See Update at end of post.
The method they used was bizarre, or unconventional, to say the least.
Here is what happened. the clerk read the item: Appointment of Municipal Judges. Council vote necessary.
Three or four council members simultaneously shouted, "Mr. President."
The president then chose one of them and allowed them to make a motion. That person nominated one of the candidates. It was seconded. the council voted 3 - 2, for this candidate, with 2 abstentions.
The council proclaimed that candidate did not win, stating that a majority of the members present needed to vote yes for the candidate to win.
Let me quote from Robert's Rules of Order (9th edition) right here.
Chapter XIII
*43. BASES FOR DETERMINING A VOTING RESULT
Majority Vote - the Basic Requirement
As stated on page 4, the basic requirement for approval of an action or choice by a deliberative assembly...is a majority vote. The word majority means "more than half"; and when the term majority vote is used without qualification - as in the case of the basic requirement - it means more than half of the votes cast by persons legally entitled to vote, excluding blanks or abstentions, at a regular or properly called meeting at which a quorum is present.
So, the first candidate that was voted on did win.
But the council then entertained another nomination, under the assumption that the first nominee had not won the appointment.
This candidate received 4 votes, so she also won.
The council had appointed 2 persons to the Municipal Judge 1 place.
To further complicate the matter the method of voting was wrong.
According to Robert's Rules of Order, when multiple candidates are being voted on, all the candidates should be put into nomination and the council vote.
Then if no candidate gets a majority of the votes, then they vote again, with all candidates names still on the ballot, to see if the results will be different. The lowest vote getter name is never removed from the ballot unless required by law or unless he or she drops out.
Using the method that the council used, there was no requirement that a council member who voted yes for one candidate could not vote yes on another candidate. So even though the second candidate got 4 votes, who's to say that the third candidate, whose name was never mentioned, would not also have gotten 4 or maybe more votes? We will never know, will we.
I recommend that the council revisit this matter at the next meeting, and re-vote using proper procedures.
Update: I was told by the city attorney that by Alabama Law, election of municipal judges by city council requires a majority of the council. It does not specify anything about abstentions. Alas, this is Alabama. We have so many faults in our constitution and laws that it is not even funny. Oh well.
The new municipal judge is Lynneice Washington. Scott Roebuck retains the other position.
4 comments:
When are we going to reach the 'fed up' threshhold and
(1) demand that officials perform their duties properly;
(2) actually do the work to get a functional constitution?
Actually it functions quite well to perpetuate in power those who benefit from this 'system.'
I just don't understand the process they used, regardless of what the Code of Alabama says about a majority. Had someone else's name been called out first, would that have given different results? Names of two of the finalists were never even brought up. So does it just come down to who yells out a nomination name first? If so, what was the point of all of the time they wasted on narrowing down the field of applicants
Anonymous, I agree. It took 11 weeks to do this??? Gee.
WOW, THIS PROCESS WAS QUITE INTERESTING AND I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE VOTING PROCESS. WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR THE DELAY, WHY THE NEW JUDGE IS NOT FILLING JUDGE A. VERONS DOCKETS AND WHY WAS JUDGE ROEBUCK A SURE IN? NO OTHER NAME CONSIDERED FOR HIS SEAT.
Post a Comment