Jon G Posted November 16, 2017 at 02:31 AM Report Share Posted November 16, 2017 at 02:31 AM I encountered a recent situation which totally scrambled my understanding of "acclamation." A slate of candidates had been selected by the chair (and possibly a small committee) for inclusion as voting members of a governing body. Other member of that body were notified of these candidates and their credentials ahead of time, but when the time came to discuss their appointment/election, the chair moved to suspend the rules to adopt the slate "by acclamation," which was clearly against the will of a dozen or so members of that organization. One such member was given the floor to ask a procedural question about "acclamation." The Parliamentarian conferred that "acclamation" according to the rules being followed at that time by that organization, required only a 2/3 majority voice vote. From everything I have been able to research, under Roberts rules "acclamation" means "unanimous consent," and when there is not unanimous consent a discussion must follow along with standard voting procedures. Consequently there was allowed no discussion of the candidates, and a majority voice vote carried. The election of the slate concluded in a matter of minutes. Is this experience unique, or are others familiar with "acclamation" as a 2/3 majority voice vote sans debate. Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setemu Posted November 16, 2017 at 03:55 AM Report Share Posted November 16, 2017 at 03:55 AM What are "the rules being followed at that time by that organization"? Are they Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR)? If not, I think you'd need to see what the rules of the organization say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted November 16, 2017 at 04:04 AM Report Share Posted November 16, 2017 at 04:04 AM 1 hour ago, Jon G said: ... The Parliamentarian conferred that "acclamation" according to the rules being followed at that time by that organization, required only a 2/3 majority voice vote... This is not according to RONR. See RONR 11th ed., p. 443. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted November 16, 2017 at 04:32 AM Report Share Posted November 16, 2017 at 04:32 AM 1 hour ago, Jon G said: . . . . Is this experience unique, or are others familiar with "acclamation" as a 2/3 majority voice vote sans debate. Thoughts? 1 Agreeing with the previous posters, I have never heard of such a thing. It certainly is not in RONR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted November 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM Report Share Posted November 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM 8 hours ago, Jon G said: I encountered a recent situation which totally scrambled my understanding of "acclamation." A slate of candidates had been selected by the chair (and possibly a small committee) for inclusion as voting members of a governing body. Other member of that body were notified of these candidates and their credentials ahead of time, but when the time came to discuss their appointment/election, the chair moved to suspend the rules to adopt the slate "by acclamation," which was clearly against the will of a dozen or so members of that organization. One such member was given the floor to ask a procedural question about "acclamation." The Parliamentarian conferred that "acclamation" according to the rules being followed at that time by that organization, required only a 2/3 majority voice vote. From everything I have been able to research, under Roberts rules "acclamation" means "unanimous consent," and when there is not unanimous consent a discussion must follow along with standard voting procedures. Consequently there was allowed no discussion of the candidates, and a majority voice vote carried. The election of the slate concluded in a matter of minutes. Is this experience unique, or are others familiar with "acclamation" as a 2/3 majority voice vote sans debate. Thoughts? Well, "acclamation" isn't the right word to use for it, but a motion can be made to suspend the rules and agree to (whatever), as described on page 262, lines 6-8, of RONR (11th ed.), and so I suppose a motion could be made to suspend the rules and agree to the inclusion of (list of names) as voting members of the (whatever the name of this governing body is). A rising vote, however, is the normal method of voting on motions requiring a two-thirds vote for their adoption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted November 16, 2017 at 03:03 PM Report Share Posted November 16, 2017 at 03:03 PM 3 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said: Well, "acclamation" isn't the right word to use for it, but a motion can be made to suspend the rules and agree to (whatever), as described on page 262, lines 6-8, of RONR (11th ed.), and so I suppose a motion could be made to suspend the rules and agree to the inclusion of (list of names) as voting members of the (whatever the name of this governing body is). A rising vote, however, is the normal method of voting on motions requiring a two-thirds vote for their adoption. I agree, provide that the bylaws do not require a ballot vote for the election of these positions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts