VOTING FOR OFFICERS

[Guest VIOLA]

I AM THE CHAIR FOR NOMINATNG COMMITTE FOR OUR ORGANIZATION. 

 

QUESTION:  ONCE I HAVE READ THE SLATE OF OFFICERS,THE CALL FOR ACCEPTANCE IS THEN MADE.  BEFORE THE MOTION IS CARRIED TO ACCEPT, CAN ANYONE WITH UNREADINESS NOMINATE SOMONE ELSE FOR A POSITION THAT IS ON THE SLATE?

[Gary Novosielski]

There is no "Call for acceptance", and no motion to accept.  There is also nothing called a "slate".

 

After the slate of officers list of nominees is read by the reporting member of the nominating committee, the nominating committee ceases to exist.

 

At that point the chair must call for nominations from the floor.  Nominations do not require a second, and everyone is given an opportunity to nominate any eligible person in addition to those recommended by the nominating committee.

 

Once all nominations are completed, you have your election.  If your bylaws require a ballot vote, then a ballot vote is mandatory, even for uncontested offices.  Otherwise, offices with only one nominee may be declared "elected by acclamation" by the chair.

[jstackpo]

There is no "call for acceptance" of the nomcom report.

 

The chair just says "Thank you" (or the equivalent), asks if there are any nominations from the floor (that is when the unready can add to the list of candidates for any office), and proceeds to the actual casting of votes - the election.

[jstackpo]

There is no "call for acceptance" of the nomcom report.

 

The chair just says "Thank you" (or the equivalent), asks if there are any nominations from the floor (that is when the unready can add to the list of candidates for any office), and proceeds to the actual casting of votes - the election.

[Timothy]

There is also nothing called a "slate".

 

Merriam-Webster defines "slate" as "a list of candidates for nomination or election." I see no harm in the use of the more concise term that means exactly the same thing, even if RONR doesn't use it.

 

I AM THE CHAIR FOR NOMINATNG COMMITTE FOR OUR ORGANIZATION. 

 

QUESTION:  ONCE I HAVE READ THE SLATE OF OFFICERS,THE CALL FOR ACCEPTANCE IS THEN MADE.  BEFORE THE MOTION IS CARRIED TO ACCEPT, CAN ANYONE WITH UNREADINESS NOMINATE SOMONE ELSE FOR A POSITION THAT IS ON THE SLATE?

 

The motion "to accept" should not be permitted and the whole slate should not be elected unless there are no other nominations. The slate may be elected by unanimous consent or "acclamation," but this should only be done after confirming there are no other nominations. If someone were to object (which might come in the form of "I nominate Joe for vice-president") unanimous consent would not be possible.

[Gary Novosielski]

Merriam-Webster defines "slate" as "a list of candidates for nomination or election." I see no harm in the use of the more concise term that means exactly the same thing, even if RONR doesn't use it.

 

I would suggest that the term is appropriate in organizations that have adopted Mirriam-Webster as their parliamentary authority, and less appropriate in those that have adopted RONR.

 

The harm that many here would attribute to the use of the word "slate" is that it appears to be highly correlated with the false belief that this is some sort of monolithic block of names that is accepted or rejected as a unit, rather than what it actually is, a list of individual nominees for individual offices.

[Gary Novosielski]

The motion "to accept" should not be permitted and the whole slate should not be elected unless there are no other nominations. The slate may be elected by unanimous consent or "acclamation," but this should only be done after confirming there are no other nominations. If someone were to object (which might come in the form of "I nominate Joe for vice-president") unanimous consent would not be possible.

Election by acclamation is acceptable for any office for which there are no more nominees than seats to be filled provided that the bylaws do not require a ballot vote.

 

Are you saying that there is support in  RONR for the notion that an entire "slate" may properly be elected by acclamation?  If so, where?

[Timothy]

Are you saying that there is support in  RONR for the notion that an entire "slate" may properly be elected by acclamation?  If so, where?

 

The support in RONR is for completing nominations for all positions before voting (pg. 435) and for declaring any unopposed nomininee elected by "acclamation" or unanimous consent (pg. 443). Whether one likes it or not, completing all nominations before voting produces a slate. The only question then is whether the chair can make a blanket statement "I declare these elected by acclamation" or whether he is required to read each position and declare the nominee elected by acclimation. The whole point of unanimous consent is to avoid pointless formality and move on to other things. So while it wouldn't be improper for the chair to read the list and make a declaration for each in turn, the spirit of the rule allows the chair to declare the entire slate elected.

[Gary Novosielski]

So while it wouldn't be improper for the chair to read the list and make a declaration for each in turn, the spirit of the rule allows the chair to declare the entire slate elected.

 

I'm not denying that a presiding officer could get away with it.  Many have, and many more will.  It's just that I hesitate to lump the set of all procedures which the chair can get away with (absent a timely objection or point of order), into the category of "allowed".

[Timothy]

I'm not denying that a presiding officer could get away with it.  Many have, and many more will.  It's just that I hesitate to lump the set of all procedures which the chair can get away with (absent a timely objection or point of order), into the category of "allowed".

 

In this particular case, I would say that the benefits outweigh the risks, but since no one's rights are tread upon, there are no risks. There is a risk, however, if the chair is required to formaly declare each person elected. Suppose there are eighty positions and the chair misses one. The question them becomes, is that person elected or not? If the person isn't elected, then we have an incomplete election that the organization will have to deal with. If the person is elected even after not having been declared elected, then it was a waste of time for the chair to declare each position individually.

[Gary Novosielski]

Given your irrefutable logic, it's a wonder that procedure isn't mandated by RONR.

 

But wait... Explain to me why the nominating committee couldn't miss a name just as easily as the chair could.   In that case, dealing with the offices one at a time gives any member of the assembly the opportunity to notice the omission and correct it, thus lowering the risk.

[Josh Martin]

Given your irrefutable logic, it's a wonder that procedure isn't mandated by RONR.

 

But wait... Explain to me why the nominating committee couldn't miss a name just as easily as the chair could.   In that case, dealing with the offices one at a time gives any member of the assembly the opportunity to notice the omission and correct it, thus lowering the risk.

 

We can come up with hypotheticals about why this is good or bad all day long, but it seems to me that it is in order for the chair to use unanimous consent to elect multiple positions by acclamation simultaneously. A single member could demand that a particular position be considered separately (presumably because he wishes to make a nomination for that position). See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 274-275.

[Thomas Ralph]

What is not, however, appropriate, is a single up-down vote on the entire "slate", nor a secretary casting a "single unanimous vote" for same.

For the record, Viola, please don't write in all capitals. It's like shouting.