Passing Nominations Committee Report by Acclamation

[Guest Paul]

My organization holds a yearly business meeting in which they elect Officers and Trustees for the coming year. In the past, our nominations committee chair would present a nominations committee report and following that the meeting chair would blanketly ask if there were any nominations from the floor. If there was none (which has always been the case since my time with the organization) there would be a motion and second to accept the nominations committee report by acclamation, and it would pass by vote.

I am a staff member of the organization but prior to this year I was not in a position to change the meeting proceedings. That changed this year, so I changed the proceedings because I found them to be incorrect per Roberts Rules. Instead, I directed that after the nominations committee report the meeting chair say the following for each position: 

For [position], [name] is nominated by the Nominations Committee. Are there any nominations from the floor? [Pause] Hearing none, nominations are closed, and I declare [name] elected as [position] by acclamation.

During this year's meeting, halfway through these new proceedings, a member made a motion to accept the nominations committee report by acclamation. The meeting chair questioned the Parliamentarian for this meeting, who is a member, if this was okay. The Parliamentarian approved it and the motion was seconded and passed.

Please help set the record start. Can you pass a nominations committee report by acclamation or is my way correct? Or are both ways acceptable? Thank you.

 

[Joshua Katz]

On 8/8/2023 at 1:50 PM, Guest Paul said:

changed

How so? If you are not the chair (or, to some extent, parliamentarian) how do you have power to change how this works?

On 8/8/2023 at 1:50 PM, Guest Paul said:

For [position], [name] is nominated by the Nominations Committee. Are there any nominations from the floor? [Pause] Hearing none, nominations are closed, and I declare [name] elected as [position] by acclamation.

 

Assuming the bylaws do not require a balloted vote, this is correct, except that it has nothing to with acclamation. The chair declares the sole nominee as elected, because the only way to disapprove of a sole nominee, absent a ballot, is to nominate someone else.

On 8/8/2023 at 1:50 PM, Guest Paul said:

During this year's meeting, halfway through these new proceedings, a member made a motion to accept the nominations committee report by acclamation. The meeting chair questioned the Parliamentarian for this meeting, who is a member, if this was okay. The Parliamentarian approved it and the motion was seconded and passed.

 

Is the question whether the chair must do this for all offices, or if it can be done for the report as a whole? I would not approve of this procedure because an election is a separate matter from accepting a report.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 8/8/2023 at 2:50 PM, Guest Paul said:

I am a staff member of the organization but prior to this year I was not in a position to change the meeting proceedings. That changed this year, so I changed the proceedings because I found them to be incorrect per Roberts Rules.

Where does this authority come from?  Are you even a member of the organization, or a staff member in the sense of an employee?

[Bruce Lages]

There is a slight problem with the nomenclature. I presume that the nomination committee has presented one nominee for each open position in its report. You don't 'accept the nominations committee's report' as a means of electing the nominees. If there are no additional nominees from the floor, and your bylaws don't require a ballot vote, then the chair declares the nominees elected by acclamation, as indicated above by Mr. Katz. There is no vote involved. Under the rules in RONR reports from any source are almost never 'accepted' (with the exception of an auditor's report of a financial statement). Also, when there are no additional nominees from the floor, I believe it is appropriate to declare all the individual nominees elected by acclamation at the same time.

[Joshua Katz]

On 8/8/2023 at 2:43 PM, Bruce Lages said:

Also, when there are no additional nominees from the floor, I believe it is appropriate to declare all the individual nominees elected by acclamation at the same time.

To be clear, I agree with this, even if I was a bit inartful above. What I meant to say was - if the question is on "accepting" the report, then that is the wrong terminology, but if the question is on doing it one at a time or all together, I have no problem with all together. (I might differ a bit from Mr. Lages in that I also have no objection to doing it one at a time, either.)

 

[Bruce Lages]

I don't have any objection to doing it one at a time either 

[Atul Kapur]

I believe that I agree with @Bruce Lages and @Joshua Katz after their discussion, but im going to consolidate itvinto one post. My concern with the original method is the fact that it was put to a vote. There is no problem with doing all of the elections simultaneously; I do object to separating the positions and doing each individually (so disagree with Mr. Lages on this point) because it is unnecessary and less efficient.

