Can discussion before an election be disallowed?

[NTGray]

Is an organization (specifically, a church) that follows Roberts required to permit discussion before a vote to elect a minister? Or is it permitted to have a candidate preach and then have a secret ballot, without discussion, to approve him? There is nothing in this church's constitution that expressly allows or forbids the practice. Would past unchallenged precedents be sufficient grounds for permitting the practice if it is not usually allowed by Roberts?

I ask because I am new to the church and I realize that organizations sometimes violate Roberts without realizing it, and I am one of those people who likes to get procedures right, just in case.

NTG

 

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Nominations are debatable.

[George Mervosh]

But they are only debatable when it is in order to make them.   

[Kim Goldsworthy]

A motion could be made (while assembled in a properly-called meeting) that a segment of time be set aside for the purpose of open debate on the candidates -- or on any issue.

e.g., "I move that we set aside one hour for for discussion of the nominees, starting at eight o'clock."

***

While Robert's Rules of Order does allow for debate for nominees, I fear that, in a church setting, there are no "floor nominations" for pastor/preacher.

So there won't be any opportunity for debate.

So, if you want debate on the nominated preacher/pastor, then you'll have to adopt a motion, specifying "when" and "where".

[NTGray]

To clarify:

The candidate has been properly presented to the church for approval.

The candidate has preached a sermon, as required.

Immediately following the sermon the church is going to vote on whether to approve or reject the candidate.

Is the church leadership permitted to call for the usual secret ballot without discussion or debate, or does Roberts require that discussion be allowed if no motion has been made and approved to cut off discussion?

My understanding of Roberts in that with ordinary business, discussion must be permitted until/unless the question has been called and the body has voted to cut off further discussion. I see no provision for the chairman announcing that the matter will be voted on immediately, without discussion. I even see a prohibition on the chairman rushing the process to get to the vote. But I cannot tell whether an election is considered substantially different from a vote on an ordinary motion, thus allowing a prohibition on discussion prior to the ballots being collected. I could not find a clear statement in Roberts addressing that question, but I may have missed it. So, may a vote on the candidate be called without discussion?

NTG

[Richard Brown]

I'm not so sure that this is in the nature of a nomination or election, but rather more in the nature of a motion to hire someone, which would be treated like any other motion and is debatable.  

Comments?

[Joshua Katz]

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

I'm not so sure that this is in the nature of a nomination or election, but rather more in the nature of a motion to hire someone, which would be treated like any other motion and is debatable.  

Comments?

I tend to agree with this.  This looks more like a motion to hire someone than an election per say.  On the other hand, an election is just a motion with a blank, and nominations are just proposals to fill the blank.  If this is a motion to hire a specific person, it is amendable by striking the name and creating a blank, isn't it?

[NTGray]

So, I'm getting an impression that this is not a frequent question.

Any expert written sources I could look up?

 

[Richard Brown]

9 minutes ago, Godelfan said:

 If this is a motion to hire a specific person, it is amendable by striking the name and creating a blank, isn't it?

That is my understanding. Or changing name of the person to be hired. Or changing the salary, if that is part of the motion, etc.

7 minutes ago, NTGray said:

So, I'm getting an impression that this is not a frequent question.

Any expert written sources I could look up?

I don't think there is a direct reference in RONR.  Indirect references, perhaps, but not directly on point.

Keep checking back.  I imagine others will weigh in.  The end of the month is always a slow time around here.  I guess not many organizations have meetings in the last week of the month.

[Joshua Katz]

Just now, Richard Brown said:

That is my understanding. Or changing the salary, if that is part of the motion, etc.

So if it is amended in that way, it's an election.  So it doesn't seem that this motion is separated by any hard and fast line from an election.  What hinges on the distinction?

[Richard Brown]

Just now, Godelfan said:

So if it is amended in that way, it's an election.  So it doesn't seem that this motion is separated by any hard and fast line from an election.  What hinges on the distinction?

