Joibren Posted July 28, 2016 at 04:32 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2016 at 04:32 PM Our Council considered the appointment of an individual to a community board last evening. There were three nominees of which the votes cast were: Nominee 1 - 4 votes; Nominee 2 - 3 votes; and Nominee 3 - 1 vote. The Council membership is 9 members of which one member was absent. My question is: Would the nominee who received four votes be the appointed to the community board? There are some questions as to whether the individual was required to receive a majority of the votes cast by the attending/present members (i.e., 5 votes). (Total Council members present and voting: 8) We follow the provisions of Robert Rules of Order and our Home Rule Charter provides that "A motion must receive the approval of a majority of those present and voting for passage. I could not find any discussion which relates to our scenario and would appreciate any comments regarding this matter." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted July 28, 2016 at 04:53 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2016 at 04:53 PM No. If no nominee received a majority vote, the balloting would be repeated until someone received a majority vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted July 28, 2016 at 06:23 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2016 at 06:23 PM 1 hour ago, Joibren said: There were three nominees of which the votes cast were: Nominee 1 - 4 votes; Nominee 2 - 3 votes; Nominee 3 - 1 vote. The Council membership is 9 members of which one member was absent. (Total Council members present and voting: 8) Q. Would the nominee who received four votes be the appointed to the community board? A.) No (technically). A majority can be defined as "more votes than all other votes combined." And your #1 person did not achieve a majority vote. Only a plurality vote. *** However, this is a parliamentary error which is not a "continuing breach". Since the error is not a continuing breach, then no Point of Order can be raised now. So, despite falling short of a true majority vote, since there was no Point of Order raised in a timely manner, then the appointment stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted July 28, 2016 at 06:55 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2016 at 06:55 PM Regarding Kim goldsworthy's post above, it is my understanding that no winner was declared. If a winner was in fact declared, then those results quite likely stand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transpower Posted August 2, 2016 at 02:00 PM Report Share Posted August 2, 2016 at 02:00 PM Does your Home Rule Charter discuss elections or appointments (not just motions)? Sometimes, a plurality is all that is needed for such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted August 4, 2016 at 02:25 AM Report Share Posted August 4, 2016 at 02:25 AM On 7/28/2016 at 2:55 PM, Richard Brown said: Regarding Kim goldsworthy's post above, it is my understanding that no winner was declared. If a winner was in fact declared, then those results quite likely stand A. If this is some sort of governmental body, and the charter was issued by a superior government, I suggest speaking with an attorney. That is where the requirement for a majority point has been put. That could make this error a "breach of a continuing nature (p. 251), c." B. If the vote was by ballot, the lack of a majority would create a "breach of a continuing nature (p. 251), e." I think my compatriots might agree with the qualifications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.