Between the close of nominations and voting

[Guest Jim]

Hi,

 

In the circumstances where it has been customary in a society to proceed directly from the nominations to voting, what specific provisions (I could find none) or, absent such provisions, what options exist within RONR to

 

1) request or propose that each nominee speak to such things as the education or experience that most qualifies them for the positions, and/or what objectives they would like to see achieved within whatever would be their term of office (if elected), and/or what most differentiates them from the other nominees?

 

Would this be

 

… a request for information from each nominee, or 

 

… a motion proposing that each nominee speak to their candidacy (which could be defeated)

 

and, absent its being defeated, and any superseding bylaws or special rules of order, RONR would accord each speaker who so-desired it 10 minutes?

 

2) what about determining the order in which the nominees would speak?

 

Whereas I had proposed that, absent any provision to the contrary, this should be in the order nominated, someone advised me that it has been customary to have any nominees speak in alphabetic order.

 

Which appears to me wholly arbitrary, in that it results in an order that has zero to do with the business at hand, and reinforces what some criticize as "alphabetism".

 

But if it is custom absent any rules to the contrary, then it would take a resolution of the assembly to decide on any alternative order? Whether for example to resolve that the order of speaking shall be in the order nominated, or as determined by the drawing of lots, or by whatever order is agreed to among the nominees?

 

3) what about deliberation before the vote?

 

I can see no reason why an assembly cannot deliberate before proceeding to the vote.

 

Are board chairs remiss if they (seemingly habitually) fail to enquire if there is any debate?

 

Would be in order to limit debate to the qualifications and attributes believed most essential for the office in question?

 

If such debate were allowed to extend to the perceived strengths and weaknesses of each candidate, across germane spheres, would that too be in order?

 

I recognize that people often stay away from such content as too apt to degenerate into interpersonal likes and dislikes.

 

I just worry that too many elections are decided without the society members' having been provided an adequate basis for their decision and wondered how that could be improved. It seems to me that the capacity of voting members to ask questions of each candidate, and to assess each candidate partly on the basis of their answers, would be helpful.

 

Maybe the authors of RONR preferred to steer clear of proposing any routine procedures for the above, regarding it to be a simple (albeit potentially-contentious) application of rules that, in their general form, already make adequate provision.

 

Thank you.

 

 

[Chris Harrison]

Nominations are debatable for all members(RONR tinted pages 18-19 #49).  If the organization wishes to require the candidates give their qualifications or give them preference in recognition over other members they can adopt rules to accomplish this.

[Guest Jim]

What does it mean to 'debate' a nomination?

 

I could see a point of information (or order) raised on questions of the nominee's eligibility to fill a position.

 

But debate on an *individual* nomination? Especially given that one cannot vote 'against' the nominee, rather only being able to vote 'for' some other nominee? And only then after they have been nominated?

[Chris Harrison]

You would debate why a particular nominee should or should not be elected and if there were more than one nominee why one should be elected over another.

[Edgar Guest]

But debate on an *individual* nomination? Especially given that one cannot vote 'against' the nominee, rather only being able to vote 'for' some other nominee? And only then after they have been nominated?

 

Members are free to vote for anyone (via "write-in" votes) whether they've been nominated or not.

[Josh Martin]

1) request or propose that each nominee speak to such things as the education or experience that most qualifies them for the positions, and/or what objectives they would like to see achieved within whatever would be their term of office (if elected), and/or what most differentiates them from the other nominees?

Would this be

… a request for information from each nominee, or

… a motion proposing that each nominee speak to their candidacy (which could be defeated)

and, absent its being defeated, and any superseding bylaws or special rules of order, RONR would accord each speaker who so-desired it 10 minutes?

A member could use a Request for Information to ask the desired information of a candidate, and could use multiple requests to ask the information of other candidates. The motion you have proposed would, in my opinion, be a rule of order for the meeting. It would be a main motion (meaning it should be made before the election), it is debatable and amendable, and a 2/3 vote is required for adoption. If such a rule is to be made permanent, it would be a special rule of order, which requires a 2/3 vote and previous notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership for adoption.

In the absence of such rules, yes, each member may speak twice for up to ten minutes each time.

2) what about determining the order in which the nominees would speak?

If the ordinary rules of debate are followed, members speak in the order they seek recognition. Some members receive preference in recognition if more than one member rises at about the same time, such as the members who made the nominations or members who have not yet spoken. Nominees do not have preference in recognition over other members, let alone over each other.

