Did We Get Elected?

[carlw1@earthlink.net]

I think this is about the time when someone usually notes that RONR has been around for a long time, through 11 editions now, and with each revision it refines the understanding of the basics of parliamentary law as it applies as generally as possible, taking into account cultural changes (such as the internet and email), and so on and so forth. However, what it always allows is for any society to adopt its own rules (bylaws, special rules of order, standing rules, etc) that more specifically suit its needs, and these rules take precedence over RONR.

If enough of your members feel the changes to the rules as you suggest are more appropriate than those found in RONR, you (well, they actually) are free to adopt and incorporate them as they wish. There's no need to wait for RONR to change the way it puts forth parliamentary procedures - you can adopt your own.

I understand what you are saying and it does give the organization lots of flexibility no argument. But I'm tying to impart is that we don't always know what we need until its too late to do anything about it. What I am suggesting is the RONR folks go into the field take a look around and see how their rules are being implemented (or not) when there isn't a registered parliamentarian there to supervise the situation. Maybe there are some defaults as we say in the software industry so users don't go off the deep end with too many choices. And if they don't like those choice then they are as you say "society to adopt its own rules".

[Dan Honemann]

But I'm tying to impart is that we don't always know what we need until its too late to do anything about it.

[Weldon Merritt]

Iwe don't always know what we need until its too late to do anything about it.

Part (perhaps most) of your problem was caused by adopting something you didn't need, instead of just sticking with the time-tested RONR rules.

[Josh Martin]

Why should every organization be forced to adopt local rules?

They aren't.

Why doesn't RONR address the issue, and if they have then its clear as mud to us mere mortal folks who on occasion have to visit the 715 page book.

Maybe RONR could be updated with "if the voice vote results in a no vote for a lone candidate then members are obligated to nominate someone else and then the vote is taken again and again (with new nominees if necessary) until a candidate can be elected." or words to that effect.

I don't mean to be flippant here, its just frustrating to reading RONR, understanding it and then applying to the situation at hand.

Under the rules in RONR, it's not possible to have a voice vote on a lone candidate. A sole candidate is elected by acclamation, unless the Bylaws require a ballot vote. Your Bylaws provide otherwise, so your organization will have to figure out how that works.

I understand what you are saying and it does give the organization lots of flexibility no argument. But I'm tying to impart is that we don't always know what we need until its too late to do anything about it. What I am suggesting is the RONR folks go into the field take a look around and see how their rules are being implemented (or not) when there isn't a registered parliamentarian there to supervise the situation. Maybe there are some defaults as we say in the software industry so users don't go off the deep end with too many choices. And if they don't like those choice then they are as you say "society to adopt its own rules".

The default is that if candidates are unopposed, the chair declares them elected. There is no vote. Your society apparently didn't like this default, so it adopted its own rules.

[carlw1@earthlink.net]

OK Josh, you are right, we should rewrite or delete the current set of rules.

Of all the responses, thank you for being the most reasonable and see that we are just amateurs at this RONR.

Mr. Holderman, if you don't know when you enter this favicon in the post that you left, it translates to "rolling eyes" when you see the text version of your post. Not nice or respectful.

Gentlemen, I hear you all...and to all a good night.

And may the Peace of the Lord be with you all.

Carl W

[Shmuel Gerber]

Mr. Holderman, if you don't know when you enter this favicon in the post that you left, it translates to "rolling eyes" when you see the text version of your post. Not nice or respectful.

Yeah, take that, Holderman!

[Guest Edgar]

Yeah, take that, Holderman!

Go easy on Carl. After all, "we are just armatures at this RONR".