Guest Chris Posted October 18, 2012 at 02:30 AM Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 at 02:30 AM The city has an appointment to an outside board. City charter appoints based on resolution. Two names were submitted. Motion was made to fill position with one name and died from lack of second. Motion was then given for next name and a second was given, and then discussed and voted on. Was this done properly?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted October 18, 2012 at 02:53 AM Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 at 02:53 AM Since no one here has read your rules, perhaps you could tell us why you think it might not have been done properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chris Posted October 18, 2012 at 03:14 AM Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 at 03:14 AM We had a complaint that we had to vote on the first name submitted even though it did not get a second!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted October 18, 2012 at 01:23 PM Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 at 01:23 PM And is there some rule in your bylaws that would suggest that the complainant was correct? I ask because there's nothing in RONR that would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnR Posted October 18, 2012 at 03:22 PM Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 at 03:22 PM We had a complaint that we had to vote on the first name submitted even though it did not get a second!!If your council (?) functions under the small board rules, then motions do not require a second.What should have happened is that the resolution was offered with a blank for the name, and then nominations would be made. Nominations do not require a second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted October 18, 2012 at 03:32 PM Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 at 03:32 PM This should have been handled as an election. Therefore the candidate with the highest votes would be elected. Hoever, as the motion to elect/appoint the one candidate passed, I'd suggest that everything is legit. If people did not want the one candidate to be elected either the second would have been made on the first motion, or the second candidate would not have received a majority of votes cast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted October 18, 2012 at 05:23 PM Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 at 05:23 PM ... the candidate with the highest votes would be elected...No, a candidate would need to get a majority of the votes to be elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted October 18, 2012 at 06:20 PM Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 at 06:20 PM Parliamentary mis-steps aside, I think in the long run it's fair to assume that if Mr. A's "nomination" did not even have enough support to garner an unecessary second, he likely would not have received a majority of votes either. It would seem the will of the assembly was to consider Mr. B for the position, although we don't know the outcome of that vote, though the assumption is he won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted October 19, 2012 at 05:17 PM Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 at 05:17 PM No, a candidate would need to get a majority of the votes to be elected.As there were only two candidates then the member with the "highest number of votes" would also receive a majority vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted October 19, 2012 at 07:15 PM Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 at 07:15 PM As there were only two candidates then the member with the "highest number of votes" would also receive a majority vote.Well....... assuming no write-ins, I suppose. Still, better to strive for the clarity of "majority of votes" and remove any confusion via the possibily of a "plurality", don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted October 20, 2012 at 03:36 AM Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 at 03:36 AM Okay, true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.