Tie vote in election in executive session

[Karen Evans]

The VP of our group has resigned in the middle of his term and our bylaws state that the executive committee shall appoint someone to fill the vacancy, with input from the nominating committee. With the absence of the VP, that leaves four remaining executive committee members. If the vote for the VP appointment ends in a tie, what happens? Do they discuss then vote again, hoping it's not tied a second time, or is that nominee removed from consideration? The bylaws are silent on this issue and RR are mentioned as governing whatever isn't specifically in the bylaws.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 6/27/2023 at 11:41 PM, Karen Evans said:

The VP of our group has resigned in the middle of his term and our bylaws state that the executive committee shall appoint someone to fill the vacancy, with input from the nominating committee. With the absence of the VP, that leaves four remaining executive committee members. If the vote for the VP appointment ends in a tie, what happens? Do they discuss then vote again, hoping it's not tied a second time, or is that nominee removed from consideration? The bylaws are silent on this issue and RR are mentioned as governing whatever isn't specifically in the bylaws.

What do the bylaws say exactly? And how many names did the nominating committee submit?

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/27/2023 at 11:41 PM, Karen Evans said:

The VP of our group has resigned in the middle of his term and our bylaws state that the executive committee shall appoint someone to fill the vacancy, with input from the nominating committee. With the absence of the VP, that leaves four remaining executive committee members. If the vote for the VP appointment ends in a tie, what happens? Do they discuss then vote again, hoping it's not tied a second time, or is that nominee removed from consideration? The bylaws are silent on this issue and RR are mentioned as governing whatever isn't specifically in the bylaws.

No, "that nominee" is not removed from consideration, but your question leaves me confused.  If there is just one nominee, how can there be a tie?  If you are considering one nominee at a time, with Yes or No votes for each, that is not the proper way.  All the nominees are considered at once, and voters vote for their preferred choice. The only way to vote "No" on a nominee is to vote for someone else.

If nobody receives a majority of the ballots cast, you vote a second time, a third time, or as many times as necessary.  No one is eliminated unless they voluntarily withdraw. Eventually someone always gets a majority.  New nominees can also be proposed between rounds of balloting.

[Josh Martin]

On 6/27/2023 at 10:41 PM, Karen Evans said:

With the absence of the VP, that leaves four remaining executive committee members. If the vote for the VP appointment ends in a tie, what happens? Do they discuss then vote again, hoping it's not tied a second time, or is that nominee removed from consideration?

The vote for the Vice President is repeated as many times as is necessary until one candidate obtains a majority.

On 7/4/2023 at 5:14 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

If you are considering one nominee at a time, with Yes or No votes for each, that is not the proper way.

It is the proper way if the assembly is using a voice vote (although this is not recommended).

[Atul Kapur]

@Gary Novosielski and @Josh Martin, I believe you are both assuming certain answers to @Shmuel Gerber's questions.

I, also, gathered from the OP that the nominating committee submitted one name and the question was on appointing that individual to fill the vacancy. I agree that this is not proper under RONR, but I await the OP response whether that is how the bylaws require it to be done.

[Dan Honemann]

On 7/5/2023 at 10:47 AM, Atul Kapur said:

@Gary Novosielski and @Josh Martin, I believe you are both assuming certain answers to @Shmuel Gerber's questions.

I, also, gathered from the OP that the nominating committee submitted one name and the question was on appointing that individual to fill the vacancy. I agree that this is not proper under RONR, but I await the OP response whether that is how the bylaws require it to be done.

What's wrong with it?

 

[Josh Martin]

On 7/5/2023 at 9:47 AM, Atul Kapur said:

@Gary Novosielski and @Josh Martin, I believe you are both assuming certain answers to @Shmuel Gerber's questions.

I, also, gathered from the OP that the nominating committee submitted one name and the question was on appointing that individual to fill the vacancy. I agree that this is not proper under RONR, but I await the OP response whether that is how the bylaws require it to be done.

If the situation is that the assembly was voting "Yes" or "No" on a single candidate submitted by the nominating committee, and the board simply voted "Yes" or "No" on this candidate without board members offering an alternative candidate, I agree that will indeed change how to proceed.

[Atul Kapur]

On 7/5/2023 at 11:03 AM, Dan Honemann said:

What's wrong with it?

 

If you accept Josh and Gary's assumptions that this should be treated as a nomination and election of  a candidate, then 46:1 advises it is "not proper."

[Dan Honemann]

On 7/5/2023 at 1:45 PM, Atul Kapur said:

If you accept Josh and Gary's assumptions that this should be treated as a nomination and election of  a candidate, then 46:1 advises it is "not proper."

I don't think it is at all apparent that this was to be a ballot election.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 7/5/2023 at 3:09 PM, Dan Honemann said:

I don't think it is at all apparent that this was to be a ballot election.

Well, if it's not, and there's only one name, and that person can't get a majority on a voice vote, then somebody somehow is going to need to come up with another name or names to try. 

If there is a political division that looks like it will take time to work out, one way to help get the situation under control would be for someone to move for a ballot election.

[Dan Honemann]

As I see it, the problem with this discussion is that responders have been unwilling to wait for answers to the questions posed by Mr. Gerber.  If no answers are forthcoming, discussion is rather aimless and of little value.