Nominations and voting

[Guest Eileen]

During an election of officers, a member motioned to keep all the same. The treasurer spoke up and resigned. We then voted to replace the treasurer only. That passed, then we proceeded to elect the rest of the officers collectively, motioned, seconded, asked and received "Ayes", then someone nominated another person for President before the "Nays". What should have been done? Please help!

[Joshua Katz]

On 8/24/2023 at 1:19 PM, Guest Eileen said:

What should have been done?

You should have had an election. Since someone prevailed on you not to, it's harder to say what to do now. 

[George Mervosh]

Do your bylaws require a vote by ballot for elections, Guest Eileen?

[Josh Martin]

On 8/24/2023 at 1:19 PM, Guest Eileen said:

During an election of officers, a member motioned to keep all the same. The treasurer spoke up and resigned. We then voted to replace the treasurer only. That passed, then we proceeded to elect the rest of the officers collectively, motioned, seconded, asked and received "Ayes", then someone nominated another person for President before the "Nays". What should have been done? Please help!

You should have done none of this and the motions made on this matter should have been ruled out of order. Instead, what should have been done was to request nominations for each office and, after all nominations were completed, the assembly would then conduct elections. If the bylaws do not require a ballot vote, then those elections for which there is only one candidate can be declared elected by acclamation. For those elections with multiple candidates, the assembly may vote by various methods, but a ballot vote is recommended. In a ballot vote, members vote for a candidate of their choice.

If the bylaws require a ballot vote and provide for no exceptions, a ballot vote must be held for all positions, even positions for which there is only one candidate. Members may still cast "write-in" votes for candidates who have not been nominated.

Because this has already happened, however, the next question is what to do next. If the bylaws do not require a ballot vote, then I believe it is too late to raise a Point of Order regarding these errors at this time. If a ballot vote is required, however, then the violations constitute a continuing breach, and the election must be redone - properly this time.

[Guest Eileen]

On 8/24/2023 at 3:02 PM, George Mervosh said:

Do your bylaws require a vote by ballot for elections, Guest Eileen?

We have no bylaws. The group told me they didn't do Roberts Rules and "all of that fancy stuff". (It's a high school class reunion)

[Josh Martin]

On 8/24/2023 at 3:04 PM, Guest Eileen said:

We have no bylaws. The group told me they didn't do Roberts Rules and "all of that fancy stuff". (It's a high school class reunion)

Does the organization have any rules whatsoever? How is it that you know who the organization's members are, what officers the organization has, when elections are held, that the organization exists, and so forth? Where are these things defined?

For that matter, has the organization, in fact, adopted Robert's Rules of Order as its parliamentary authority?

Edited August 24, 2023 at 08:13 PM by Josh Martin

[Joshua Katz]

On 8/24/2023 at 3:04 PM, Guest Eileen said:

We have no bylaws. The group told me they didn't do Roberts Rules and "all of that fancy stuff". (It's a high school class reunion)

The problem, as you're experiencing, with not doing RONR or any fancy stuff, is that you can wind up in a circumstance where it's unclear what to do, and where people do not agree on what to do. 

Just thinking about it on general principles, maybe the motion to elect the officers was akin to a motion to close nominations, making the nomination out of order? In any case, it was probably out of order once voting began. I think, regardless of how it might have been handled at the moment, the best resolution now is probably to stick with the president you've got.

[Josh Martin]

On 8/24/2023 at 3:08 PM, Joshua Katz said:

The problem, as you're experiencing, with not doing RONR or any fancy stuff, is that you can wind up in a circumstance where it's unclear what to do, and where people do not agree on what to do. 

Just thinking about it on general principles, maybe the motion to elect the officers was akin to a motion to close nominations, making the nomination out of order? In any case, it was probably out of order once voting began. I think, regardless of how it might have been handled at the moment, the best resolution now is probably to stick with the president you've got.

So long as the bylaws (or equivalent) do not require a ballot vote, I am inclined to agree that the best course of action is to move on and do it right next time.

[Guest Eileen]

On 8/24/2023 at 2:39 PM, Joshua Katz said:

You should have had an election. Since someone prevailed on you not to, it's harder to say what to do now. 

We actually continued to complete the first vote, asked individuals to raise hand for "Ayes" then again for "Nays" and the "Ayes won. The "Nays" still contend the procedure was done improperly, so it is causing dissension.

[Dan Honemann]

On 8/24/2023 at 4:04 PM, Guest Eileen said:

We have no bylaws. The group told me they didn't do Roberts Rules and "all of that fancy stuff". (It's a high school class reunion)

 

On 8/24/2023 at 4:33 PM, Guest Eileen said:

We actually continued to complete the first vote, asked individuals to raise hand for "Ayes" then again for "Nays" and the "Ayes won. The "Nays" still contend the procedure was done improperly, so it is causing dissension.

Where there is no law, but every man 
does what is right in his own eyes, there 
is the least of real liberty. 
—HENRY M. ROBERT 

[Josh Martin]

On 8/24/2023 at 3:33 PM, Guest Eileen said:

We actually continued to complete the first vote, asked individuals to raise hand for "Ayes" then again for "Nays" and the "Ayes won.

I suppose, strictly speaking, this is the correct manner in conducting a voice vote (with a show of hands subbed in for the voice part)... except for the part that nominations are supposed to happen first. There may well have been more nominations if they had been asked for. There's also the fact that while a voice vote is permissible for an election if the bylaws do not require a ballot vote, a ballot vote is still highly recommended when there are multiple candidates.

