Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums
Guest BRUCE A D

ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER, VOTE OF ACCLAMATION

Recommended Posts

Guest BRUCE A D

OUR GUIDELINES SAY, "IF THERE IS ONLY ONE NOMINATION A VOTE OF ACCLIMATION IS TAKEN".   THE STANDING FACILITATOR IS TRYING TO SAY THAT ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER SAY THAT A TWO THIRDE VOTE IS TAKEN NOT PER OUR GUIDELINES  STATING THAT A VOTE OF ACCLIMATION IS OUT OF ORDER..   WE HAVE OUR GUIDELINES BUT ARE WORKING UNDER ROB. RIL. OF ORDER........   WHAT IS YOUR TAKE ON THIS? I SAY THAT OUR GUIDELINES IS WHAT WE GO BY SHE SAYS NO.................

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be double confusion here:  a "vote of acclamation" is not defined in RONR, indeed it is an oxymoron (I have been waiting SOOO long to be able to use that word!) as adopting something by acclamation involves no voting at all p. 443.

So your guidelines AND "standing facilitator" are both wrong, at least if no ballot is required by your bylaws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THE GUIDE LINES SAY  "IF THERE IS ONLY ONE NOMINATION A VOTE OF ACCLIMATION IS TAKEN, IF IT'S NOT UNANIMOUS THE POSITION GOES BACK TO THE HOME GROUPS FOR FURTHER NOMINATIONS"....  I FEEL THAT THE GUIDE LINES ARE CLEAR.. IF THERE IS ONLY ONE NOMINATION A VOTE OF ACCLIMATION IS TAKEN..... I FEEL THAT THE GUIDE LINES ARE SAYING THAT WE ARE TO TAKE A VOTE.   ROB. RUL. OF ORDER DOES NOT OVER RILE OUR GUIDE LINES..

 

Edited by BRUCE A D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BRUCE A D said:

THE GUIDE LINES SAY  "IF THERE IS ONLY ONE NOMINATION A VOTE OF ACCLIMATION IS TAKEN", IF IT'S NOT UNANIMOUS THE POSITION GOES BACK TO THE HOME GROUPS FOR FURTHER NOMINATIONS.....  I FEEL THAT THE GUIDE LINES ARE CLEAR..

Well, I suppose they are reasonably clear if you know what a "vote of acclimation" is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY IF YOU KNOW WHAT A VOTE OF ACCLIMATION IS?  TO ME AND OUR AREA HAVE ALWAYS TAKEN A VOTE OF ACCLIMATION FROM THE HOME GROUPS.  WE DO TAKE A  VOTE .. I UNDERSTAND IN RROO SAY THAT IF ONLY ONE NOMINATION THE CHAIR CALL THE NOMINATION ELECTED.  I BELIVE THAT IS WHAT IT SAYS. BUT WE HAVE TAKEN A VOTE SINCE WE STARTED.  SHE KNOWS THAT IF A VOTE OF ACCLIMTION IS TAKEN HER PET WILL NOT BE ELECTED...  THE VOTE WILL BE 3 FOR AND 2 NO'S.  THUS THE NOMINATION WOULD NOT GET A UNANIMOUS VOTE......  THOUS IT WOULD NOT PASS AND WE WOULD TRY AND GET SOMEONE EALS NONIMATED THEN THERE WOULD BE 2 PEOPLE RUNNING......  THIS IS A POWER PLAY BY HER

Edited by BRUCE A D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, would you please define what you mean by a "vote of acclamation"  (and please stop YELLING AT US with your caps lock on).

BTW,  the word is spelled acclamation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry i always use caps because i hate having to try and remeber when to cap or not...  i am not a very good writer....    i was using the spelling in our guidelines...... sorry again about the caps.....  we have 5 home groups in our area,  we have used a vote of acclamation  when this happens( this may not be proper but that is the way the guidelines were writen. you need to know that we are  narcotics anonymons  and do not always get things right)....   the home groups are the only voteting members...  i know that our guidelines are not very good and when i was the co-facitiator in 2016 i did my best to have some changes made to them...... but the "ruling group"  always shot any changes i proposed down.....  they have been the rouling group for 3 years and there are a lot of people who are sick of it and are trying to have things work as of our guidelines......  the ruling group will use the guidelines when they gain and will try and do it there way when the guidelines do not rule there way....   they have control of 3 home groupes and try to do it there way no mater what the guidelines say.... there are now 2 home groups that are sick of it and want the guidelines to rule and be flowed to the lether.....  in this case we can stop the chair from alowing a 2 thirds vote to taken.... and force the vote of acclamation  and needs to be a unanimous.... thus our 2 home groups can stop the only one running for facilitator  as we do not frrl that he qualifs for the spot.   

Edited by BRUCE A D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Who's Coming to Dinner
4 hours ago, Guest BRUCE A D said:

I SAY THAT OUR GUIDELINES IS WHAT WE GO BY SHE SAYS NO.................

 

You are correct. Your rules supersede the rules in RONR. So whatever "vote of acclimation" means to your organization, that is what you should do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BRUCE A D said:

sorry i always use caps because i hate having to try and remeber when to cap or not...  i am not a very good writer....    i was using the spelling in our guidelines...... sorry again about the caps.....  we have 5 home groups in our area,  we have used a vote of acclamation  when this happens( this may not be proper but that is the way the guidelines were writen. you need to know that we are  narcotics anonymons  and do not always get things right)....

Could you please quote what exactly your rules say on this subject?

3 hours ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

Perhaps by "vote of acclamation" they actually mean something like unanimous consent?

Well, unanimous consent means that no vote is taken, and the OP has said that they take a vote. It sounds like he means a unanimous vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i an sorry about the cps i forgot to turn then off again...THE GUIDELINES  say   ""IF THERE IS ONLY ONE NOMINATION A VOTE OF ACCLAMATION IS TAKEN, IF IT IS NOT UNANIMOUS, THE POSiTION GOES BACK TO THE HOME GROUPS FOR FURTHER NOMINATIONS.""  PLEASE SEE MY POST FROM ABOUT 5 HR AGO.  sorry again for the caps i am not shouting... what is going on is the chair has her pet up for office and she knows that a vote of acclamation by the groups will be 3 yes and 2 no.  that would not be unanimous.....   she is trying to force a 2 thirds vote that way her pet will be voted in...... we are using rroo but i say that what the guidelines say is the way we are to go, not her way....... just because she says so.......      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BRUCE A D said:

she knows that a vote of acclamation by the groups will be 3 yes and 2 no.  that would not be unanimous.....   she is trying to force a 2 thirds vote that way her pet will be voted in

I'm probably misunderstanding something, because 3/5 is less than 2/3. Are different groups voting somehow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, BRUCE A D said:

we have 5 groups    she says that 3 yes and 2 nos is as close to 2 thirds as we can get,  

If I were a snarky SOB, I would move at the next meeting for the group to purchase an elementary-school arithmetic textbook for the facilitator.

But I would never do such a thing, never in a million years. ;)

(RONR is quite clear that the 2/3 requirement actually means 2/3 or more. Even though 2/3 of 100 is 66.67, a 2/3 vote of a group of 100 members would require a minimum of 67 votes to pass, because 66 is less than 2/3. 3 votes out of 5 is definitely less than 2/3.)

Edited by Benjamin Geiger
Added link to relevant FAQ entry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     saint cad          they are called "guidelines/by-laws"   they are used for all metting for the last 4 years....... but when the "ruling group"  does not like what they say they buley there way with shouting and or intimatation....   some of us are tired of this and are trying to force that we use the guidelines to the letter............  there are 5 groups that make up our area and the ruling group has 3 groups in their pocket  it makes it had for 2 groups to get any thing changed..........   with 2/3 voting they say that 3 votes wins...   but that is 3.33 for 2/3..... it is not what i say.... i think they need 4 groups to have the win  as 3.333 is not 2/3 win

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your arithmetic is completely correct - 3/5  or three out of five, is less than 2/3.  To have something be adopted that requires a 2/3 vote, the other guys will have to get 4 votes.

About the only way to overcome "shouting and intimidation" in the situation you appear to be in is to get legal help, if you are in a position to do so, and take the "bullies" to court.  Were the "5 groups" that you speak of formed as some part of a state program?  If so, then perhaps the state people can help out or point you in the right direction.