When the nominations committee delivers its report, the chair repeats the names of the nominees, calls for any other nominees, and if there are none, declares all the nominees elected by acclamation.

As long as the chair does not rush things and no one who wishes to make a nomination is prevented from doing so, I see no problem.

[puzzling]

On 8/9/2023 at 5:58 AM, Atul Kapur said:

I believe that I agree with @Bruce Lages and @Joshua Katz after their discussion, but im going to consolidate itvinto one post. My concern with the original method is the fact that it was put to a vote. There is no problem with doing all of the elections simultaneously; I do object to separating the positions and doing each individually (so disagree with Mr. Lages on this point) because it is unnecessary and less efficient.

When the nominations committee delivers its report, the chair repeats the names of the nominees, calls for any other nominees, and if there are none, declares all the nominees elected by acclamation.

As long as the chair does not rush things and no one who wishes to make a nomination is prevented from doing so, I see no problem.

I agree except if the bylaws prescribe ballot voting, the vote has to be done by individual voting.

[Josh Martin]

On 8/8/2023 at 1:50 PM, Guest Paul said:

My organization holds a yearly business meeting in which they elect Officers and Trustees for the coming year. In the past, our nominations committee chair would present a nominations committee report and following that the meeting chair would blanketly ask if there were any nominations from the floor. If there was none (which has always been the case since my time with the organization) there would be a motion and second to accept the nominations committee report by acclamation, and it would pass by vote.

I am a staff member of the organization but prior to this year I was not in a position to change the meeting proceedings. That changed this year, so I changed the proceedings because I found them to be incorrect per Roberts Rules. Instead, I directed that after the nominations committee report the meeting chair say the following for each position: 

For [position], [name] is nominated by the Nominations Committee. Are there any nominations from the floor? [Pause] Hearing none, nominations are closed, and I declare [name] elected as [position] by acclamation.

During this year's meeting, halfway through these new proceedings, a member made a motion to accept the nominations committee report by acclamation. The meeting chair questioned the Parliamentarian for this meeting, who is a member, if this was okay. The Parliamentarian approved it and the motion was seconded and passed.

Please help set the record start. Can you pass a nominations committee report by acclamation or is my way correct? Or are both ways acceptable? Thank you.

I would first note that it depends on whether the bylaws require a ballot vote. If the bylaws require a ballot vote and provide no exception in the circumstance that there is only one nominee for each position, then it is not permissible to declare the nominees elected by acclamation, through either method described above.

In the event, however, that the bylaws do not require a ballot vote, or if the bylaws require a ballot vote but provide an exception if there is only one nominee for each office, then the procedure you described is the appropriate procedure. I would refer the organization's parliamentarian to the following citations from Robert's Rules of Order.

"If the bylaws require the election of officers to be by ballot and there is only one nominee for an office, the ballot must nevertheless be taken for that office unless the bylaws provide for an exception in such a case. In the absence of the latter provision, members still have the right, on the ballot, to cast “write-in votes” for other eligible persons." RONR (12th ed.) 46:35

"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 (12th ed.) 46:40

I concur with my colleagues that there is nothing particularly objectionable about declaring all positions elected by acclamation at once instead of one at a time, provided that, in either case, the chair makes sure to ask for nominations for each position first. This terminology about "accepting" the report of the nominations committee, however, is incorrect.

On 8/9/2023 at 4:37 AM, puzzling said:

I agree except if the bylaws prescribe ballot voting, the vote has to be done by individual voting.

I'm not entirely certain what is meant by "individual voting". Certainly, if a ballot vote is required, then each member has the right to vote for a candidate of his choice for each position. The assembly has the option, however, of either conducting a ballot for each office, one at a time, or using a single ballot with all offices, and each office listed in a separate section. There are advantages and disadvantages to each method. In a circumstance where all candidates are unopposed, using a single ballot with all offices generally seems preferable. See RONR (12th ed.) 46:31.

Edited August 9, 2023 at 01:26 PM by Josh Martin

[puzzling]

On 8/9/2023 at 2:24 PM, Josh Martin said:

I'm not entirely certain what is meant by "individual voting".

