can motion based on hypothetical situation be valid

[Trina]

In this recent topic:

http://robertsrules....ficer-declines/

there was description of an election, at which the winning candidate was not present to accept/decline election. One poster in the thread described the assembly making a provisional decision -- namely that if the winning candidate declined the office, the runner-up would take the office instead.

I can imagine that an assembly that meets infrequently -- perhaps only once annually to elect officers and conduct other business -- might want to make such a decision. Is there a way to properly frame such a decision (i.e. a provisional election)?

Suppose John and Mary are nominated for the position of treasurer. Mary is present, and is willing to serve. John is not at the meeting, and his intentions are unknown. John wins the majority of the votes, but cannot be immediately contacted. Can the assembly conduct a second 'just in case' election, with the provision that the outcome of the second election will take effect if and only if John does not accept the office of treasurer when notified?

Suppose the assembly goes ahead and conducts such a second (conditional) election... Mary is the only nominee, and she receives the majority of the votes (with a few other votes being cast for various write-in candidates). The chair is directed to contact John, and notify him of his election. Three days later the chair finally tracks down John, and John declines the office. Is Mary now the treasurer?

[Guest Edgar]

Is there a way to properly frame such a decision (i.e. a provisional election)?

My first thought is that it would have to be done at the bylaws level (where, of course, anything's possible) since it would be the bylaws that, presumably, call for a (traditional?) election in the first place. But it's an interesting question and I'll stay tuned.

[Sean Hunt]

Personally, I think that this is an entirely reasonable thing to do. There's no reason why the assembly cannot generally adopt a motion that takes effect conditionally, and I see no reason not to extend this to an election. The only purpose of preventing that would be to effectively hinder the election of unsuspecting candidates who weren't present, since an assembly that meets infrequently might not want to risk having to go to the effort of a special meeting to complete an election.

[Gary Novosielski]

In situations like this, it might also be useful to employ preferential voting as described in § 45. (This must be authorized in the bylaws.)

If the "winner" declines election, the ballots can be easily re-tabulated to determine, from among the remaining candidates, who has majority support.

Preferential voting is inherently a "conditional" vote. It answers the hypothetical question: "If my first choice should not be elected, then for whom should my vote count?"

[Dan Honemann]

In this recent topic:

http://robertsrules....ficer-declines/

there was description of an election, at which the winning candidate was not present to accept/decline election. One poster in the thread described the assembly making a provisional decision -- namely that if the winning candidate declined the office, the runner-up would take the office instead.

I can imagine that an assembly that meets infrequently -- perhaps only once annually to elect officers and conduct other business -- might want to make such a decision. Is there a way to properly frame such a decision (i.e. a provisional election)?

Suppose John and Mary are nominated for the position of treasurer. Mary is present, and is willing to serve. John is not at the meeting, and his intentions are unknown. John wins the majority of the votes, but cannot be immediately contacted. Can the assembly conduct a second 'just in case' election, with the provision that the outcome of the second election will take effect if and only if John does not accept the office of treasurer when notified?

Suppose the assembly goes ahead and conducts such a second (conditional) election... Mary is the only nominee, and she receives the majority of the votes (with a few other votes being cast for various write-in candidates). The chair is directed to contact John, and notify him of his election. Three days later the chair finally tracks down John, and John declines the office. Is Mary now the treasurer?

This is the sort of question that cannot be satisfactorily handled in the abstract, but generally speaking, I think that a motion to do such a thing will probably be out of order for some reason or other (most likely p. 444, ll. 10-12, if nothing else).

[jstackpo]

Preferential voting is inherently a "conditional" vote. It answers the hypothetical question: "If my first choice should not be elected, then for whom should my vote count?"

Not exactly... It answers: "If I have such awful judgment as to my first choice that he/she come is dead last, then for whom should my second choice be for?"

Not the most encouraging manner of assigning voting power.

Note that the person who voted (first choice) for the person who came in as #2 in the first tally almost certainly does not get his second choice tabulated at all.

Doesn't seem quite right.

[Guest Edgar]

. . . then for whom should my second choice be for?"

Doesn't seem quite right.

I agree. I think Hemingway got it right.

[J. J.]

This is the sort of question that cannot be satisfactorily handled in the abstract, but generally speaking, I think that a motion to do such a thing will probably be out of order for some reason or other (most likely p. 444, ll. 10-12, if nothing else).

I disagree, wholeheartedly and completely, with that statement!!!

I think the most likely reason it is out of order is p. 407, ll. 1-10.

[Trina]

This is the sort of question that cannot be satisfactorily handled in the abstract, but generally speaking, I think that a motion to do such a thing will probably be out of order for some reason or other (most likely p. 444, ll. 10-12, if nothing else).

But, in this case, is the election considered incomplete after John is declared the winner? Later on the same page (ll. 23-24) it says that 'If he does decline, the election is incomplete' -- however, John doesn't decline until several days later, so why should the assembly consider the election to be incomplete while the meeting is still ongoing? In the situation I described, the members of the assembly are simply being cautious, and trying to provide for the future possibility of John declining the office to which he has been elected.

I think the most likely reason it is out of order is p. 407, ll. 1-10.

