Secretary Cast a Unanimous ballot

[Guest Dan Honemann]

Yes, you're right.

If the bylaws do not require a ballot vote, the chair should simply declare the sole nominee elected."

[Guest Dan Honemann]

...and if the bylaws do require a ballot vote, such a vote must be taken, and a motion to have the secretary cast a unanimous ballot for the one nominee is not in order."

[David A Foulkes]

<<a motion to have the secretary cast a unanimous ballot for the one nominee is not in order.>>

Mr. H - I've come across this in old minutes of ours and wasn't sure about it. In fact it seems wrong on several levels. So - is it EVER "

[Guest Kim Goldsworthy]

DAF,

In the 1923 book by Henry M. Robert, "Parliamentary Law," Robert said the practice of having the secretary cast a unanimous ballot cannot be done where a rule requires a ballot vote because this unanimous ballot is NOT a SECRET ballot.<"

[David A Foulkes]

Kim - thanks, but I'm just wondering under what circumstances, if any, a secretary's unanimous vote IS in order. If none, then I'm good with that too. I'm not advocating for it.

BTW - the anonymity of a secret ballot is only maintained if the vot"

[Guest Kim Goldsworthy]

DAF,

All I can tell you is what General Robert said in 1923, namely, that the practice is OBSOLETE.

I assume this practice was done BEFORE any parliamentary manual had said that it is okay for the chair to unilaterally declare sole candidates"

[Guest John M.]

>>BTW - the anonymity of a secret ballot is only maintained if the vote is in fact not unanimous, right?<<

The anonymity of a secret ballot is only maintained if each member is actually permitted to cast a secret ballot.

Voti"

[David A Foulkes]

Yes, but if the total votes cast is the number of members voting, and Mr. A gets that many votes, then it's clear everyone voted for him. Or if aye (or no) votes on a motion equals number of votes cast (and number of members voting), than it's clear how e"

[Guest John M.]

I think you're over thinking this."