Motion made to elect an officer

[Guest bj3412@msn.com]

During the election of officers the chair did not call for nominations but instead immediately made a motion to elect an individual which was quickly followed by a second.  I then tried to make a motion to elect a different individual but was ruled out of order since there was already a motion on the floor.  I thought multiple nominations were allowed prior to voting.  Please advise.

[Atul Kapur]

RONR refers to this method of elections as "the older British procedure" and says that it is not proper. (RONR 11th ed., p.430, lines 9-13. 

If your rules allow for this method of elections, you could have moved to amend the main motion by striking out the original name and inserting your preferred candidate.

And you had the choice of voting against the motion. If enough people did that, then the motion would have been defeated and you would have been free to move your motion.

 

[George Mervosh]

Do your bylaws require a vote by ballot?

[Guest bj3412@msn.com]

George - Our HOA bylaws are silent on ballots...in the past election of officers has always been by voice vote.  I was told that my motion to nominate was out of order because there was already a motion for another that had been seconded.  My review of Robert's Rules on nominations and elections appears to indicate multiple nominations are allowed and when all have been made, they are then voted upon in the order in which they were made.  My main concern is that by not allowing multiple nominations before voting the board is being forced to vote on a single nomination without knowing if there are other alternatives.  In addition, since my nomination was ruled out of order, the Secretary refuses to include it in meeting minutes.

 

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Guest bj3412@msn.com said:

George - Our HOA bylaws are silent on ballots...in the past election of officers has always been by voice vote.  I was told that my motion to nominate was out of order because there was already a motion for another that had been seconded.  My review of Robert's Rules on nominations and elections appears to indicate multiple nominations are allowed and when all have been made, they are then voted upon in the order in which they were made.  My main concern is that by not allowing multiple nominations before voting the board is being forced to vote on a single nomination without knowing if there are other alternatives.

It is correct that multiple nominations are allowed. It is not generally recommended to use a voice vote for contested elections, but it is correct that if a voice vote is used, they are voted upon in the order in which they were made. Finally, it should be noted that if a ballot vote is not required and there actually is only one nomination, no vote is taken at all.

"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." The motion to close nominations cannot be used as a means of moving the election of the candidate in such a case." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 443, emphasis added)

"When there is more than one nominee for a given office in a viva-voce election—or in an election by rising vote or by show of hands—the candidates are voted on in the order in which they were nominated." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 442)

"It will be seen that, under the procedure just described, it is necessary for members wishing to vote for a later nominee to vote against an earlier one. This fact gives an undue advantage to earlier nominees and, accordingly, a voice vote is not a generally suitable method for electing the officers of organized societies." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 443)

It is, however, too late to correct these errors at this time. Generally, a Point of Order (and any subsequent Appeal) must be raised at the time that the violation occurs.

"If a question of order is to be raised, it must be raised promptly at the time the breach occurs." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 250)

1 hour ago, Guest bj3412@msn.com said:

In addition, since my nomination was ruled out of order, the Secretary refuses to include it in meeting minutes.

The Secretary is mistaken. The fact that it was ruled out of order is actually a reason why it should be included, since the chair's rulings and his reasoning are included in the minutes.

"The body of the minutes should contain a separate paragraph for each subject matter, and should show: ...

10) all points of order and appeals, whether sustained or lost, together with the reasons given by the chair for his or her ruling." (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 469-470)

You should offer a correction to the minutes when they are pending for approval at the next meeting. Generally, such corrections are handled by unanimous consent, but if there is disagreement, majority rules.