But don't forget, if the "other guys" really do have a majority on their side and play fair with it, there isn't much that you can do about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we are a "narcotics anonymous" group    in other wards a bunch of recovering addicts.. and a lot do not know anything about flowling rules...  some can not understand plain english.....some like me do not spell very good.......   i was a formen and general-formen so know a lot about flowing the roles....    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, BRUCE A D said:

we have 5 groups    she says that 3 yes and 2 nos is as close to 2 thirds as we can get,  

It doesn't go by closeness, it goes by greater than or equal to 2/3.    3/5 is less than 2/3, so obviously 4/5  or 5/5  are needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why we are having all of this discussion about a two-thirds vote, other than to show that the president's math is wrong, because the guidelines / bylaws as quoted by the OP say that "if the vote is not unanimous, the position goes back to the home groups for further nominations". The rule seems to me to be quite clear that the vote must be unanimous in order to avoid further nominations.

So, where does all of this 2/3 vote business come from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

So, where does all of this 2/3 vote business come from?

Because it sounds like the facilitator is trying to steamroll the group and force a 2/3 vote, which wouldn't even matter because 3/5 is less than 2/3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2018 at 9:17 PM, BRUCE A D said:

i an sorry about the cps i forgot to turn then off again...THE GUIDELINES  say   ""IF THERE IS ONLY ONE NOMINATION A VOTE OF ACCLAMATION IS TAKEN, IF IT IS NOT UNANIMOUS, THE POSiTION GOES BACK TO THE HOME GROUPS FOR FURTHER NOMINATIONS.""  PLEASE SEE MY POST FROM ABOUT 5 HR AGO.  sorry again for the caps i am not shouting... what is going on is the chair has her pet up for office and she knows that a vote of acclamation by the groups will be 3 yes and 2 no.  that would not be unanimous.....   she is trying to force a 2 thirds vote that way her pet will be voted in...... we are using rroo but i say that what the guidelines say is the way we are to go, not her way....... just because she says so.......      

Based on these facts, it seems quite clear that your rules provide that if the vote is not unanimous, the election is postponed and further nominations are taken from the home groups. This takes precedence over RONR (which requires a majority vote for election, not a 2/3 vote). The facilitator cannot simply ignore your rules and decide that a 2/3 vote shall be sufficient instead, and as others have noted, a vote of 3-2 isn’t a 2/3 vote anyway.

I think it may well be prudent to consider amending your rules to provide for a lower threshold for election than a unanimous vote, but unless and until this occurs, you must follow your rules as they are currently written. If the rules are not amended to change the threshold for election, it seems likely this election will continue for some time, given the extent of the disagreement on this issue.

If the chair declares a candidate elected with less than a unanimous vote, you should raise a Point of Order, followed by an Appeal if necessary.

On 1/19/2018 at 9:30 PM, BRUCE A D said:

we have 5 groups    she says that 3 yes and 2 nos is as close to 2 thirds as we can get,  

“Close enough” doesn’t cut it.

Edited by Josh Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looking over the comments above i would like to ask if some one could tell me where in ronr it is stated that if there is a set of guidelines/police in place that ronr does not over ride them...   unless the guidelines/policy is changed to shown the  ronr change..... is it in ronr for dumines  please help as i have to present my caes before the meeting in a little over a week

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BRUCE A D said:

looking over the comments above i would like to ask if some one could tell me where in ronr it is stated that if there is a set of guidelines/police in place that ronr does not over ride them...   unless the guidelines/policy is changed to shown the  ronr change..... is it in ronr for dumines  please help as i have to present my caes before the meeting in a little over a week

 

That is not stated, in part because the words guidelines and policies are not defined in RONR.  There is a hierarchy of rules.  At the top sit procedural statutes (laws about how to conduct meetings).  Then your articles of incorporation, if any.  Then your bylaws and special rules of order.  Then RONR.  Then your standing rules.  Your guidelines and polices might be bylaws, special rules of order, or standing rules, because guidelines is the word that your organization has chosen.  You'd need to know what they are to know if they trump RONR or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×