announcing election results

[Guest Linda J]

After an election by ballot, does the President announce all counts or just announce the winner of each position? And, what happens if there is only one person nominated for each position and no write in votes? Does the President just announce  that all nominees are elected or give the count?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

In ballot elections, all counts are announced.

[Richard Brown]

And if there is only one nominee for one or more positions and the bylaws do not require a ballot vote, the president can simply declare those nominees elected.  As Mr. Huynh said, if your bylaws require a ballot, then a vote must be taken by ballot even if there is only one nominee for a position and all votes must be announced. 

[Guest Linda J]

And if there is only one nominee for one or more positions and the bylaws do not require a ballot vote, the president can simply declare those nominees elected.  As Mr. Huynh said, if your bylaws require a ballot, then a vote must be taken by ballot even if there is only one nominee for a position and all votes must be announced. 

Our Bylaws don't require a ballot vote, but the powers that be have been using a ballot at our annual meeting for years. Do I need to correct this?

[Edgar Guest]

Our Bylaws don't require a ballot vote, but the powers that be have been using a ballot at our annual meeting for years. Do I need to correct this?

 

There's nothing wrong with conducting an election by ballot. In fact, RONR recommends it. So if you want to "correct" anything, amend the bylaws to require a ballot vote except in cases where there is only one nominee for any particular office.

[Guest Linda J]

There's nothing wrong with conducting an election by ballot. In fact, RONR recommends it. So if you want to "correct" anything, amend the bylaws to require a ballot vote except in cases where there is only one nominee for any particular office.

For years we have only had one nominee for each position. Is there something to be done about who decides to have a ballot or not since they have done it for years without amending Bylaws?

[Edgar Guest]

For years we have only had one nominee for each position. Is there something to be done about who decides to have a ballot or not since they have done it for years without amending Bylaws?

 

Absent any provision in the bylaws, the method of voting is determined by the assembly (the members present). The default method is a voice vote (i.e. "all those in favor, say 'aye' . . . ").

[Guest Linda J]

Absent any provision in the bylaws, the method of voting is determined by the assembly (the members present). 

I guess the powers that be have missed that point.  So, that would that be put to a vote each year? Thanks!

[Edgar Guest]

So, that would that be put to a vote each year?

 

Yes. If there was only one nominee a motion could be made to, for example, elect her president.

 

But I think it would be preferable to amend the bylaws to give the chair the authority to declare a sole nominee elected "by acclamation" but require a ballot vote when there is more than one nominee.

[Guest Linda J]

Yes. If there was only one nominee a motion could be made to, for example, elect her president.

 

But I think it would be preferable to amend the bylaws to give the chair the authority to declare a sole nominee elected "by acclamation" but require a ballot vote when there is more than one nominee.

There are usually 10-14  different positions filled each year but only one nominee /position. It is hard to get these spots filled. Still amend Bylaws or let assembly decide?

[Edgar Guest]

Still amend Bylaws or let assembly decide?

 

I'd say amend the bylaws but perhaps others here will weigh in. It's always good to get a second (and third) opinion. So stay tuned.

[Josh Martin]

The default method is a voice vote (i.e. "all those in favor, say 'aye' . . . ").

 

Even for an election?

 

Yes. If there was only one nominee a motion could be made to, for example, elect her president.

 

The President could also simply declare her elected by acclamation.

 

There are usually 10-14  different positions filled each year but only one nominee /position. It is hard to get these spots filled. Still amend Bylaws or let assembly decide?

 

I really don't have a preference. If a contested election is virtually unheard of, then what the bylaws do (or do not) say about elections isn't really that important, in my opinion.

 

I would note that if Edgar's suggestion is adopted in the bylaws, the President could declare any uncontested candidates to be elected without a vote, which it seems could save the assembly a tremendous amount of time if there are 10-14 uncontested positions. It would require a ballot vote only if a position was contested. I'd also note that this same strategy could be used with the bylaws as they are worded now. The only real difference is that, since the bylaws are silent, the assembly could opt for a different type of vote, even for a contested election.

 

On the other hand, since the assembly has been holding a ballot vote for every election anyway, perhaps the society would prefer to amend the bylaws to require a ballot vote with no exceptions. This will take more time, but it will mean members will always have the option of casting a write-in vote.

 

Why is there suddenly so much interest in these issues? Are you anticipating some contested or controversial election this year?

