Voting with 1 Canidate

[DMickle]

Hello All;

I can not seem to find an exact answer both in the book or the forums, so I will ask here.

The organization uses Ballots and Electronic Voting for board member election. If there is only 1 person running for each position (3 incumbents and 1 new candidate) does the vote still need to take place, or can they just assume the positions they are running for?

There is nothing in the By-Laws that states what happens if there is only one candidate. In the past there has been people running un-opposed, but not a whole ticket like this.

I am under the impression that the vote still has to take place. Is that correct?

[George Mervosh]

Yes, that's correct. RONR, p. 255

[Robert B Fish]

Hello All;

I can not seem to find an exact answer both in the book or the forums, so I will ask here.

The organization uses Ballots and Electronic Voting for board member election. If there is only 1 person running for each position (3 incumbents and 1 new candidate) does the vote still need to take place, or can they just assume the positions they are running for?

There is nothing in the By-Laws that states what happens if there is only one candidate. In the past there has been people running un-opposed, but not a whole ticket like this.

I am under the impression that the vote still has to take place. Is that correct?

If your bylaws reuqire a vote by ballot, that provision may not be waived, even if there is just one candidate per vacancy.

On the other hand, if you just customarily use ballots and electronic voting and there is just one candidate for each vacancy, the chairman may declare those candidates to have been elected.

-Bob

[George Mervosh]

If your bylaws reuqire a vote by ballot, that provision may not be waived, even if there is just one candidate per vacancy.

On the other hand, if you just customarily use ballots and electronic voting and there is just one candidate for each vacancy, the chairman may declare those candidates to have been elected.

-Bob

How do they customarily use something that must be in the bylaws to be used? And why can't a ballot be electronic?

[David A Foulkes]

The organization uses Ballots and Electronic Voting for board member election.

......

There is nothing in the By-Laws that states what happens if there is only one candidate.

Do the bylaws state you must use ballots? Is there anything in your bylaws that covers the method of voting (ballots, voice vote, etc)? Or has the use of Ballots and Electronic Voting developed over the years as a "custom?"

[DMickle]

Do the bylaws state you must use ballots? Is there anything in your bylaws that covers the method of voting (ballots, voice vote, etc)? Or has the use of Ballots and Electronic Voting developed over the years as a "custom?"

The by-laws have been adjusted over time to accept a paper ballot and electronic voting. The method is not my concern. My concern is that there was no vote at all, because each office only had one person running. I feel like there should still be a vote, since "no vote" shows a vote of no confidence (I guess). Instead, the vote that was to happen to the general membership was never held and the new officers introduced at the next meeting.

[Josh Martin]

How do they customarily use something that must be in the bylaws to be used?

What needs to be in the Bylaws to be used? Electronic voting is not necessarily absentee voting.

The by-laws have been adjusted over time to accept a paper ballot and electronic voting. The method is not my concern. My concern is that there was no vote at all, because each office only had one person running. Instead, the vote that was to happen to the general membership was never held and the new officers introduced at the next meeting.

As has been noted, unless the Bylaws require that the vote be by ballot, it is appropriate for the chair to declare the sole candidates elected by acclamation.

since "no vote" shows a vote of no confidence (I guess).

Nonsense.

[Trina]

....

My concern is that there was no vote at all, because each office only had one person running. I feel like there should still be a vote, since "no vote" shows a vote of no confidence (I guess). Instead, the vote that was to happen to the general membership was never held and the new officers introduced at the next meeting.

As has been noted, if your bylaws require a vote by ballot, that requirement cannot be set aside even if there is only a single candidate for each office.

However, as you suggest, even if a ballot vote wasn't required, there should still have been an acknowledgement (in the form of a statement by the chair) that the candidates were elected by acclamation, at the meeting where the election was to take place. If this didn't happen, though, and if nothing was said at the time (someone could have raised a timely point of order), there is no big ongoing problem that would cast doubt on the validity of the election -- this kind of goof is NOT what RONR describes as a continuing breach.

On the other, if bylaws DO require a ballot vote, skipping the ballot vote would make the election null and void, and it would constitute a continuing breach (an error which can be challenged by a point of order at any time -- see RONR p. 244).

edited to add:

On thinking about this further, I'm going to backpedal a bit on my second paragraph above. Perhaps enough information hasn't been given to know for sure if the election was valid (assuming no requirement for ballot vote in the bylaws) -- did the membership know the election was to be held at this meeting? was the membership informed about the candidates running for office? was an opportunity given for nominations from the floor?

And, having just scanned this thread again, I believe we still don't know whether DMickle's bylaws require voting by secret ballot --

The by-laws have been adjusted over time to accept a paper ballot and electronic voting.

-- doesn't really answer that crucial question.

DMickle?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

If there is only 1 person running for each position (3 incumbents and 1 new candidate) does the vote still need to take place, or can they just assume the positions they are running for?

There is nothing in the bylaws that states what happens if there is only one candidate.

Two answers:

1.) If one's bylaws specify a ballot vote, then a (secret) ballot vote must be conducted, even if there is a single candidate for every office. The secrecy of the ballot cannot be superseded by a chair's unanimous acclamation.

2.) If one's bylaws do NOT specify a ballot vote, then the chair may declare the sole nominee(s) elected. No balloting is required. But a motion could be made for a ballot, nonetheless, and a majority vote decides if a ballot vote shall be the method of voting, instead of allowing the chair's acclamation to be the method.

In the past there has been people running un-opposed, but not a whole ticket like this.