If this is handled by Requests for Information, then there is again no particular order. A member could ask a question of any of the candidates. If a rule is adopted as suggested above, then the rule may (and probably should) specify the order in which the nominees shall speak.

3) what about deliberation before the vote?

I can see no reason why an assembly cannot deliberate before proceeding to the vote.

Are board chairs remiss if they (seemingly habitually) fail to enquire if there is any debate?

Would be in order to limit debate to the qualifications and attributes believed most essential for the office in question?

If such debate were allowed to extend to the perceived strengths and weaknesses of each candidate, across germane spheres, would that too be in order?

Debate is in order, and chairs should say as much. Debate is, in my opinion, already limited to "the perceived strengths and weaknesses of each candidate, across germane spheres." RONR already requires that debate be germane to the pending question. The assembly could, if it wished, adopt a rule of order (or tack it on to the rule above) that debate shall be further limited to "the qualifications and attributes believed most essential for the office in question," presumably defining what "qualifications and attributes" the assembly believes is most essential for each office.

What does it mean to 'debate' a nomination?

I could see a point of information (or order) raised on questions of the nominee's eligibility to fill a position.

But debate on an *individual* nomination? Especially given that one cannot vote 'against' the nominee, rather only being able to vote 'for' some other nominee? And only then after they have been nominated?

It is not in order for a member simply to speak against a particular nominee. A member could, however, make a speech in favor of a particular nominee and, in doing so, also make critical comments of another nominee in comparison. Members should, of course, use great care when doing so in order to remain within the rules of decorum.

[Guest Jim]

RONR tinted pages 18-19 #49 were helpful to have been pointed to, although did not resolve my questions of how to proceed. Especially within my organizations, most of which had given little thought, and few of which had established any rules, with respect to how to regularize any speaking within elections.

 

I appreciated the reminder often issued within this forum's answers, concerning members' capacity to write-in a name on a ballot. But it seems to me that this provision has nearly zero utility. First, no member – except by advance co-ordination – could expect to elect a person by write-in after forgoing to have nominated them. Second, I suspect that most assemblies, and even their chairs, being so commonly unfamiliar with this provision, would be apt, absent the counsel of a parliamentarian, to wrongly rule such ballots as wasted.

 

Josh Martin's reply most directly answered how I might proceed.

 

Thank you, all. -- JIm

[Gary c Tesser]

...Thank you, all. -- JIm

 

I'm going to have to clip - and - insert.

 

[Jim:]

Are board chairs remiss if they (seemingly habitually) fail to enquire if there is any debate?

[GcT:]

Whatever do you think the board might have to do with anything here, unless it's the board that elects officers (in which case I apologize for having overlooked the statement).

 

[Jim:]

I just worry that too many elections are decided without the society members' having been provided an adequate basis for their decision and wondered how that could be improved. It seems to me that the capacity of voting members to ask questions of each candidate, and to assess each candidate partly on the basis of their answers, would be helpful.

[GcT:]

Yeah, this is true.  It's an uphill climb.  Good on you for doing the hike.

 

[Josh Martin, post 6:]

... Debate is, in my opinion, already limited to "the perceived strengths and weaknesses of each candidate, across germane spheres."...

[GcT:]

What about p. 379 ff, rule 4, which presupposes an inclination (ooo, that's what "bias" means, I just realized)?  Looks like a grey area to me.

 

[Josh Martin, post 6:]

... It is not in order for a member simply to speak against a particular nominee....

[GcT:]

For sure?

I will say, the consensus on this message board a few years ago was much more go-for-it, Wild-West as it were.  (Probably Josh was about twelve.  So probably not reading here.)

 

[Guest Jim:]

But it seems to me that this provision has nearly zero utility. First, no member – except by advance co-ordination ...

[GcT:]

So what's stopping you?  That's how most politicking gets done, yes?  If zero utility, why do they spend millions of dollars all over the place doing it?

 

[Jim:]

Second, I suspect that most assemblies, and even their chairs, being so commonly unfamiliar with this provision, would be apt, absent the counsel of a parliamentarian, to wrongly rule such ballots as wasted.

[GcT:]

And that's where your rights, and those of your allies (who should participate, so that you don't stand out as the gadfly or curmudgeon to be ignored), to raise Points of Order, which point out violations of the member's rights (I advise emphasizing that phrase), and to Appeal the Rulings of the Chair, critically come in.  Insist on them.