[Edgar Guest]

The default method is a voice vote (i.e. "all those in favor, say 'aye' . . . ").

Even for an election?

No? I know that RONR recommends a ballot vote for elections but if the bylaws don't require one, isn't a motion to elect Jane Doe president an ordinary main motion?

 

Yes. If there was only one nominee a motion could be made to, for example, elect her president.

 

The President could also simply declare her elected by acclamation.

Can the president do that if the bylaws are silent?

 

I suppose the president could do so by "unanimous consent" but "acclamation" (while functionally identical?) seems to be a horse of a different color.

[Guest Linda J]

Even for an election?

 

 

The President could also simply declare her elected by acclamation.

 

 

I really don't have a preference. If a contested election is virtually unheard of, then what the bylaws do (or do not) say about elections isn't really that important, in my opinion.

 

I would note that if Edgar's suggestion is adopted in the bylaws, the President could declare any uncontested candidates to be elected without a vote, which it seems could save the assembly a tremendous amount of time if there are 10-14 uncontested positions. It would require a ballot vote only if a position was contested. I'd also note that this same strategy could be used with the bylaws as they are worded now. The only real difference is that, since the bylaws are silent, the assembly could opt for a different type of vote, even for a contested election.

 

On the other hand, since the assembly has been holding a ballot vote for every election anyway, perhaps the society would prefer to amend the bylaws to require a ballot vote with no exceptions. This will take more time, but it will mean members will always have the option of casting a write-in vote.

 

Why is there suddenly so much interest in these issues? Are you anticipating some contested or controversial election this year?

Well, trying to look at all contingencies. None of the Vice Presidents are willing to move up and the one person who wants to be President is someone who has been very harmful to the organization. We will have to look hard to find another candidate and I want to be sure of our options.

[Edgar Guest]

Well, trying to look at all contingencies. None of the Vice Presidents are willing to move up and the one person who wants to be President is someone who has been very harmful to the organization. We will have to look hard to find another candidate and I want to be sure of our options.

 

Maybe you could run for president.

 

And, by the way, it's not a good idea to elect anyone as vice-president who isn't willing to serve as president. Since that's the primary responsibility of that office.

[Josh Martin]

No? I know that RONR recommends a ballot vote for elections but if the bylaws don't require one, isn't a motion to elect Jane Doe president an ordinary main motion?

 

"In the absence of a rule establishing the method of voting, the rule that is established by custom, if any, should be followed, unless the assembly, by adoption of an incidental motion or incidental main motion, agrees to do otherwise." (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 438-439) For this assembly, the custom appears to be a ballot vote.

 

Can the president do that if the bylaws are silent?

 

I suppose the president could do so by "unanimous consent" but "acclamation" (while functionally identical?) seems to be a horse of a different color.

 

Yes. "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 that the nominee is elected, thus effecting the election by unanimous consent or 'acclamation.'" (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 443)

 

Well, trying to look at all contingencies. None of the Vice Presidents are willing to move up and the one person who wants to be President is someone who has been very harmful to the organization. We will have to look hard to find another candidate and I want to be sure of our options.

 

If I recall correctly from your other thread, your bylaws require that nominations be submitted in advance, and the deadline for that has passed. In my opinion, such a rule is generally in the nature of a rule of order, and may be suspended by a 2/3 vote, so that's one option. Alternately, write-in votes are in order in a ballot vote unless the bylaws prohibit them (and it seems your bylaws do not). It seems that your society customarily takes a ballot vote, so this should be an option. If the chair tries to utilize the provision in RONR which permits him to declare the nominee elected by acclamation, a member may move to take a ballot vote instead, and this requires only a majority vote for adoption.

 

A last resort, if you are not able to find another candidate in time, is to move to postpone the election, to an adjourned meeting or to the next regular meeting (if that is within a quarterly interval). This requires a majority vote and is debatable, and this will buy you some more time. If this is done, you'll need to check to see if your bylaws provide that officers serve until their successors are elected. If so, the current President will continue in office until the election is completed. If not, the Vice President will preside until the election is completed, but will not assume any other authority that your bylaws confer upon the office of President.

 

The one thing that is certainly not an option is to simply vote "no." While the election may be delayed if necessary, you eventually need to elect someone as President.

