'll be interested to see the replies that follow.An election is debatable, yes, as is the question of which office shall be assigned to him. Both are incidental main motions.Note: I believe the question on which office is assigned would be an undenatable incidental motion if made while the election is pending. EDITED to add note. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted May 6, 2012 at 09:51 PM Report Share Posted May 6, 2012 at 09:51 PM An election is debatable....Making the distinction between nominations and elections, when does the debate for elections take place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted May 6, 2012 at 11:17 PM Report Share Posted May 6, 2012 at 11:17 PM Making the distinction between nominations and elections, when does the debate for elections take place?If the election were not debatable, the nominations would not be. Both are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted May 7, 2012 at 10:55 AM Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 at 10:55 AM If the election were not debatable, the nominations would not be. Both are.I thought David was asking whether the election is somehow debatable separately from the nominations, and, if so, when does the nomination debate end and the election debate start? And, if that wasn't David's question, I guess it's my question. I'm having trouble picturing the distinction... maybe an example would help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted May 7, 2012 at 11:10 AM Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 at 11:10 AM Regarding the rule on p. 440, lines 3-17.If the member is elected to more than one office and is absent, RONR notes "the assembly decides by vote which office is assigned to him." Is it correct to say that if a ballot is required by the bylaws for the election itself, this vote must also be taken by ballot?I don't know... it sounds reasonable at first glance, but it isn't really an election, is it? Picking one office for someone who has previously received a majority for more than one office is not the same as picking (voting for) one candidate to fill an office.I think the voting method would default to whatever the assembly usually does during votes (although it would seem quite reasonable for a member to move to conduct the selection-of-office vote by ballot).The fact that the language on p. 440 uses the word 'vote' on line 12 in describing the office-selecting step, and then immediately continues with instructions that the assembly 'ballots' again to fill the other office, also makes me think there's a distinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted May 7, 2012 at 11:18 AM Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 at 11:18 AM I thought David was asking whether the election is somehow debatable separately from the nominations, and, if so, when does the nomination debate end and the election debate start? And, if that wasn't David's question, I guess it's my question. I'm having trouble picturing the distinction... maybe an example would help?It was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted May 7, 2012 at 01:18 PM Author Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 at 01:18 PM I don't know... it sounds reasonable at first glance, but it isn't really an election, is it? Picking one office for someone who has previously received a majority for more than one office is not the same as picking (voting for) one candidate to fill an office.I think the voting method would default to whatever the assembly usually does during votes (although it would seem quite reasonable for a member to move to conduct the selection-of-office vote by ballot).The fact that the language on p. 440 uses the word 'vote' on line 12 in describing the office-selecting step, and then immediately continues with instructions that the assembly 'ballots' again to fill the other office, also makes me think there's a distinction.If you don't want to argue that my "vote" on which office he is to assume exposes my initial vote if it's not taken by ballot, in my view the election is simply "incomplete", albeit not like we're used to discussing incomplete elections where no member receives a majority of the votes cast.I do believe a ballot would be required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted May 7, 2012 at 01:39 PM Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 at 01:39 PM If you don't want to argue that my "vote" on which office he is to assume exposes my initial vote...But that isn't necessarily so. You might change your mind and now vote for one of the other offices he was nominated for than the one you initially voted for. You might have voted for him for a third office for which he didn't receive a majority of votes, and thus is not one of those being voted on. You might have voted for another candidate altogether, or even abstained.I admit, I'm leaning more towards the ballot vote, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted May 7, 2012 at 01:42 PM Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 at 01:42 PM I don't know... it sounds reasonable at first glance, but it isn't really an election, is it? Picking one office for someone who has previously received a majority for more than one office is not the same as picking (voting for) one candidate to fill an office.I think the voting method would default to whatever the assembly usually does during votes (although it would seem quite reasonable for a member to move to conduct the selection-of-office vote by ballot).The fact that the language on p. 440 uses the word 'vote' on line 12 in describing the office-selecting step, and then immediately continues with instructions that the assembly 'ballots' again to fill the other office, also makes me think there's a distinction.If the bylaws prescribe a ballot vote for the election of secretary (i.e. the question of which individual shall be placed in the office of secretary), I believe the vote on the question that decides which individual shall be placed in the office of secretary MUST be taken by ballot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted May 7, 2012 at 03:22 PM Author Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 at 03:22 PM But that isn't necessarily so. You might change your mind and now vote for one of the other offices he was nominated for than the one you initially voted for. You might have voted for him for a third office for which he didn't receive a majority of votes, and thus is not one of those being voted on. You might have voted for another candidate altogether, or even abstained.I admit, I'm leaning more towards the ballot vote, though.What I think the more important thing is, which you didn't quote back is that the election is not complete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted May 7, 2012 at 03:57 PM Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 at 03:57 PM What I think the more important thing is, which you didn't quote back is that the election is not complete.And I agree, thus requiring a ballot vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted May 7, 2012 at 06:10 PM Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 at 06:10 PM Regarding the rule on p. 440, lines 3-17.If the member is elected to more than one office and is absent, RONR notes "the assembly decides by vote which office is assigned to him." Is it correct to say that if a ballot is required by the bylaws for the election itself, this vote must also be taken by ballot?Yes, a ballot vote is required as a consequence of the rule on page 413, lines 1-9, regardless of whether or not the bylaws require a ballot vote for election of officers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted May 8, 2012 at 12:43 PM Author Report Share Posted May 8, 2012 at 12:43 PM Yes, a ballot vote is required as a consequence of the rule on page 413, lines 1-9, regardless of whether or not the bylaws require a ballot vote for election of officers.Thanks, Dan, that citation was quite helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.