[Josh Martin]

[Josh Martin, post 6:]

... Debate is, in my opinion, already limited to "the perceived strengths and weaknesses of each candidate, across germane spheres."...

[GcT:]

What about p. 379 ff, rule 4, which presupposes an inclination (ooo, that's what "bias" means, I just realized)?  Looks like a grey area to me.

 

[Josh Martin, post 6:]

... It is not in order for a member simply to speak against a particular nominee....

[GcT:]

For sure?

I will say, the consensus on this message board a few years ago was much more go-for-it, Wild-West as it were.  (Probably Josh was about twelve.  So probably not reading here.)

 

In the case of debating nominations, pg. 379, rule 4 could be understood to mean alternating between members speaking in favor of various candidates.

 

Much of my current understanding of debating nominations is based on the discussion in this thread. Posts #20-25 is where we discussed this particular issue.

[Gary c Tesser]

In the case of debating nominations, pg. 379, rule 4 could be understood to mean alternating between members speaking in favor of various candidates.

 

So in the absence of speeches in praise of a nominee, those with something legitimately, decorously negative to say about the nominee can't speak?  You think it would be better if they engaged confederates to make brief vapid favorable speeches so that they could then voice their real uncomplimentary thoughts?

 

Much of my current understanding of debating nominations is based on the discussion in this thread. Posts #20-25 is where we discussed this particular issue.

 

Me too, and also much of my dudgeon.

 

Notwithstanding which, thanks:  I haven't reread it often enough, so I've rectified that by rereading it three times now.  (Maybe I should make a list; how do you do it?  And Mr Mountcastle, or Guest, either? )  I think Ann Rempel made a fundamental point in, I think, post 45, and it was never really addressed (pace, Dan).

[Josh Martin]

So in the absence of speeches in praise of a nominee, those with something legitimately, decorously negative to say about the nominee can't speak?  You think it would be better if they engaged confederates to make brief vapid favorable speeches so that they could then voice their real uncomplimentary thoughts?

 

Since the question before the assembly in an election is which candidate shall be elected, I'm not sure that speaking against a candidate, while saying nothing else, is germane to the question.

[Gary c Tesser]

Since the question before the assembly in an election is which candidate shall be elected, I'm not sure that speaking against a candidate, while saying nothing else, is germane to the question.

 

In deciding who should be elected, it's maybe not germane to winnow down the field by helping determine who should not be?

[Edgar Guest]

Since the question before the assembly in an election is which candidate shall be elected, I'm not sure that speaking against a candidate, while saying nothing else, is germane to the question.

 

If the question before the assembly is which color to paint the clubhouse, can't a member say why he thinks blue is a bad choice or is he restricted to extolling the virtues of red?

[Shmuel Gerber]

Since the question before the assembly in an election is which candidate shall be elected, I'm not sure that speaking against a candidate, while saying nothing else, is germane to the question.

 

 

If the question before the assembly is which color to paint the clubhouse, can't a member say why he thinks blue is a bad choice or is he restricted to extolling the virtues of red?

 

That might be different. How is the question before the assembly "which color to paint the clubhouse"?

[Edgar Guest]

That might be different. How is the question before the assembly "which color to paint the clubhouse"?

 

Let's say the motion is to paint the clubhouse red and an amendment is made to strike "red" and insert "blue". Doesn't the question (if not the motion) then become, in effect, which color to paint the clubhouse? And can't one say why red or blue is a bad choice or is one restricted to saying why red or blue is a good choice?

 

Similarly, when debating nominations for the office of treasurer, can't one point out that John Stickyfingers is a convicted thief or can one only point out that Jane Allgood isn't?

[Josh Martin]

In deciding who should be elected, it's maybe not germane to winnow down the field by helping determine who should not be?

 

Maybe.

 

If the question before the assembly is which color to paint the clubhouse, can't a member say why he thinks blue is a bad choice or is he restricted to extolling the virtues of red?

 

I'm not sure this analogy works, but what I'm saying is it would be best for the member to say why he thinks one candidate is a bad choice in the context of extolling the virtues of his preferred choice, rather than doing nothing but saying why one candidate is a bad choice, and I'm not certain that is germane. Unless an assembly adopts a rule providing otherwise (and I have seen such rules), I certainly do not believe members are completely barred from making critical comments about candidates.

