proper wording used for election of officers

[Guest Jcee]

wondering the proper wording for an election of officers when no one is running against your opponent.

[jstackpo]

The chair simply announces that the unopposed candidates are elected by acclamation.

[hmtcastle]

The chair simply announces that the unopposed candidates are elected by acclamation.

Assuming, of course, that the bylaws don't require a ballot vote. If they do, you must have one, even if there's only one nominee for a particular office.

[amjewell]

In the case of required vote with a singe nominee for an office, what happens if the no's exceed the yes's?

Assuming, of course, that the bylaws don't require a ballot vote. If they do, you must have one, even if there's only one nominee for a particular office.

[hmtcastle]

In the case of required vote with a single nominee for an office, what happens if the no's exceed the yes's?

There are no "no" votes in an election. The only way to vote "against" one candidate is to vote for another.

[Robert B Fish]

In the case of required vote with a singe nominee for an office, what happens if the no's exceed the yes's?

See Official Interpretation 2006-5.

-Bob

[David A Foulkes]

In the case of required vote with a singe nominee for an office, what happens if the no's exceed the yes's?

And don't confuse abstentions with nos. They aren't the same thing. And check your bylaws for any other rules that may apply to voting and elections. You never know what you'll find there, unless of course you look.

[amjewell]

Thanks all! I understand now: not voting is not a no, and there are no no's, only votes for the opposition. I should have stated more clearly... in our case there was only one nominee and only 1 of 20 members voting yes, and the rest did not vote. Unfortunately there are no voting or election process by-laws (we are a simple group) except to say that an officer cannot serve consecutive terms. In the past we made an exception when there were no nominees, the current officer was allowed to serve again.

So then, is it correct to say that even if a single nominee does not get majority vote, they win by default in the absence of a by-law to prevent it?

As a follow on question: Given that our group cannot change the "an officer may not serve consecutive terms" by-law, could we add a caveat that will allow a current officer to run again if there is only one nominee? Or is that considered a contradictory by-law and therefore not permitted?

Sorry, so many questions spinning in my head! Any help is greatly appreciated

p.s. I love Wallace and Grommit!

[hmtcastle]

in our case there was only one nominee and only 1 of 20 members voting yes, and the rest did not vote.

Then he was elected. By a vote of 1-0. Unanimously!

So then, is it correct to say that even if a single nominee does not get majority vote, they win by default in the absence of a by-law to prevent it?

No. But, in this case, the single nominee was elected.

As a follow on question: Given that our group cannot change the "an officer may not serve consecutive terms" by-law, could we add a caveat that will allow a current officer to run again if there is only one nominee? Or is that considered a contradictory by-law and therefore not permitted?

You have to change the bylaw. But that's not impossible. Bylaws are changed all the time.

[Gary Novosielski]

Thanks all! I understand now: not voting is not a no, and there are no no's, only votes for the opposition. I should have stated more clearly... in our case there was only one nominee and only 1 of 20 members voting yes, and the rest did not vote. Unfortunately there are no voting or election process by-laws (we are a simple group) except to say that an officer cannot serve consecutive terms. In the past we made an exception when there were no nominees, the current officer was allowed to serve again.

So then, is it correct to say that even if a single nominee does not get majority vote, they win by default in the absence of a by-law to prevent it?

As a follow on question: Given that our group cannot change the "an officer may not serve consecutive terms" by-law, could we add a caveat that will allow a current officer to run again if there is only one nominee? Or is that considered a contradictory by-law and therefore not permitted?

Sorry, so many questions spinning in my head! Any help is greatly appreciated

p.s. I love Wallace and Grommit!

But he DID get a majority. He got more than half the votes of those present AND voting. In fact, he got all of them--er, it.

And who says you can't change your bylaws?

[Tim Wynn]

wondering the proper wording for an election of officers when no one is running against your opponent.

Wouldn't "you" be running against "your" opponent?

[amjewell]

We can change the by-laws of our individual group, yes, but the overarching by-laws governs many groups and is handled by The Council. The Council is made up in part by 2 individuals from each group and City officials, so in theory we should be able to propose a change. It's just that contemplating the process makes me shudder a bit.

Thank you all; terrific information!

[David A Foulkes]

We can change the by-laws of our individual group, yes, but the overarching by-laws governs many groups and is handled by The Council. The Council is made up in part by 2 individuals from each group and City officials, so in theory we should be able to propose a change. It's just that contemplating the process makes me shudder a bit.

As well it should. But just don't let that stop you. Fixing the bylaws is important. Find the Norma Rae inside you.

[Tim Wynn]

Find the Norma Rae inside you.

So, is it your undying belief that everyone has a Norma Rae inside?

[David A Foulkes]

So, is it your undying belief that everyone has a Norma Rae inside?

Okay, I guess I need to switch to the Rocky inside you for the next few posts. "Gonna fly now......."