Interpreting bylaws — unanimous consent in lieu of motions

[rbk]

My group's bylaws require secret ballots for elections, with one exception:

"...if a nominee is unopposed for a particular office, a motion may be made and seconded that the Secretary cast a unanimous ballot for the unopposed nominee. If the motion passes, the Secretary shall cast the said unanimous ballot for the unopposed nominee and the nominee shall be deemed elected to office."

RONR (12th ed.) 4:58 advises that when "there seems to be no opposition in routine business," unanimous consent may be used to save time. Does unanimous consent meet the bylaw requirement of making and seconding a motion? Could the Chair assume the motion by saying, "Our bylaws describe a procedure we may follow to elect unopposed nominees to office. The question before us is whether the Secretary shall cast a unanimous ballot for unopposed nominee Jane Doe for the office of Treasurer. Without objection... the nominee is elected." (If there is better wording, please let me know.)

[Tom Coronite]

IMO you’d be skipping a step that your bylaws require, if you do it that way.

Rather, since your bylaws provide for the secretary casting a ballot if such a motion is made, unanimous consent could be used for THAT.

Rather than “without objection…the nominee is elected,” I’d suggest it would be “”If there is no objection….. the secretary will cast a ballot…”

(As an aside, you might want to consider amending the bylaws to eliminate that practice.)

[Dan Honemann]

On 9/16/2021 at 8:41 PM, rbk said:

My group's bylaws require secret ballots for elections, with one exception:

"...if a nominee is unopposed for a particular office, a motion may be made and seconded that the Secretary cast a unanimous ballot for the unopposed nominee. If the motion passes, the Secretary shall cast the said unanimous ballot for the unopposed nominee and the nominee shall be deemed elected to office."

RONR (12th ed.) 4:58 advises that when "there seems to be no opposition in routine business," unanimous consent may be used to save time. Does unanimous consent meet the bylaw requirement of making and seconding a motion? Could the Chair assume the motion by saying, "Our bylaws describe a procedure we may follow to elect unopposed nominees to office. The question before us is whether the Secretary shall cast a unanimous ballot for unopposed nominee Jane Doe for the office of Treasurer. Without objection... the nominee is elected." (If there is better wording, please let me know.)

Your bylaw provision raises a very interesting question as to whether or not the motion which it says "may be made and seconded that the Secretary cast a unanimous ballot for the unopposed nominee" must itself be voted on by ballot, and when voted on, will require a unanimous vote for its adoption, based upon what is said in RONR, 12th ed., 45:20-22. 

Your bylaw provision puts me in mind of what General Robert said on page 78 in the first edition of his pocket manual of rules of order: “Where there is only one candidate for an office, and the constitution requires the vote to be by ballot, it is common to authorize the clerk to cast the vote of the assembly for such and such a person; If anyone objects however, it is necessary to ballot in the usual way.” 

In my opinion, which is based upon what I think is the obvious intent of your bylaw provision and what is now said in RONR. 12th ed., 4:58 and 45:20-22, your presiding officer not only can but should seek unanimous consent that the Secretary be directed to cast a unanimous ballot for the unopposed nominee. If any one objects, however, I think that a ballot election should be held rather than put the motion which your bylaws say may be made and seconded to a vote.