Exception to ballot vote

[Gary Leach]

46:40 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 a candidate in such a case.

 

With the understanding that it is ultimately the responsibility of the organization to interpret its own bylaws, would it be correct to interpret 46:40 as meaning, "If only one person is nominated and the bylaws do not require that a ballot vote be taken in such a case, the chair, after ensuring, etc, etc."

 

In other words, is the 46:40 acclamation wording an acceptable exception to the ballot rule as referred to in 46:35?

[Joshua Katz]

No. If the bylaws say a balloted vote is needed, then a balloted vote is needed. They need not specifically say "even when there is only one person nominated." 

The bylaws could, of course, say that a balloted vote is needed if there's more than one nominee. But if they simply call for a balloted vote, then the words in RONR provide no carve-out.

[Gary Leach]

Okay, then presumably, the following excerpt from the bylaws of the organization in question is acceptable, since it specifically lists the exception to the requirement for a ballot vote in the case of only one nominee. The wording is similar to that found in 46:40.

"The election of officers shall proceed by secret ballot except that when only one person is nominated for an office, the President, 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 acclamation."

 

P.S. Wow, thanks for the speedy response!

[Joshua Katz]

I would agree that that is sufficient, regardless of what RONR says on the matter.

 

[Bruce Lages]

In fact, your bylaw quote could (and maybe should) end at the first comma, since everything after that comma is just repeating the wording in RONR.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 11/14/2021 at 7:58 PM, Bruce Lages said:

In fact, your bylaw quote could (and maybe should) end at the first comma, since everything after that comma is just repeating the wording in RONR.

I agree, provided the word "that" is deleted.

[Gary Leach]

Bruce & Weldon, I agree with you. Unfortunately, without quoting the wording from Robert's, the following is what you get: "If the office is uncontested, a motion to cast one vote for the uncontested candidate may be made." That's a direct quote from the bylaws of one of my organizations. I pointed out that Robert's says it is not in order to do that and I was told, "We know that, but everybody does it that way. That's why we put it in the bylaws, because the bylaws override Robert's" It seems that Robert's is intimidating to a lot of people and they would rather try to work around it than with it. 🙁

[Joshua Katz]

On 11/15/2021 at 11:41 AM, Gary Leach said:

I pointed out that Robert's says it is not in order to do that and I was told, "We know that, but everybody does it that way. That's why we put it in the bylaws, because the bylaws override Robert's" It seems that Robert's is intimidating to a lot of people and they would rather try to work around it than with it. 🙁

But this is correct. The bylaw does appear to have been written to do it in a way that differs from RONR, and the bylaws do, in fact, override RONR. So I'm not seeing the problem.

[Richard Brown]

On 11/15/2021 at 10:41 AM, Gary Leach said:

Bruce & Weldon, I agree with you. Unfortunately, without quoting the wording from Robert's, the following is what you get: "If the office is uncontested, a motion to cast one vote for the uncontested candidate may be made." That's a direct quote from the bylaws of one of my organizations. I pointed out that Robert's says it is not in order to do that and I was told, "We know that, but everybody does it that way. That's why we put it in the bylaws, because the bylaws override Robert's" It seems that Robert's is intimidating to a lot of people and they would rather try to work around it than with it. 🙁

I would quibble with the statement that “everyone does it that way“. I disagree. I will agree, however, that organizations frequently ignore the requirement in their bylaws that a ballot vote be taken, especially when there is only one candidate for a position.

[Dan Honemann]

On 11/15/2021 at 11:41 AM, Gary Leach said:

Bruce & Weldon, I agree with you. Unfortunately, without quoting the wording from Robert's, the following is what you get: "If the office is uncontested, a motion to cast one vote for the uncontested candidate may be made." That's a direct quote from the bylaws of one of my organizations. I pointed out that Robert's says it is not in order to do that and I was told, "We know that, but everybody does it that way. That's why we put it in the bylaws, because the bylaws override Robert's" It seems that Robert's is intimidating to a lot of people and they would rather try to work around it than with it. 🙁

Well, as has been noted, RONR does not say that it is not in order to put such a provision in the bylaws.  In fact, General Robert himself went to some pains, in Parliamentary Procedure, page 477, Q&A 186, to describe the correct procedure to use when the bylaws contain such a provision.  

[J. J.]

On 11/16/2021 at 9:26 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Well, as has been noted, RONR does not say that it is not in order to put such a provision in the bylaws.  In fact, General Robert himself went to some pains, in Parliamentary Procedure, page 477, Q&A 186, to describe the correct procedure to use when the bylaws contain such a provision.  