On 8/24/2023 at 3:33 PM, Guest Eileen said:

The "Nays" still contend the procedure was done improperly, so it is causing dissension.

They are correct that the procedure was done improperly, and it is no surprise that it is causing dissension.

Once again, the proper procedure, which is discussed in RONR (12th ed.) Section 46, is to conduct nominations prior to an election. My understanding is the bylaws (or equivalent) do not require a ballot vote. As a result, if there is only one nominee for an office, the nominee may be declared elected by acclamation. For the positions where is there more than one nominee, an election must be held. The recommended manner in which to do this is a ballot vote. In this event, each member votes for an eligible person of their choice. A majority vote is required for election, and the vote is redone if no candidate obtains a majority.

In the alternative, a voice vote is a permissible option, in which members would vote for each nominee "aye" or "no" in order until a candidate receives a majority. This procedure is not recommended because it is somewhat confusing to members, in that they must remember to vote "no" on a candidate if they would prefer the election of a different candidate. It also tends to give an advantage to the nominees voted on first.

Any attempts to circumvent the nomination and election process and simply declare the incumbents re-elected should immediately be ruled out of order.

With all that said, however, if the bylaws do not require a ballot vote, I do not think there is a continuing breach here, so the election appears to be valid, notwithstanding the errors in the procedure.

"The general rule is that if a question of order is to be raised, it must be raised promptly at the time the breach occurs." RONR (12th ed.) 23:5

I do think those who contend the procedure was done improperly should at least be sent an explanation acknowledging that they are correct, apologizing for the errors, but noting that it is unfortunately too late to correct the errors at this time and the assembly will do better in the future.

I am also still concerned by this statement that the organization has no bylaws, however, so I do think this election issue may well be the least of the organization's problems. I will ask my questions in that vein again:

"Does the organization have any rules whatsoever? How is it that you know who the organization's members are, what officers the organization has, when elections are held, that the organization exists, and so forth? Where are these things defined?

For that matter, has the organization, in fact, adopted Robert's Rules of Order as its parliamentary authority?"

If it is indeed correct that the organization has no bylaws (or equivalent document defining the basic structure of the organization), this should be rectified as soon as possible. See RONR (12th ed.) Section 54 regarding Organization of a Permanent Society and Section 56 regarding Content and Composition of Bylaws.

Edited August 25, 2023 at 12:02 AM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

On 8/24/2023 at 4:33 PM, Guest Eileen said:

We actually continued to complete the first vote, asked individuals to raise hand for "Ayes" then again for "Nays" and the "Ayes won. The "Nays" still contend the procedure was done improperly, so it is causing dissension.

The Nays are correct. The whole thing was done improperly, and dissention is much more likely when things are not done properly.

But at this point, there's nothing that can be done.  This shows the importance of striving to do things right to begin with.

[Mike Phillips]

Since there are no bylaws and since RONR is not the parliamentary authority, it seems to me that anything goes. 

[Josh Martin]

On 8/26/2023 at 12:01 AM, Mike Phillips said:

Since there are no bylaws and since RONR is not the parliamentary authority, it seems to me that anything goes. 

I think we should follow up further on both of these questions. The OP has stated that the organization has no bylaws, but it may be the organization has some other equivalent document. Further, the only statement we have to go on that RONR is not the parliamentary authority is the statement that "The group told me they didn't do Roberts Rules and "all of that fancy stuff"." While it may well be that this means the organization has not adopted RONR as its parliamentary authority, it's not unusual to see organizations which have adopted RONR as their parliamentary authority say something similar.

But if it is indeed correct that the organization has not adopted RONR as their parliamentary authority and the organization also has no other rules, then I think it is correct that "anything goes," since RONR is, at best, persuasive in such a case, and likely not very persuasive in this organization.

"A deliberative assembly that has not adopted any rules is commonly understood to hold itself bound by the rules and customs of the general parliamentary law—or common parliamentary law (as discussed in the Introduction)—to the extent that there is agreement in the meeting body as to what these rules and practices are." RONR (12th ed.) 1:5

"Although it is unwise for an assembly or a society to attempt to function without formally adopted rules of order, a recognized parliamentary manual may be cited under such conditions as persuasive. Or, by being followed through long-established custom in an organization, a particular manual may acquire a status within the body similar to that of an adopted parliamentary authority." RONR (12th ed.) 2:19

Edited August 26, 2023 at 11:23 AM by Josh Martin

[J. J.]

If the organization is totally custom based and had no requirement for a ballot; this is probably a form of a temporary society (53:32).  The election is valid, though the process was irregular. 

[Josh Martin]

On 8/26/2023 at 9:18 AM, J. J. said:

If the organization is totally custom based and had no requirement for a ballot; this is probably a form of a temporary society (53:32).  The election is valid, though the process was irregular. 

Well, if it's a temporary society, that also raises questions about why they are electing a full complement of officers (including a Treasurer), because the text suggests that the only officers a temporary society has are a Chairman Pro Tempore and Secretary Pro Tempore.

Although I do wonder if a temporary society conceivably could, if it wished, provide for other temporary officers. I suppose I ultimately see no reason why not.

Edited August 28, 2023 at 02:09 PM by Josh Martin