 

Let's say the motion is to paint the clubhouse red and an amendment is made to strike "red" and insert "blue". Doesn't the question (if not the motion) then become, in effect, which color to paint the clubhouse? And can't one say why red or blue is a bad choice or is one restricted to saying why red or blue is a good choice?

 

A member can certainly say why red or blue is a good or bad choice in the example you have provided. Either is germane to the question to strike "red" and insert "blue." But a motion to strike and insert isn't really analogous to an election. A somewhat better example would be if there was a motion to paint the clubhouse red, and the assembly proceeded to strike "red" and insert a blank. Several other suggestions were offered, including "blue." This is more comparable to an election... but it's still really not the same. Even after the blank has been filled, the assembly still has the option of rejecting the motion altogether. In such a case, it's not truly necessary for a member to speak in favor of a color of his choice. A member might think that all of the choices are terrible and prefers to leave the clubhouse as it is.

 

This is not an option in an election to fill an office. The assembly is obligated to elect someone, and so it would seem most directly in service of that question to tell the assembly who would be a good choice. It may also be germane to explain why another candidate is not as good a choice as the member's preferred candidate. Since the goal is to elect someone, however, it's questionable whether it is germane to explain why a candidate is a poor choice without also offering a candidate who would be a good choice. (There is also, of course, the small detail that people have feelings and colors of paint do not.)

 

Similarly, when debating nominations for the office of treasurer, can't one point out that John Stickyfingers is a convicted thief or can one only point out that Jane Allgood isn't?

 

No one is suggesting that a member can only make positive comments. The question is whether it is in order for a member to make a speech in which he only makes critical comments.

[Gary c Tesser]

... A member might think that all of the choices are terrible and prefers to leave the clubhouse as it is.

 

This is not an option in an election to fill an office.....

 

I don't think it's too unimaginable, or even implausible, to think about an election meeting which is humdrum, quiet, smooth.  We get to an election which is unremarkable, except that one member, perhaps new (maybe why he didn't speak up before) recognizes that candidate John Stickyfingers (brilliant, sir) is a convicted theif, but the other nominee, Jane Allgood (inspired, sir), is someone he doesn't know from Adam (or, er, Eve).

 

So the member has nothing worthwhile to say about Ms Allgood.  But plenty to say about Stickyfingers that's certainly germane to whether he should be elected or not.

 

This argument holds even if there is no Jane in the running.  The half-dozing assembly is fine with the chair's declaring Stickyfingers the treasurer by acclamation, when new member Jimmy Stewart says in debate what a nefarious cod Stickyfingers is.  People wake up, realize that they need a viable alternative to the nogoodnik Stickyfingers, and fall to nominating people right and left and we are left to the subsequent debate to find out who they are.

[Josh Martin]

I don't think it's too unimaginable, or even implausible, to think about an election meeting which is humdrum, quiet, smooth.  We get to an election which is unremarkable, except that one member, perhaps new (maybe why he didn't speak up before) recognizes that candidate John Stickyfingers (brilliant, sir) is a convicted theif, but the other nominee, Jane Allgood (inspired, sir), is someone he doesn't know from Adam (or, er, Eve).

 

So the member has nothing worthwhile to say about Ms Allgood.  But plenty to say about Stickyfingers that's certainly germane to whether he should be elected or not.

 

This argument holds even if there is no Jane in the running.  The half-dozing assembly is fine with the chair's declaring Stickyfingers the treasurer by acclamation, when new member Jimmy Stewart says in debate what a nefarious cod Stickyfingers is.  People wake up, realize that they need a viable alternative to the nogoodnik Stickyfingers, and fall to nominating people right and left and we are left to the subsequent debate to find out who they are.

 

Well, this example is especially problematic because I think it runs into some decorum issues, and so I think the best course of action might be for the new member to quietly mention these facts to a more experienced member, who can then propose a new candidate, or if necessary, use a Recess or something to stall for time.

 

As a general rule, if a member really has nothing good to say but feels there is important information which needs to be drawn out, a Request for Information might be pertinent. For example, let us suppose that the issue is more about experience than about the candidates' larcenous activities. The member believes that experience in a certain area is absolutely crucial to the office, and he suspects that one candidate is lacking in this area, but he has no particular preference among the other candidates (or perhaps there are no other candidates). He could ask the candidate he is concerned about whether he has experience in that area. If he answers honestly that he does not, this may make other members question his candidacy. If he answers... somewhat less honestly, then I would again suggest the covert approach I mentioned above.