I am under the impression that the vote still has to take place. Is that correct?

Not necessarily.

See above #1 and #2 for which fork you'll branch into, per the wording of your bylaws.

[Josh Martin]

did the membership know the election was to be held at this meeting? was the membership informed about the candidates running for office? was an opportunity given for nominations from the floor?

Notice isn't required for regular elections, only elections to fill vacancies. Failure to take nominations from the floor wouldn't cause a continuing breach.

[Trina]

Notice isn't required for regular elections, only elections to fill vacancies. Failure to take nominations from the floor wouldn't cause a continuing breach.

That is certainly true -- none of those ommissions in procedure would cause a continuing breach.

My discomfort (which I realize now was not expressed clearly in my previous post) comes from the possibility -- raised by DMickle's description of events -- that nothing at all was said or done about the election at the membership meeting where the election was supposed to take place. That sounds more like an incomplete election, rather than an election with flaws in procedure. It's also not clear what body (general membership or board?) was meeting at the 'next meeting' when the new officers were introduced:

Instead, the vote that was to happen to the general membership was never held and the new officers introduced at the next meeting.

[DMickle]

That is certainly true -- none of those ommissions in procedure would cause a continuing breach.

My discomfort (which I realize now was not expressed clearly in my previous post) comes from the possibility -- raised by DMickle's description of events -- that nothing at all was said or done about the election at the membership meeting where the election was supposed to take place. That sounds more like an incomplete election, rather than an election with flaws in procedure. It's also not clear what body (general membership or board?) was meeting at the 'next meeting' when the new officers were introduced:

Here is some more background I can give:

There is a nomination period (from December until March) in which anyone can be nominated for a position. The election committee then reviews the nominations to see if they fit the guidelines for the position (some chairs on the board require specific certifications). After that point, NORMALLY the candidates are posted on the website. This year there were 3 open seats. Two are the seats had the people currently holding them run again and one seat had a new person as a candidate.

The board felt that since there was not opposition, the candidates would be considered elected and appointed them to the chairs.

The by-laws only state:

"Board Elections shall take place at the Annual Meeting held in June of each year.

Each candidate for a contested position shall be given the opportunity to speak to the

membership for up to five minutes to present why they are running for office and what

they expect to bring to the Board and the Region should they be elected.

Voting may take place in advance of the Annual Meeting via mail and/or electronically as

outlined in the General Operating Code. The pre-meeting voting period shall be

determined by the Board and announced to the general membership not later than April

15th. Advance voting must be completed at least two weeks prior to the Annual Meeting.

Final voting shall take place at the Annual Meeting. Members who voted in the advance

voting period shall not be eligible to vote at the Annual Meeting."

And this is the text under the board member section also:

"Elections for Board shall take place at the Region’s Annual Meeting

(usually scheduled in June). Voting shall be held in accordance with the Bylaws.

The candidate receiving a majority of the votes cast by the Region's registered

members who are 18 years of age or older at the time of the election shall be

elected. Junior members, regardless of age, are not eligible to vote. Terms of office

will commence on August 1 following the election. Terms of office will expire on

three years hence, on July 31, except as designated, herein, established to initially

create a revolving attrition for the Board."

[hmtcastle]

The board felt that since there was not opposition, the candidates would be considered elected and appointed them to the chairs.

It's extremely doubtful that the board has this authority.

"Board Elections shall take place"

"Voting may take place in advance of the Annual Meeting"

"Final voting shall take place at the Annual Meeting."

"Elections for Board shall take place at the Region’s Annual Meeting"

Your organization will have to interpret its own bylaws but it sounds to me like an election (i.e. a vote) is required).

[Guest SWalsh]

If candidates for the Board of Directors must submit applications to the Nominating Committee to ascertain their eligibility/qualifications to run per the Bylaws of the organization, and there is only one candidate for one of the seats, when is that candidate declared the winner?

The Bylaws state "A ballot containing the names of all qualified candidates shall be delivered to each member eligible to vote at least three weeks preceding the election." They also state "If there is not more than one qualified candidate for any position on the Board of Directors, the President will instruct the Secretary to cast a unanimous ballot for the candidate."

(For informational purposes, there are four regional seats available)

Is it possible to have a write-in candidate?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

If candidates for the Board of Directors must submit applications to the Nominating Committee to ascertain their eligibility/qualifications to run per the Bylaws of the organization, and there is only one candidate for one of the seats, when is that candidate declared the winner?

The Bylaws state "A ballot containing the names of all qualified candidates shall be delivered to each member eligible to vote at least three weeks preceding the election." They also state "If there is not more than one qualified candidate for any position on the Board of Directors, the President will instruct the Secretary to cast a unanimous ballot for the candidate."

(For informational purposes, there are four regional seats available)

Is it possible to have a write-in candidate?

Since poster SWalsh has many questions all of which are unrelated to poster DMickle's questions, I ask SWalsh to create a new thread.

It wouldn't be fair to DMickle to clutter his thread with brand new questions, plus a dozen MORE replies, to a thread which is as good as closed.

[Guest SWalsh]

Since poster SWalsh has many questions all of which are unrelated to poster DMickle's questions, I ask SWalsh to create a new thread.

It wouldn't be fair to DMickle to clutter his thread with brand new questions, plus a dozen MORE replies, to a thread which is as good as closed.

[Guest SWalsh]

My apologies .. just found this informative forum online and got carried away with no understanding of protocol ... thanks for your response, I have started a New Topic per your suggestion ....