[Guest Linda J]

"In the absence of a rule establishing the method of voting, the rule that is established by custom, if any, should be followed, unless the assembly, by adoption of an incidental motion or incidental main motion, agrees to do otherwise." (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 438-439) For this assembly, the custom appears to be a ballot vote.

 

 

Yes. "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 that the nominee is elected, thus effecting the election by unanimous consent or 'acclamation.'" (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 443)

 

 

If I recall from your other thread, your bylaws require that nominations be submitted in advance, and the deadline for that has passed. In my opinion, such a rule is generally in the nature of a rule of order, and may be suspended by a 2/3 vote, so that's one option. Alternately, write-in votes are in order in a ballot vote unless the bylaws prohibit them (and it seems your bylaws do not). It seems that your society customarily takes a ballot vote, so this should be an option. If the chair tries to utilize the provision in RONR which permits him to declare the nominee elected by acclamation, a member may move to take a ballot vote instead, and this requires only a majority vote for adoption.

 

A last resort, if you are not able to find another candidate in time, is to move to postpone the election, to an adjourned meeting or to the next regular meeting (if that is within a quarterly interval). This requires a majority vote and is debatable, and this will buy you some more time. If this is done, you'll need to check to see if your bylaws provide that officers serve until their successors are elected. If so, the current President will continue in office until the election is completed. If not, the Vice President will preside until the election is completed, but will not assume any other authority that your bylaws confer upon the office of President.

 

The one thing that is certainly not an option is to simply vote "no." While the election may be delayed if necessary, you eventually need to elect someone as President.

Thank you! Great summation!

[L. Stevens]

In ballot elections, all counts are announced.

I'm kind of a beginner here, so I need to back up and revisit this answer, real quick.  

 

When you say "all counts are announced", do you mean the actual number of votes each candidate receives are announced?  

 

Also, what is the rule regarding disclosure of WHO voted for who?  Our Bylaws say nothing about having to disclose the name of the voter and their selections.  

[jstackpo]

In the order you asked...

 

Yes, the count (# of votes received) for each candidate is read out when announcing the vote, and placed in the minutes (See p. 417).

 

Disclosure?  No  --  a ballot by its nature is secret - the ballots should not indicate who is doing the voting, only the candidates and their votes.  If you do want to know who voted for who (or what) move to hold a roll-call vote - see p. 420.

 

Oh, and as as a most welcome "beginner", keep asking questions, and get a copy of RONRIB:

"Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief", Updated Second Edition (Da Capo Press, Perseus Books Group, 2011). It is a splendid summary of all the rules you will really need in all but the most exceptional situations. And only $7.50! You can read it in an evening. Get both RONRIB and RONR (scroll down) at this link. Or in your local bookstore.

[L. Stevens]

Thank you!  I will probably run for Parliamentarian of my organization next year, so I better get a copy and start brushing up!  However, sometimes the wording is a bit confusing and it helps tremendously, being able to consult with experts, or at least highly trained individuals.  

[jstackpo]

"run for Parliamentarian"??   Usually people run away when parliamentarians are around.

 

Or did you mean "run for..."  with pitchforks at the ready?

 

A "member parliamentarian" is not always a good thing - see p. 467.  

 

Anyway, come on back with more questions.

[L. Stevens]

HA HA HA!  Yes, most people cringe upon accepting this position.  However, since there are a lot of changes this year, there probably won't be many next, so it should be a breeze.. 

[Dan Honemann]

HA HA HA!  Yes, most people cringe upon accepting this position.  However, since there are a lot of changes this year, there probably won't be many next, so it should be a breeze.. 

 

I suspect that your organization doesn't really understand what a parliamentarian is and isn't supposed to do. In this connection, read what is said on pages 465-67 of RONR, 11th ed.

 

Your bylaws, of course, take precedence over the rules in RONR to the extent that they conflict. If they do conflict with what is said in RONR concerning a parliamentarian, they ought to be amended to remove the conflict.

 

By the way, it's best to ask questions by starting your own topic rather then by tacking a question onto someone else's thread.

[Edgar Guest]

By the way, it's best to ask questions by starting your own topic rather then by tacking a question onto someone else's thread.

 

Perhaps brand-new member L. Stevens and Guest Linda J are the same person?

[Dan Honemann]

Perhaps brand-new member L. Stevens and Guest Linda J are the same person?

 

Perhaps, but I doubt it.