Parliamentary Procedure?

[Dan Honemann]

On 11/16/2021 at 10:41 AM, J. J. said:

Parliamentary Procedure?

Parliamentary Law, that is.  🙂

[Gary Leach]

On 11/15/2021 at 4:46 PM, Joshua Katz said:

But this is correct. The bylaw does appear to have been written to do it in a way that differs from RONR, and the bylaws do, in fact, override RONR. So I'm not seeing the problem.

I agree there's not a violation here, since that's what their bylaws tell them to do.  However, autonomy of the organization over its own bylaws notwithstanding, my concern is just that, by codifying it in the bylaws, it perpetuates a questionable practice. It's just as easy to follow the "acclamation" route, preferred by Robert's, as it is follow the "is not in order" route of a secretary casting a single ballot.

[Gary Leach]

On 11/16/2021 at 8:12 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Parliamentary Law, that is.  🙂

Thanks! My copy of Parliamentary Law is in the mail. I look forward to checking the referenced items as soon as it arrives.

[J. J.]

On 11/16/2021 at 12:43 PM, Gary Leach said:

Thanks! My copy of Parliamentary Law is in the mail. I look forward to checking the referenced items as soon as it arrives.

Ah, it is now out of copyright and online:  https://archive.org/details/parliamentarylaw00robe/page/n7/mode/2up

[Richard Brown]

On 11/16/2021 at 4:08 PM, J. J. said:

Ah, it is now out of copyright and online:  https://archive.org/details/parliamentarylaw00robe/page/n7/mode/2up

I sometimes give a cite and a link to the online version, usually to Question and Answer 107, but personally I MUCH prefer the hardbound book version for looking things up.

[Joshua Katz]

On 11/16/2021 at 12:40 PM, Gary Leach said:

It's just as easy to follow the "acclamation" route, preferred by Robert's, as it is follow the "is not in order" route of a secretary casting a single ballot.

Certainly - and your bylaws do! I guess I'm just not seeing a problem.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 11/16/2021 at 12:40 PM, Gary Leach said:

I agree there's not a violation here, since that's what their bylaws tell them to do.  However, autonomy of the organization over its own bylaws notwithstanding, my concern is just that, by codifying it in the bylaws, it perpetuates a questionable practice. It's just as easy to follow the "acclamation" route, preferred by Robert's, as it is follow the "is not in order" route of a secretary casting a single ballot.

Much easier in fact.  In organizations that direct the Secretary to cast a single vote, once that's done, it's often the end of it.  The Secretary never does cast such a ballot.  It has been so long since this method was appropriately used, nobody remembers that the Secretary is supposed to do as directed.  

Here's what PL actually says:

Quote

 

186. Ques. What is the correct procedure when the secretary is asked to “cast the ballot”?

Ans. The secretary is not asked, but is directed, or ordered, to cast the ballot for a certain person for a specified office. In such a case, he writes the name of the candidate on a blank piece of paper, and standing says: “Mr. Chairman, by order of the club, I cast its ballot [or, unanimous ballot] for Mr. A for treasurer.” He then hands the ballot to the chairman and resumes his seat. The chairman, standing, says: “The ballot [or, unanimous ballot] of the club has been cast for Mr. A for treasurer, and he is therefore elected treasurer.” This is not a vote by ballot, but is a viva voce vote, and cannot be done legally if the by-laws require the election to be by ballot. R. 0. R., pp. 194, 202. 

 

Edited November 17, 2021 at 01:44 AM by Gary Novosielski

[Gary Leach]

On 11/16/2021 at 2:08 PM, J. J. said:

Ah, it is now out of copyright and online:  https://archive.org/details/parliamentarylaw00robe/page/n7/mode/2up

Thank you!

[Gary Leach]

On 11/16/2021 at 5:41 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Much easier in fact.  In organizations that direct the Secretary to cast a single vote, once that's done, it's often the end of it.  The Secretary never does cast such a ballot.  It has been so long since this method was appropriately used, nobody remembers that the Secretary is supposed to do as directed.  

Here's what PL actually says:

 

Thanks!

[J. J.]

On 11/16/2021 at 6:48 PM, Richard Brown said:

I sometimes give a cite and a link to the online version, usually to Question and Answer 107, but personally I MUCH prefer the hardbound book version for looking things up.

So do I.