I mean that at all members need to be given one ballot paper.

Suggestions that (for example) only  the secretary votes in this ballot is not permitted. All members present need to be able to vote, may write in another candidate if they prefer and a majority of ballots is needed to ge elected. No shortcuts compared with multiple nominees are allowed.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 8/9/2023 at 12:58 AM, Atul Kapur said:

There is no problem with doing all of the elections simultaneously; I do object to separating the positions and doing each individually (so disagree with Mr. Lages on this point) because it is unnecessary and less efficient.

Presuming ballot voting is not required in the bylaws for unopposed offices, or for any offices then:

I think it depends on what the local rule or custom is on voting.  If the organization normally considers each office in sequence--committee nomination, floor nomination(s) balloting, counting, reporting--then on to the next office, it would make sense to do acclamations for individual offices as each comes up.

But if balloting (if any) would normally occur on a single ballot with a section for each office, then it makes sense to read the committee report, call for additional nominations, acclaim any unopposed candidates, and ballot for any others.

Each of the two methods for elections has its pros and cons.  In the case of one-by-one voting, the results of early voting can and often does influence who gets nominated from the floor for later offices.  The differences between the two methods tend to blur if all or nearly all offices are filled by acclamation.

[Dan Honemann]

On 8/9/2023 at 10:33 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

I think it depends on what the local rule or custom is on voting.  If the organization normally considers each office in sequence--committee nomination, floor nomination(s) balloting, counting, reporting--then on to the next office, it would make sense to do acclamations for individual offices as each comes up.

But if balloting (if any) would normally occur on a single ballot with a section for each office, then it makes sense to read the committee report, call for additional nominations, acclaim any unopposed candidates, and ballot for any others.

Declaring a nominee elected by acclamation can only occur when the assembly is in the process of conducting a viva-voce election.  If the assembly has a rule or established custom prescribing any other method of voting, election by acclamation will not be applicable.

[Atul Kapur]

On 8/9/2023 at 7:33 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

I think it depends on what the local rule or custom is on voting.  If the organization normally considers each office in sequence--committee nomination, floor nomination(s) balloting, counting, reporting--then on to the next office, it would make sense to do acclamations for individual offices as each comes up.

I was responding to the OP, who told us that they have not been doing it on sequence.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 8/9/2023 at 11:37 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Declaring a nominee elected by acclamation can only occur when the assembly is in the process of conducting a viva-voce election.  If the assembly has a rule or established custom prescribing any other method of voting, election by acclamation will not be applicable.

Well, I did preface my remark by saying: 

On 8/9/2023 at 10:33 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

Presuming ballot voting is not required in the bylaws for unopposed offices, or for any offices then:

So, are you saying that if an assembly is conducting an election by ballot, and the bylaws provide that ballots are not required for unopposed candidates, that it would be improper to declare some candidates elected by acclamation who meet that qualification, just because the entire process was not viva-voce all the way?

That would be news to me.

 

[Dan Honemann]

On 8/9/2023 at 11:59 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

So, are you saying that if an assembly is conducting an election by ballot, and the bylaws provide that ballots are not required for unopposed candidates, that it would be improper to declare some candidates elected by acclamation who meet that qualification, just because the entire process was not viva-voce all the way?

Yes. When a ballot vote is being conducted, members have the right to write in the name of any qualified person.  

[Josh Martin]

On 8/9/2023 at 11:21 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Yes. When a ballot vote is being conducted, members have the right to write in the name of any qualified person.  

I think there must be some miscommunication here somewhere. I certainly do not dispute that "When a ballot vote is being conducted, members have the right to write in the name of any qualified person."

But Mr. Novosielski is referring to a situation in which "the bylaws provide that ballots are not required for unopposed candidates." In such a case, it would seem that a ballot vote need only be conducted for those positions which are, in fact, contested, and the remaining positions could be declared elected by acclamation.

[Dan Honemann]

On 8/9/2023 at 1:34 PM, Josh Martin said:

I think there must be some miscommunication here somewhere. I certainly do not dispute that "When a ballot vote is being conducted, members have the right to write in the name of any qualified person."

