Randyl Kent Plampin Posted July 24, 2013 at 05:09 AM Report Share Posted July 24, 2013 at 05:09 AM Greetings: I also agree that individual offices should be voted on separately. However, if this organization has no qualms about conducting an election via a slate of candidates as one motion, it does not seem to me to be a stretch to deal with this one motion as you would any other main motion. If someone does not like name "A" then move to strike out and insert "B." If they further do not like name "C" then move to strike out "C" and insert "D." Move to strike out and insert as many times as necessary until the slate is acceptable and ready for a vote on the main motion. What is wrong with this? Best regards,Randyl Kent Plampin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted July 24, 2013 at 02:36 PM Report Share Posted July 24, 2013 at 02:36 PM I also agree that individual offices should be voted on separately. However, if this organization has no qualms about conducting an election via a slate of candidates as one motion, it does not seem to me to be a stretch to deal with this one motion as you would any other main motion. If someone does not like name "A" then move to strike out and insert "B." If they further do not like name "C" then move to strike out "C" and insert "D." Move to strike out and insert as many times as necessary until the slate is acceptable and ready for a vote on the main motion. What is wrong with this? Each position is a distinct question on an unrelated subject, and therefore, a single member may request a separate vote. A member has the right to vote for his choice for each position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott T. Posted July 25, 2013 at 12:45 AM Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 at 12:45 AM Just out of curiosity, what will the receiving committee do with these 30 recommendations for office? The receiving committee receives the recommendations and they, with that action, endorse those candidates publicly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lages Posted July 25, 2013 at 03:10 AM Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 at 03:10 AM The receiving committee receives the recommendations and they, with that action, endorse those candidates publicly. .I'm not sure what you mean by 'with that action'. If you mean that by receiving the report recommending these 30 candidates, the receiving committee is thereby obligated to publicly endorse all 30 candidates, that obligation would have to be spelled out in your rules, because it is not supported by RONR. According to RONR, when an assembly receives a recommendation from another body, and the assembly has the power to act on that recommendation, it is free to accept, modify, or reject the recommendation. In other words receiving a report is not the same as accepting, or adopting, the report. If your receiving committee has the power to decide which candidates it will publicly endorse, then it should be free to modify the recommendations it receives. So, I think the answer to your question will depend on what authority is given to your receiving committee by your rules - does it have the authority to decide which recommended candidates get publicly endorsed, or does it only have the authority to issue the public endorsements of the candidates recommended by the other committee? "Can one member request (demand) that one of the recommendation for office be pulled,or would it be an amendment to a motion to accept the slate, subject to second and majority vote?" And just to clarify, one member can not demand that one of the recommended candidates be pulled (i.e., removed from consideration), he can only demand that one candidate be considered separately for endorsement by majority vote of the committee. (This again assumes that your receiving committee has the authority to select which candidates are publicly endorsed.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Posted July 25, 2013 at 12:49 PM Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 at 12:49 PM .I'm not sure what you mean by 'with that action'. If you mean that by receiving the report recommending these 30 candidates, the receiving committee is thereby obligated to publicly endorse all 30 candidates, that obligation would have to be spelled out in your rules, because it is not supported by RONR. That is the understanding, that the recommending committee makes a motion to receive all 30 candidates as a "slate." The motion having the effect of being received as endorsements of all 30 candidates. According to RONR, when an assembly receives a recommendation from another body, and the assembly has the power to act on that recommendation, it is free to accept, modify, or reject the recommendation. In other words receiving a report is not the same as accepting, or adopting, the report. If your receiving committee has the power to decide which candidates it will publicly endorse, then it should be free to modify the recommendations it receives. So, I think the answer to your question will depend on what authority is given to your receiving committee by your rules - does it have the authority to decide which recommended candidates get publicly endorsed, or does it only have the authority to issue the public endorsements of the candidates recommended by the other committee? I don't think there are rules here formally adopted, only the fallback to RONR.The recommending committee only has authority to recommend, the receiving committee alone has power to recommend. "Can one member request (demand) that one of the recommendation for office be pulled,or would it be an amendment to a motion to accept the slate, subject to second and majority vote?" And just to clarify, one member can not demand that one of the recommended candidates be pulled (i.e., removed from consideration), he can only demand that one candidate be considered separately for endorsement by majority vote of the committee. (This again assumes that your receiving committee has the authority to select which candidates are publicly endorsed.) This sounds different from the other commentators above, or is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Posted July 25, 2013 at 12:54 PM Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 at 12:54 PM I should say the receiving committee alone has the power to endorse. The question really goes on being able to vote separately on endorsements within the slate of 30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted July 25, 2013 at 04:21 PM Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 at 04:21 PM "Can one member request (demand) that one of the recommendation for office be pulled,or would it be an amendment to a motion to accept the slate, subject to second and majority vote?" And just to clarify, one member can not demand that one of the recommended candidates be pulled (i.e., removed from consideration), he can only demand that one candidate be considered separately for endorsement by majority vote of the committee. (This again assumes that your receiving committee has the authority to select which candidates are publicly endorsed.) This sounds different from the other commentators above, or is it? No. Bruce is clarifying that one member would be requesting a separate vote on a candidate. He's saying one member can't just decide, on his own, that the committee will not endorse a particular candidate. I realize we've got a bit off track, so to answer your original question (again) - one member's request (or demand, if you prefer) is sufficient to request a separate vote on a candidate. No vote is taken on the request. The single member's request is all that is required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lages Posted July 25, 2013 at 06:23 PM Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 at 06:23 PM No. Bruce is clarifying that one member would be requesting a separate vote on a candidate. He's saying one member can't just decide, on his own, that the committee will not endorse a particular candidate. That is exactly what I was saying. Thanks, Josh, for making clearer my (not completely successful) attempt to clarify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.