Nominating Committee Appointment

[Guest W. Watson]

I would certainly appreciate it if you would comment on the following bylaw statement that a) fixes the nomination committee for a life time, does not allow 86% of our assembly to ever be a participant in choosing the nominations slate, c) Disenfranchises both new and older members by not allowing them to even be considered for the Nominating committee, and d) since the bylaws committee is itself composed of basically past presidents it probably could never be changed. Here is the bylaw statement (we are Incorporated and adopted RONR)

 

“The chairman of the Nomination Committee shall be the immediate past president and the member of the committee shall be the remaining financial past presidents.”

[Richard Brown]

I think that if you are unhappy with the quoted provision... and I understand why you would be... you should try to get the bylaws amended.  If two thirds of the members who vote on the change (or whatever requirement your bylaws contain for amending them), you can change it.

 

I see all sorts of problems with that bylaw provision.   There are a multitude of problems associated with having positions of "immediate past president" and even "past president".   Until it is changed, it is what it is.

[Edgar Guest]

 . . . c ) Disenfranchises both new and older members by not allowing them to even be considered for the Nominating committee, and d) since the bylaws committee is itself composed of basically past presidents it probably could never be changed.

 

While I agree with Mr. Brown that your organization's method of populating the nominating committee is unfortunate, it hardly disenfranchises any of your members (old or new) as they are free to nominate whomever they want ("from the floor") and to vote for anyone they want, whether nominated or not (unless, of course, your rules say otherwise). The selections of the nominating committee (not a "slate", please) are just the first step in the electoral process, not the last word.

 

As for the bylaws committee, unless it has the authority to actually amend the bylaws, all it can do is make recommendations. And unless it has the exclusive authority to amend the bylaws (which would be most unfortunate), the general membership can (or at least ought to be able to) amend the bylaws.

[Richard Brown]

While I agree with Mr. Brown that your organization's method of populating the nominating committee is unfortunate, it hardly disenfranchises any of your members (old or new) as they are free to nominate whomever they want ("from the floor") and to vote for anyone they want, whether nominated or not (unless, of course, your rules say otherwise). The selections of the nominating committee (not a "slate", please) are just the first step in the electoral process, not the last word.

I agree with Mr. Guest's "supplement" to my answer.  He is right.  A group of you can agree in advance to nominate and support candidates of your choice.  Unless you have a bylaws provision to the contrary, you aren't limited to the nominees selected by the nominating committee.  You are free to nominate others from the floor and to write in candidates if the voting is by ballot.

[Transpower]

See RONR (11th ed.), p. 433.  The president should not appoint the nominating committee and should not be on it.  Your bylaws ensure that the same clique will run the organization practically forever.  You should propose an amendment to the bylaws stating that members of the nominating will be elected by the assembly, if that is at all feasible, or else by the executive board.

[Edgar Guest]

Your bylaws ensure that the same clique will run the organization practically forever.

 

I think it's a stretch to suggest that the nominating committee, however constituted, "will run the organization practically forever".

 

And we don't know enough about the bylaws committee's authority. Or how it's populated.