Electing representatives

[Guest Ross Wilson]

We are to elect delegates from our organization to represent us at a meeting of another organization. Nominations are to come from the floor. What's the proper purpose to employ?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

"Purpose"?

Do you mean, "method"?

 

Use a (secret) written ballot.

It is a proven method, and allows for write-in votes.

 

If there are only 'N' nominees for 'N' positions, then you don't even need to ballot.

The chair declares all nominees elected.

[Transpower]

Call for nominations from the floor; the nominee must accept the nomination.  Seconds are optional and not required.  The nominations continue until there are no more (although, of course, you need at least the same number of delegates to be elected).

[Dan Honemann]

Call for nominations from the floor; the nominee must accept the nomination.  Seconds are optional and not required.  The nominations continue until there are no more (although, of course, you need at least the same number of delegates to be elected).

 

The nominee must accept the nomination? Where did this rule come from?

[Guest Ross Wilson]

Yes, I meant "process." Once the nominations have been made, is it necessary to request a motion from the floor in order to elect the candidates or can the chair simply call for a vote without a formal motion?

[George Mervosh]

Yes, I meant "process." Once the nominations have been made, is it necessary to request a motion from the floor in order to elect the candidates or can the chair simply call for a vote without a formal motion?

 

Once nominations are concluded, if the number of nominees is not greater than the number of delegate positions, the chair would simply declare them all elected.  This assumes your bylaws don't require a vote by ballot for this.

 

If the number of nominees exceeds the number of delegate positions, I'd recommend passing out a ballot and having the members vote for no more than the required number of delegates.  Those who receive a majority of the votes cast are elected.  Multiple rounds of voting might be necessary and don't drop off the low vote getters.

[Guest Ross Wilson]

TO: George Mervosh

 

Thank you for your guidance. Once the nominations are concluded, how would you state the declaration that they are elected so that people don't think that the chair is overstepping his bounds?

 

Thanks again,

 

Ross Wilson

[Edgar Guest]

Once the nominations are concluded, how would you state the declaration that they are elected so that people don't think that the chair is overstepping his bounds?

 

"Whereas there are no other nominations, and whereas our bylaws don't require a vote by ballot, I therefore, in accordance with RONR (p.443), our adopted parliamentary authority, declare the sole nominee elected by acclamation. May God have mercy on his soul."

 

The "whereas" and the "therefore" (and the last sentence) isn't necessary but I think it adds an authoritative (and compassionate) touch.

[George Mervosh]

TO: George Mervosh

 

Thank you for your guidance. Once the nominations are concluded, how would you state the declaration that they are elected so that people don't think that the chair is overstepping his bounds?

 

Thanks again,

 

Ross Wilson

 

 

"Whereas there are no other nominations, and whereas our bylaws don't require a vote by ballot, I therefore, in accordance with RONR (p.443), our adopted parliamentary authority, declare the sole nominee elected by acclamation. May God have mercy on his soul."

 

The "whereas" and the "therefore" (and the last sentence) isn't necessary but I think it adds an authoritative (and compassionate) touch.

 

While I would not dare to one-up Mr. Mt.'s suggested script, when an assembly is mostly unfamiliar with the rules, I do support briefly citing the rule, since elections are always one of the areas where members get paranoid, and worry about it being handled exactly as the rules provide.

[Guest Ross Wilson]

Thank you for your responses. Should the fact that we will be nominating multiple representatives impact the approach?

[jstackpo]

I can't see how.  Just nominate away and see what that outcome is.  Then either declare the nominees elected (as noted by others) all at once, or start voting to select the majority winners from the pool of nominees/candidates.

[Transpower]

RONR (11th ed.), p. 434, ll. 1-5:  "It is desirable policy for the nominating committee, before making its report, to contact each person whom it wishes to nominate, in order to obtain his acceptance of nomination--that is, his assurance that he will serve in the specified office if elected."  By extrapolation, this would apply to nominations from the floor, as well.

[Edgar Guest]

 By extrapolation, this would apply to nominations from the floor, as well.

 

No, it wouldn't.

 

http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/23129-previous-board-members/#entry126189

 

http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/10005-nominations/#entry38398

[Timothy]

By extrapolation, this would apply to nominations from the floor, as well.

 

Your extrapolation and my extrapolation don't come out to the same thing.

