Guest Carol P Posted February 23, 2019 at 05:25 PM Report Share Posted February 23, 2019 at 05:25 PM If a candidate is unopposed for an office but the Secretary does not cast a ballot for the unopposed candidate, is that candidate allowed to be sworn into the office they were running for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted February 23, 2019 at 05:42 PM Report Share Posted February 23, 2019 at 05:42 PM (edited) 21 minutes ago, Guest Carol P said: If a candidate is unopposed for an office but the Secretary does not cast a ballot for the unopposed candidate, is that candidate allowed to be sworn into the office they were running for? This is not necessary if a ballot vote is not required by the bylaw and improper if one is required. Is it required? "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.), p. 443 After the chair's declaration, the election is complete, and if your rules require a swearing in process, that can take place in accordance with that rule. RONR requires no swearing in ceremony to hold office. Edited February 23, 2019 at 05:47 PM by George Mervosh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted February 23, 2019 at 06:29 PM Report Share Posted February 23, 2019 at 06:29 PM Agreeing with Mr. Mervosh, it's also not proper for the Secretary to cast the vote of the assembly if a ballot vote IS required. If one is required, an actual ballot vote should be held. The lack of a second candidate does not prevent members from voting for a write-in, and thus election of the unopposed candidate is not assured. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drake Savory Posted February 25, 2019 at 06:32 PM Report Share Posted February 25, 2019 at 06:32 PM On 2/23/2019 at 11:29 AM, Joshua Katz said: Agreeing with Mr. Mervosh, it's also not proper for the Secretary to cast the vote of the assembly if a ballot vote IS required. If one is required, an actual ballot vote should be held. The lack of a second candidate does not prevent members from voting for a write-in, and thus election of the unopposed candidate is not assured. should be held or must be held? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted February 25, 2019 at 07:14 PM Report Share Posted February 25, 2019 at 07:14 PM (edited) 42 minutes ago, Drake Savory said: should be held or must be held? If the bylaws specify that the vote is to be by ballot, a ballot vote MUST be taken in order to be valid. See the following language on pages 412-413: "When the bylaws require a vote to be taken by ballot, this requirement cannot be suspended, even by a unanimous vote. A vote ordering a ballot vote on a particular question (see 30) can, however, be reconsidered as long as the balloting has not yet begun. [page 413] When a vote is to be taken, or has been taken, by ballot, whether or not the bylaws require that form of voting, no motion is in order that would force the disclosure of a member's vote or views on the matter. A motion to make unanimous a ballot vote that was not unanimous is thus out of order, unless that motion is also voted on by ballot—since any member who openly votes against declaring the first vote unanimous will thereby reveal that he did not vote for the prevailing choice. Whenever a vote is to be taken by ballot, it is out of order to move that one person—the secretary, for example—cast the ballot of the assembly" Edited February 25, 2019 at 07:15 PM by Richard Brown Correct page numbers to citatition Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts