Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Secretary casting vote in uncontested election


TraderFred

Recommended Posts

It appears that somewhere in that answer you imply that the assembly, by majority vote, can order the secretary (or another individual) to cast the vote of the assembly in favor of a motion that requires a two-thirds vote.  That can't be right.  

 

Yeah, I didn't think that one through at first. Since this is taking the place of the vote to adopt the motion, it would need to be adopted by the same vote as the vote required to adopt the motion in question.

 

As you may have guessed, my thinking on this evolved in the process of having to answer your questions. :)

 

1. Where page 477 of PL states, "This is not a vote by ballot, but is a viva voce vote, and cannot be done legally if the by-laws require the election to be by ballot," is it your opinion that General Robert is referring to the order, the vote cast as a result of the order, or both of these things together as an inseparable unit?  It seems to me that he could be treating them as a single act for the purpose of deciding the question on the motion. 

 

It does seem that they are treated as a single act.

 

2. RONR (11th ed.), p. 283, ll. 4-5, states, "The object of these motions is to obtain a vote on a question in some form other than by voice . . ."  Section 30 doesn't provide for changing TO a voice vote by majority vote.  PL states that the process of electing by ordering the secretary to cast the ballot of the club is, at least in some part, definitely a viva voce vote.  RONR (11th ed.), p. 44, ll. 30-33, states, "The vote on a motion is normally taken by voice, unless, under certain conditions, it is taken by rising or . . . by a show of hands."   p. 45, ll. 23-26, states, "Other methods of taking a formal vote are used only when expressly ordered by the assembly or prescribed by its rules."  p. 443, ll. 7-12, states, "if only one person is nominated and the bylaws do not require that a ballot vote be taken, the chair, after ensuring that, in fact, no members present wish to make further nominations, simply declares the nominee elected . . ."  

 
It seems to me that the rule that provides for the chair to simply declare the nominee elected is a rule of order that would require a two-thirds vote for its suspension.  Clearly, another method of voting could be ordered by the assembly, by majority vote.  But this doesn't appear to be a case of changing the method; it appears to be a case of changing the RULES for a particular method.  
 
Here's a fun example:
 
Motion to vote by ballot = majority vote
 
Motion to vote by ballot with the nominee with the fewest votes dropped from the list of nominees for succeeding ballots = two-thirds vote
 
Motion to skip declaring the lone nominee elected until after the secretary has pretended to vote = two-thirds vote

 

I suppose that's one way of looking at it, but as you just pointed out in your previous question, General Robert appears to view the entire process as "a viva voce vote." :)

 

3. Let's say an organization has adopted a rule that, in the case of an office having only one nominee, the secretary shall cast the vote of the assembly for that nominee.  If, during the election, a motion is made to skip this step and have the chair simply declare the nominee elected, wouldn't this require a suspension of the rules by a two-thirds vote?  

 

Yes, I think so, and to your follow-up, no, I can't currently think of a good reason to distinguish that from the current situation.

 

4. Isn't the rule governing an election by voice vote in which there is only one nominee strikingly similar to the rule for the approval of the minutes when no (further) corrections are offered?

 

There are some differences. In an election, the assembly could order, for instance, that the vote be taken by ballot instead, to give members the opportunity of casting a write-in vote. That's not really an option for approving the minutes.

 

While the minutes were being considered, would it be in order for a member to move that the secretary cast the vote of the assembly to approve the minutes?  If so, what vote would be required to adopt such a motion?   

 

Yes, I suppose so, and a majority vote would be required. If the vote failed, the chair would declare the minutes approved. I suppose the same thing would happen for an election with one nominee, unless the assembly promptly ordered a ballot vote or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the minutes were being considered, would it be in order for a member to move that the secretary cast the vote of the assembly to approve the minutes?  If so, what vote would be required to adopt such a motion?   

 

 

No, it would not it be in order for a member to move that the secretary cast the vote of the assembly to approve the minutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it would not it be in order for a member to move that the secretary cast the vote of the assembly to approve the minutes.

I concur.  Could you provide some insight into why such a motion (for the secretary to cast the vote of the assembly) would be in order in the face of the rule contained on p. 443, ll. 7-12?

 
Thanks again. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I concur.  Could you provide some insight into why such a motion (for the secretary to cast the vote of the assembly) would be in order in the face of the rule contained on p. 443, ll. 7-12?

 
Thanks again. 

 

 

The statement found on page 443, lines 7-12, tells us what the chair should do if only one candidate is nominated (and the bylaws do not require that a ballot vote be taken), but if an assembly wishes to order that a vote be taken in an election, even although it isn't necessary, no rule in RONR prevents it from doing so.  There are often very good reasons for ordering that a vote be taken by ballot, even if there is only one nominee.

 

All this business about the secretary casting a ballot in the assembly's behalf is an anachronism and much ado about nothing. A number of organizations still use this procedure instead of simply declaring a sole nominee elected, and RONR isn't about to stand in their way.