Each member gets one vote per question. However, the assembly is voting on two different questions (I think). 1) Whom shall we elect as treasurer? 2) If our first choice refuses the office, whom shall we elect as treasurer?

Those don't look identical.

Is the conditional motion out of order because it is tying the hands of a future session (even if no future session is planned, or perhaps even possible under the rules of the society)??

[Dan Honemann]

But, in this case, is the election considered incomplete after John is declared the winner? Later on the same page (ll. 23-24) it says that 'If he does decline, the election is incomplete' -- however, John doesn't decline until several days later, so why should the assembly consider the election to be incomplete while the meeting is still ongoing? In the situation I described, the members of the assembly are simply being cautious, and trying to provide for the future possibility of John declining the office to which he has been elected.

Of course the election is incomplete. It will not become final until John is notified of his election and does not immediately decline.

[Trina]

OK, it makes sense that 'incomplete' and 'final' are opposites; although, since these are technical terms, I wasn't sure their everyday meanings prevailed.

'If an assembly wishes to adjourn when an election is incomplete, an adjourned meeting should be provided for.' (RONR 11th ed. p. 444 ll. 10-12).

However, in the situation I described, the wish of the assembly was not to adjourn; rather, its wish was to provide (conditionally) for the possibility that the election might prove to be incomplete after the meeting was adjourned.

I guess I'm hoping for a more convincing citation, if the conditional motion is indeed out of order...

[Dan Honemann]

OK, it makes sense that 'incomplete' and 'final' are opposites; although, since these are technical terms, I wasn't sure their everyday meanings prevailed.

'If an assembly wishes to adjourn when an election is incomplete, an adjourned meeting should be provided for.' (RONR 11th ed. p. 444 ll. 10-12).

However, in the situation I described, the wish of the assembly was not to adjourn; rather, its wish was to provide (conditionally) for the possibility that the election might prove to be incomplete after the meeting was adjourned.

I guess I'm hoping for a more convincing citation, if the conditional motion is indeed out of order...

But we assume the assembly adjourned when it wished to adjourn, and there is simply no getting around the fact that, at that time, the election was incomplete.

[Dan Honemann]

Trina, in order to make this question of yours a bit less abstract, how about providing the exact language of this "conditional motion" to which you refer.

[Robert B Fish]

Unless the bylaws specifically allow for this possibility, I just don't see how you can allow for the possibility of such a conditional election, since notice has not been given of the proposed change, etc. (Absent members who were convinced that John would win may have wished the opportunity to nominate someone other than Mary if John declined. The provisonal election denies the right to make that motion at an adjourned meeting.)

-Bob

[Dan Honemann]

Unless the bylaws specifically allow for this possibility, I just don't see how you can allow for the possibility of such a conditional election, since notice has not been given of the proposed change, etc. (Absent members who were convinced that John would win may have wished the opportunity to nominate someone other than Mary if John declined. The provisonal election denies the right to make that motion at an adjourned meeting.)

-Bob

I do not agree that this somehow violates the rights of absentees. If John was present at the meeting and declined on the spot, the assembly would immediately proceed to vote again. Furthermore, even if John was absent and the assembly provided for an adjourned meeting at which to complete the election (as contemplated by the rules in RONR), no notice to absentees would be required.

[J. J.]

But, in this case, is the election considered incomplete after John is declared the winner? Later on the same page (ll. 23-24) it says that 'If he does decline, the election is incomplete' -- however, John doesn't decline until several days later, so why should the assembly consider the election to be incomplete while the meeting is still ongoing? In the situation I described, the members of the assembly are simply being cautious, and trying to provide for the future possibility of John declining the office to which he has been elected.

Each member gets one vote per question. However, the assembly is voting on two different questions (I think). 1) Whom shall we elect as treasurer? 2) If our first choice refuses the office, whom shall we elect as treasurer?

Those don't look identical.

I don't think this. The question is "that ____ be elected treasurer." You can fill the blank with "John" or "Mary, but you cannot insert into that blank, "John, but if not Mary." You are casting one vote for two people; that is where the problem is.

[Guest Edgar]

You are casting one vote for two people; that is where the problem is.

Actually, as I understand Trina's scenario, you are casting two votes for two people. The second vote to take effect only if the first vote is rendered moot (by virtue of the winning candidate declining the office).

[Dan Honemann]

I don't think this. The question is "that ____ be elected treasurer." You can fill the blank with "John" or "Mary, but you cannot insert into that blank, "John, but if not Mary." You are casting one vote for two people; that is where the problem is.

No, the question (if you insist on stating it as if filing a blank) will be "that ___________ be elected Treasurer if John, when notified of his election, immediately declines."

[J. J.]

No, the question (if you insist on stating it as if filing a blank) will be "that ___________ be elected Treasurer if John, when notified of his election, immediately declines."

I don't see it as that, even going back to the original question. In the case you described, I think it would be a main motion conflicting with one still in force (p. 445. ll. 23-25).

If the motion was, "We'll ask John if he'll do it, first," that might be a different situation.

[Dan Honemann]

I don't see it as that, even going back to the original question. In the case you described, I think it would be a main motion conflicting with one still in force (p. 445. ll. 23-25).

If the motion was, "We'll ask John if he'll do it, first," that might be a different situation.

Well, since this is Trina's thread, I think we will need to let her frame the motion as she wishes.