I don't think that changes it into an election.  btw, before you posted, I had edited my post somewhat to add that in my opinion the motion can also be amended to change the name of the person to be hired.  It's a motion to hire someone.  I think it can be amended just like any other motion, as to its provisions. 

[Joshua Katz]

Just now, Richard Brown said:

I don't think that changes it into an election.  btw, before you posted, I had edited my post somewhat to add that in my opinion the motion can also be amended to change the name of the person to be hired.  It's a motion to hire someone.  I think it can be amended just like any other motion, as to its provisions. 

Well, then what is an election?  Isn't an election just a motion with a blank, and a nomination a proposal to fill the blank?  I don't have RONR with me (horrors!) but I thought I remembered a statement to that effect.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

In ballot elections, it is not proper to vote "yes" or "no". To vote against a candidate, someone else would have to be voted for. Is that possible in this case?

[NTGray]

3 hours ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

In ballot elections, it is not proper to vote "yes" or "no". To vote against a candidate, someone else would have to be voted for. Is that possible in this case?

I'm not quite following you here. The election is to decide whether to hire this guy (yes) or reject him and move on to another candidate (no). I don't see a need, or even a possibility, of substituting a different name.

[Richard Brown]

51 minutes ago, NTGray said:

I'm not quite following you here. The election is to decide whether to hire this guy (yes) or reject him and move on to another candidate (no). I don't see a need, or even a possibility, of substituting a different name.

Mr. (?) Gray, I do not believe this is an election.  This is a decision whether to hire someone.  It should be processed as an ordinary motion, e.g., "I move that we hire Reverend Smith from Salt Lake City as our new pastor".  It would be handled no differently than  a motion to buy an IBM dsktop computer.  Both motions are amendable and debatable.  Just as someone could amend the motion to buy an IBM desktop computer to change it to an IBM laptop  computer or a Toshiba laptop computer, the motion to hire the pastor could be amended to strike the name of Reverend Smith from Salt Lake City and insert Reverend Jones from Atlanta, Ga.   Once in its final form, it is an up or down yes/no vote.

It is not an election.  It is a motion.  It is both amendable and debatable.

Edited to add:  Nominations and elections are covered in RONR on pages 430-446

[Kim Goldsworthy]

I agree that the situation looks like an ordinary "try out for a part" more so than "filling a mandated position defined in our bylaws."

   • For a try-out, you may win or you may lose. The position can remain open without penalty.

   • For an election to office, the organization cannot choose to leave the seat empty. They must continue to try to elect, even it takes many rounds of balloting.

***

I am reminded of the scene in the movie, "Damn Yankees."

Joe Hardy is trying out for the Washington Senators.

Joe takes batting practice so that the manager can watch, and judge Joe's skill level.

Joe hits homer after homer, one being "a six-hundred foot ride."

The manager says that he is willing to send Joe to the minor leagues, to "season" him.

The parliamentary lesson? -- The manager is under no obligation to add to his roster, on that day. -- It is just a try out. A "yes" or "no" result is equally likely, and no rule will have been violated, either way.

***
 

[NTGray]

Ah! Now I am following what you are saying, and it makes sense. It is not technically an "election" to a position, but a motion to hire somebody. Makes perfect sense, and I believe that you have answered my question. Discussion of the motion cannot be forbidden without the assembly voting to dispense with discussion.

Thank you all very much.

[Tom Coronite]

As one who is very familiar with this (type of) process, I can confirm that this is not an election. There are not nominations. There is typically a search committee that does the work of vetting candidates and presents one, only one, to the church. This is more in the nature of a committee of the church making its report to the assembly and the report contains a recommendation to hire Rev X.

I believe if the church decides not to hire Rev X, they would refer the matter back to the committee. There would not be other nominees considered while Rev X is considered. To say this is a motion to hire somebody and it should be treated as such, with debate and possibility of amendments (e.g. changes to salary, term, etc.) seems exactly right.