 

The same is not true with respect to the approval of minutes. Although it is not out of order to move that the minutes be approved, no vote of any kind is ever to be taken on approval of the minutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are often very good reasons for ordering that a vote be taken by ballot, even if there is only one nominee.

 

 

Once again, I concur.  However, I believe General Robert made it clear that "all this secretary business" is not a ballot vote.  

 

 

All this business about the secretary casting a ballot in the assembly's behalf is an anachronism and much ado about nothing. A number of organizations still use this procedure instead of simply declaring a sole nominee elected, and RONR isn't about to stand in their way.

Thanks for this common sense.  (I did enjoy the discussion, though.) :)

 

 (And, of course, if an organization I'm serving has such a custom without it being specified in the bylaws, I will advise them of what the rules say . . . which always does the trick.) ;)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are often very good reasons for ordering that a vote be taken by ballot, even if there is only one nominee.

 

 

Once again, I concur.  However, I believe General Robert made it clear that "all this secretary business" is not a ballot vote.  

 

When I said that there are often very good reasons for ordering that a vote be taken by ballot, even if there is only one nominee, I was referring to a genuine ballot vote. There are never very good reasons for ordering "all this secretary business." :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I get this conversation but what words would the chair actually use to make the acclamation and should it be done after every position or as a whole?

The chair would say something to the effect of "Mr. X is elected by acclamation." This is generally done separately for each position. I believe it could be done for all uncontested positions at once, but only if no member objects.

This is only the appropriate procedure, however, if the bylaws do not require a ballot vote, or if they do require a ballot vote but provide an exception for uncontested positions. If the bylaws require a ballot vote and provide for no exceptions (as seems to be the case in your organization, if you are the same Penny as in this related thread), then a ballot vote must be taken.

Additionally, for future reference, it is generally best to post a new question as a new topic in this forum, even if an existing topic is similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Additionally, for future reference, it is generally best to post a new question as a new topic in this forum, even if an existing topic is similar.

 

Generally, I stand behind no one in expressing this sentiment.  But I think that Penny's follow-up on the existing question was so smooth and so just plain apt that the objection doesn't apply.  If she had posted her question (in post 32, or 33, I"m not sure which I prefer, I'm so insensitive to nuance) a few hours or a day or two after post 31, I submit that we wouldn't have noticed it, which justifies appending it right here.

 

(O, what a hot topic this is!  And I had completely forgotten about the starship captain's shirt.)

Edited by Gary c Tesser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

Please post your question as a new topic.

 

C'mon.  While, sure, his question could be a stand-alone, as you suggest, his context is this conversation.

 

(Guest_P Woodworth_*, I'm going to check and see if, in the almost a day since Josh's post, you went and started a new topic thread.  If you did, fine; if you didn't, I'll reply to your question here myslef, unless prevented by fate or the crocodiles who sit tauntingly on my keyboard whenever I'm in a hurry and low on patience.  Or if I take a nap.  Anything critical.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I wouldn't say that. If the Secretary refuses to follow the legitimate orders of the assembly (no matter how silly those orders might be), the assembly would be within its rights to discipline the Secretary.

I know this is a zombie but I gotta ask, you think an assembly can legitimately order any member to vote a certain way and/or not abstain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I wouldn't say that. If the Secretary refuses to follow the legitimate orders of the assembly (no matter how silly those orders might be), the assembly would be within its rights to discipline the Secretary.

 

 

I know this is a zombie but I gotta ask, you think an assembly can legitimately order any member to vote a certain way and/or not abstain?

 

No, of course Josh doesn't.  (Josh, don't bother.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is a zombie but I gotta ask, you think an assembly can legitimately order any member to vote a certain way and/or not abstain?

As has been explained several times in this thread, when the Secretary casts the vote of the assembly, the ballot that the Secretary casts is not actually a vote, but is instead a ceremonial gesture (and an archaic one, for that matter).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As has been explained several times in this thread, when the Secretary casts the vote of the assembly, the ballot that the Secretary casts is not actually a vote, but is instead a ceremonial gesture (and an archaic one, for that matter).

So what happens if the "vote" is for someone else?  Is THAT person elected or does everyone laugh and the nominee is elected?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what happens if the "vote" is for someone else? Is THAT person elected or does everyone laugh and the nominee is elected?

Well, first I think the chair should ask the Secretary if he's just making a joke or if his intent was to make a nomination. If the latter, perhaps the assembly will need to hold an actual election after all.

If it was just a joke, I think what should happen in such a case is for the chair to remember that all this nonsense is completely unnecessary and declare the sole candidate elected by acclamation, which is what should have happened in the first place.

In practice, I imagine the assembly would be dumbfounded by this development and would, after much confusion, either convince the Secretary to do it right the second time or get someone else to do it. Whether the assembly would laugh this off or promptly initiate disciplinary proceedings depends on the assembly.

Edited by Josh Martin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if the meeting is a political party caucus to determine the nominees to appear on a ballot in a general electionj and there is only one nominee for each office?  Is there then no need for a vote (voice) of the caucus?

 

... ON second thought, M. Woodworth, after two days, at least let me know you're still reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 years later...
  • 1 year later...
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...