But Mr. Novosielski is referring to a situation in which "the bylaws provide that ballots are not required for unopposed candidates." In such a case, it would seem that a ballot vote need only be conducted for those positions which are, in fact, contested, and the remaining positions could be declared elected by acclamation.

I assume he was referring to a bylaw provision to the effect that elections must be conducted by ballot except when candidates are unopposed.  Such provisions do not preclude ballot elections if candidates are unopposed.  The provisions of 40:36 remain applicable.  

[Josh Martin]

On 8/9/2023 at 1:02 PM, Dan Honemann said:

I assume he was referring to a bylaw provision to the effect that elections must be conducted by ballot except when candidates are unopposed.  Such provisions do not preclude ballot elections if candidates are unopposed.  The provisions of 40:36 remain applicable.  

Yes, I concur that Mr. Novosielski was referring to a case in which there is "a bylaw provision to the effect that elections must be conducted by ballot except when candidates are unopposed."

I concur that such provisions do not preclude ballot elections, and that the assembly may still order a ballot vote to be taken if desired. But my understanding is that in such cases, a ballot vote only needs to be taken for those positions which are opposed, unless the assembly orders a ballot vote to be taken for other positions.

You appear to be saying in a previous response that if a ballot vote is taken for any positions, then a ballot vote must be taken for all positions. This doesn't seem to make sense. I am sure that Mr. Novosielski and I must be misunderstanding something, and I am looking for clarification on what you meant by your previous response.

On 8/9/2023 at 11:21 AM, Dan Honemann said:

On 8/9/2023 at 10:59 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

So, are you saying that if an assembly is conducting an election by ballot, and the bylaws provide that ballots are not required for unopposed candidates, that it would be improper to declare some candidates elected by acclamation who meet that qualification, just because the entire process was not viva-voce all the way?

Yes. When a ballot vote is being conducted, members have the right to write in the name of any qualified person.  

 

Edited August 9, 2023 at 06:55 PM by Josh Martin

[Atul Kapur]

On 8/9/2023 at 11:02 AM, Dan Honemann said:

I assume he was referring to a bylaw provision to the effect that elections must be conducted by ballot except when candidates are unopposed.  Such provisions do not preclude ballot elections if candidates are unopposed.  The provisions of 40:36 remain applicable.  

I'm assuming you meant to refer to 45:36, or that you are referencing the Superior Deluxe edition.

I am more familiar with bylaws that require a declaration of election by acclamation if there are no more candidates than available positions ("...the chair shall..." rather than "...the chair may...").

But in case where such a declaration is allowed but not obligatory, are you saying that if one position is contested then all the positions must be processed by a ballot vote? For example, elections are being held for four officer positions (president, vice president, secretary, and treaasurer) and the practice is to complete all nominations before voting on any position then conducting a single ballot (if required) as per 46:31(1). The nominations committee reports one nominee for each position. A second individual is nominated from the floor for treasurer. There is, 

On 8/9/2023 at 11:02 AM, Dan Honemann said:

a bylaw provision to the effect that elections must be conducted by ballot except when candidates are unopposed

 It sounds like you are saying that, in this situation, all four positions must be included on the ballot. That is, the chair could not declare the nominees for president, vice president, and secretary elected by acclamation and conduct a ballot vote solely for the treasurer. Am I understanding you correctly?

[Dan Honemann]

On 8/9/2023 at 2:57 PM, Atul Kapur said:

I'm assuming you meant to refer to 45:36, or that you are referencing the Superior Deluxe edition.

Actually, I meant to refer to 46:30.  Sorry about that.

 

On 8/9/2023 at 2:57 PM, Atul Kapur said:

I am more familiar with bylaws that require a declaration of election by acclamation if there are no more candidates than available positions ("...the chair shall..." rather than "...the chair may...").

If so, then so be it.