[Transpower]

I disagree totally.  I've been at numerous meeting where individuals declined nominations from the floor.

[Edgar Guest]

I've been at numerous meetings where individuals declined nominations from the floor.

 

Alas, they had no right to do so as it was not their nomination to decline.

 

They can be nominated and elected despite their protestations. All they can do is refuse to serve.

[Josh Martin]

I disagree totally.  I've been at numerous meeting where individuals declined nominations from the floor.

 

Okay, but what you originally said is that a member must accept the nomination, which is not quite the same thing as saying that he can decline.

 

Alas, they had no right to do so as it was not their nomination to decline.

 

They can be nominated and elected despite their protestations. All they can do is refuse to serve.

 

Even if we assume that a member could insist on continuing to nominate someone despite the nominee's protests to the contrary, I still suspect this would be a rare occurrence.

[J. J.]

I disagree totally.  I've been at numerous meeting where individuals declined nominations from the floor.

 

Individuals can obviously be elected without their consent (p. 444, ll. 17-27).  A member may, normally, decline to serve.

[Transpower]

If you're the parliamentarian at a meeting, and a member declines a floor nomination, you are going to say this is not allowed?  This is absurd.  You cannot coerce a member to be on the ballot.  My extrapolation from nominating committee to floor nominations stands.  Besides, there are numerous local, state, and federal laws against coercion.

[Timothy]

If you're the parliamentarian at a meeting, and a member declines a floor nomination, you are going to say this is not allowed?  This is absurd.  You cannot coerce a member to be on the ballot.  My extrapolation from nominating committee to floor nominations stands.  Besides, there are numerous local, state, and federal laws against coercion.

 

"Transpower"

 

Oops! I just wrote your name without your permission and I didn't have to coerce you to allow it. Just as an individual can write a name on a piece of paper without permission, so can an organization. Doing so does not require coercion. While it is advisable for the organization to remove the names of those who will not accept the job, it is up to the organization, not the individual, whether the name appears on the ballot or not.

[Richard Brown]

Page 434 says:  " It is desirable policy for the nominating committee, before making its report, to contact each person whom it wishes to nominate, in order to obtain his acceptance of nomination—that is, his assurance that he will serve in the specified office if elected. The bylaws can make such a practice mandatory."  That quotation indicates that consent of the nominee is not mandatory but is advisable.

 

But, then we have page 435 which says the following:  "A nominating committee is automatically discharged when its report is formally presented to the assembly, although if one of the nominees withdraws before the election, the committee is revived and should meet immediately to agree upon another nomination if there is time."   That quotation says to me, unequivocally, that a nominee can withdraw from the race prior to the election. 

 

I see no practical reason for allowing someone to withdraw after he is nominated but not allowing him to decline the nomination in the first place. But, if one wants to get hyper technical, I suppose you could say that he cannot decline the nomination at the time someone puts his name in nomination, but as soon as the chair says "John Bashful is nominated", he can withdraw his name from nomination by saying, "Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my name from nomination".  What on earth is the difference... other than the chair stating his name and an additional three or four seconds in time?

[Edgar Guest]

 . . . as soon as the chair says "John Bashful is nominated", he can withdraw his name from nomination by saying, "Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my name from nomination". 

 

He can? I think you're conflating the responsibility of the nominating committee to select willing candidates with the right of members to nominate (and vote for) whomever they want.

[Richard Brown]

He can? I think you're once again conflating the responsibility of the nominating committee to select willing candidates with the right of members to nominate (and vote for) whomever they want.

 

Do you dispute the language on page 435 that refers to a candidate withdrawing before the election?  What do you think that provision means?

 

I think you are confusing the right of a nominee to withdraw his name from nomination with the right of the members to vote for whomever they want to, regardless of whether the person they vote for is a nominee.

[Dan Honemann]

This appears to be something of a tempest in a teapot, but I do think our friend Edgar Guest has this right.

[Richard Brown]

This appears to be something of a tempest in a teapot, but I do think our friend Edgar Guest has this right.

 

Then, what does the language on page 435 at lines 4 - 8 mean?

 

Edited to add:  I acknowledge that voters may write in or otherwise vote for someone who is not a nominee, but the language on page 435 seems to say pretty clearly that a member may withdraw as a nominee.