Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

statement preceeding voting in an election


carolchuk

Recommended Posts

Is an election valid if the preciding officers first tell a candidate that he is not allowed to speak before the vote is taken for an election, then to relent and say you have one minute and then to stop that candidate from saying anything more after one minute. Basically the preciding officers shouted down the candidate as well as allowing others in the membership to do the same. The candidate was trying to make a statement regarding why he felt he should be elected. It probably would have taken 5 minutes if he had been permitted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing that happened would invalidate the election.

Which is not to say that all was hunky-dory though, right? I mean, members being (at first) denied their right to debate, then allowed to but limited arbitrarily and without proper approval (2/3 vote), and what sounds like some serious violation of decorum by the members as well as presiding officer. Just sayin'... all is not apparently well in Carol's world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, members being (at first) denied their right to debate . . .

Oh, I don't know. Debate (on the nominations) may very well have ended when this one candidate decides he wants to make a speech. As always, we weren't there but I'd hesitate to describe the situation as "members being denied their right to debate". Unless you're writing headlines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before voting can someone who is nominated for a position make a statement, assuming all candidates are given equal time.

Nominations are fully debatable. The candidates and the members of the assembly all have an equal right to speak to the qualifications, or lack thereof, of any given candidate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nominations are fully debatable. The candidates and the members of the assembly all have an equal right to speak to the qualifications, or lack thereof, of any given candidate.

Agreed, but...

I wonder: is there any explicit statement in the book to this effect, other than the "Yes" in the "Debatable" column, tinted page 18-19, #49.

Descriptions of the sequence of actions in Section 46 all jump from the end of nominations right to voting. No mention of intervening debate on candidates' merits (or lack thereof); e.g. p. 436, lines 24-27.

That lack might be the source of some confusion. RONR/12 anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, but...

I wonder: is there any explicit statement in the book to this effect, other than the "Yes" in the "Debatable" column, tinted page 18-19, #49.

Descriptions of the sequence of actions in Section 46 all jump from the end of nominations right to voting. No mention of intervening debate on candidates' merits (or lack thereof); e.g. p. 436, lines 24-27.

That lack might be the source of some confusion. RONR/12 anyone?

John, since a nomination is a proposal to fill a blank in an assumed motion to elect, use RONR (11th ed.), p. 164, ll. 24-25. (the language is slightly altered from the 10th edition p. 156 but in this case the distinction doesn't matter.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That'll do it of course, for us logical folks that can make connections between different portions of the book, but if someone read Section 46 more or less in isolation (using it as a specific reference), and didn't check in with the "fill the blank" rules, he could well be mislead.

RONRIB is equally reluctant to explicitly say "Nominations are Debatable" (p. 77ff.) and doesn't mention the "fill the blank" nature of elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone for your input. There was no debate after the nominations except for the one minute statements that were allowed after first telling the candidates that they could not speak. The candidate, who was first denied the right to speak and then only for one minute with the officers cutting him off and demanding that he be quiet, lost the election. I can't believe that it was a fair election with such a negative attitude being displayed by the leaders of the organization before the vote was taken. The candidate who wanted to speak was trying to explain why he thought he should be elected and was not saying anything at all about the other candidate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is an election valid if the preciding officers first tell a candidate that he is not allowed to speak before the vote is taken for an election, then to relent and say you have one minute and then to stop that candidate from saying anything more after one minute. Basically the preciding officers shouted down the candidate as well as allowing others in the membership to do the same. The candidate was trying to make a statement regarding why he felt he should be elected. It probably would have taken 5 minutes if he had been permitted.

Thanks everyone for your input. There was no debate after the nominations except for the one minute statements that were allowed after first telling the candidates that they could not speak. The candidate, who was first denied the right to speak and then only for one minute with the officers cutting him off and demanding that he be quiet, lost the election. I can't believe that it was a fair election with such a negative attitude being displayed by the leaders of the organization before the vote was taken. The candidate who wanted to speak was trying to explain why he thought he should be elected and was not saying anything at all about the other candidate.

Just trying to clarify a bit...

If we say that the election is almost certainly valid, that is not the same as saying that the process you describe was fair, proper, or in accordance with the rules in RONR.

There are many possible errors that can be made during the course of a meeting. The vast majority of these errors and misdeeds must be challenged (generally by making a point of order) right as they occur. If the members of the assembly sit uneasily through the errors, but don't say anything, it is too late to complain (in a parliamentarily meaningful way) later. In other words, the decisions of the assembly stand, despite the errors committed along the way.

There are a few types of errors that are important enough that they render the actions taken null and void. Errors of this type are known as continuing breaches, and they can be challenged by a point of order at any time during the continuance of the breach. A few examples of this type of error are conducting business without a quorum present, electing a candidate who doesn't meet eligibility requirements in the bylaws, or failing to provide required notice of a meeting to all members. See RONR (11th ed.) p. 251 and subsequent pages for more information.

The errors (and unfairness) you describe seem to fall in the category of mistakes that should have been challenged promptly. One thing that stands out in your description is the dominant role of 'the officers' (deciding whether or not to allow debate or statements in the first place; then cutting off the candidate in mid-sentence). If this was an election meeting conducted by the general membership, 'the officers' have no business running the show. With the exception of the presiding officer, who chairs the meeting, the officers have no special standing or authority at a meeting of the general membership. Decisions, including decisions about opening or closing debate and about permissible speaking time, are to be made by the assembly, not by a handful of officers with delusions of authority. Rules of decorum, and rules about assignment of the floor should be followed (a chorus of people talking at the same time and shouting down another member breaks all kinds of rules). However, the membership apparently let those who misbehaved (officers and others) get away with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...