 

On 8/9/2023 at 2:57 PM, Atul Kapur said:

But in case where such a declaration is allowed but not obligatory, are you saying that if one position is contested then all the positions must be processed by a ballot vote? For example, elections are being held for four officer positions (president, vice president, secretary, and treaasurer) and the practice is to complete all nominations before voting on any position then conducting a single ballot (if required) as per 46:31(1). The nominations committee reports one nominee for each position. A second individual is nominated from the floor for treasurer. There is, 

On 8/9/2023 at 2:02 PM, Dan Honemann said:

a bylaw provision to the effect that elections must be conducted by ballot except when candidates are unopposed

 It sounds like you are saying that, in this situation, all four positions must be included on the ballot. That is, the chair could not declare the nominees for president, vice president, and secretary elected by acclamation and conduct a ballot vote solely for the treasurer. Am I understanding you correctly?

I am saying that if an assembly has a rule or established custom that elections are to be held by ballot, then elections are to be held by ballot and what RONR says in 46:37-41 relating to viva-voce elections is inapplicable.

[Dan Honemann]

On 8/9/2023 at 2:55 PM, Josh Martin said:

I concur that such provisions do not preclude ballot elections, and that the assembly may still order a ballot vote to be taken if desired. But my understanding is that in such cases, a ballot vote only needs to be taken for those positions which are opposed, unless the assembly orders a ballot vote to be taken for other positions.

When the assembly orders that elections (or an election) will be held by ballot, it means the entire election, not just part of it unless it has specifically said so.  It makes no difference whether some positions are or are not opposed.  All positions must be voted on by ballot.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 8/9/2023 at 4:16 PM, Dan Honemann said:

When the assembly orders that elections (or an election) will be held by ballot, it means the entire election, not just part of it unless it has specifically said so.  It makes no difference whether some positions are or are not opposed.  All positions must be voted on by ballot.

I can agree with that. But I maintain that if the bylaws¹ provide that voting for any office shall be by ballot except when nominees outnumber seats, then it has specifically said so.  

I would personally prefer to include a section of the ballot with a single name (and write-in line) rather than acclamation, since it makes it easier for voters to vote against a candidate they don't like.  But I think that such a provision in the bylaws, which is quite common, is intended to shorten the process.

But I also recognize that this advantage is more pronounced when the assembly holds individual elections for each office rather than combined on one ballot.  It costs virtually nothing in time or effort to include a section for an unopposed office on a ballot, so in that case any time-saving would be minimal.

Perhaps in cases such as the above, where the bylaws provision is a may rather than a shall, the chair instead of declaring the single nominee elected he should prepend "If there is no objection"?

__________
¹ as opposed to an order by the assembly that an entire election shall be held by ballot

[Dan Honemann]

On 8/9/2023 at 5:51 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

But I maintain that if the bylaws¹ provide that voting for any office shall be by ballot except when nominees outnumber seats, then it has specifically said so.

Now you are raising a question concerning the proper interpretation and application of a bylaw provision.  I am far more interested in the proper understanding of what is said in RONR.

 

On 8/9/2023 at 5:51 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Perhaps in cases such as the above, where the bylaws provision is a may rather than a shall, the chair instead of declaring the single nominee elected he should prepend "If there is no objection"?

At this point, I have no idea as to exactly what set of facts you have in mind.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 8/9/2023 at 6:51 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Now you are raising a question concerning the proper interpretation and application of a bylaw provision.  I am far more interested in the proper understanding of what is said in RONR.

 

At this point, I have no idea as to exactly what set of facts you have in mind.

The set of facts where the bylaws require a ballot vote for elections, with an exception of the case of an unopposed candidate, and where an election is pending with at least one candidate unopposed.

I have seen countless answers given here (including a countable number given by me) where people asked if an unopposed candidate was automatically considered elected, and we have answered that if the bylaws require a ballot vote, even unopposed candidates must be voted on by ballot, unless the bylaws included an exception in that case.

Should we be modifying that advice?

[Dan Honemann]

On 8/9/2023 at 7:37 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

The set of facts where the bylaws require a ballot vote for elections, with an exception of the case of an unopposed candidate, and where an election is pending with at least one candidate unopposed.

if you are going where I think you may intend to go, this bylaw provision must be quoted exactly and in full.

On 8/9/2023 at 7:37 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I have seen countless answers given here (including a countable number given by me) where people asked if an unopposed candidate was automatically considered elected, and we have answered that if the bylaws require a ballot vote, even unopposed candidates must be voted on by ballot, unless the bylaws included an exception in that case.

No one has challenged the accuracy of this statement.