Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Nominating Committee rules


Robert Dingus

Recommended Posts

Group, out constitution says the following, in regards to the Nominating Committee.

 

Section B. Time of Election and Nomination Procedures

l. Time. The trustees and trustee-elect shall be elected at the Annual Meeting.

2. Nomination. A nominating committee comprised of five Association members elected at the

previous Annual Meeting for a one-year term, may nominate and shall receive nominations from

Association members no later than forty-five days prior to the date of the Annual Meeting for all Board

positions to be acted upon. The committee shall present to the Association two slates of eligible cottage

owners as candidates: one slate for the trustee positions to be filled and one slate to fill the position of

trustee-elect. Nominations shall not be received from the floor. 

 

Since this provision is explicit as to when and how the Nominating Committee is to be established. We lost our Quorum at the Annual Meeting before these actions could be carried out, is it legal / lawful according to the above to apoint a new committee after the fact by our Board.

 

I read this as it is not legal, based on the specific nature of the exact phrasing.

To me this means that the current Nominating Committee is still the Legal and Valid Committee until the next annual meeting.

 

what say you,   Robert 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here are the vacancies that they can fill, it appears to only be for the Board of Trustees not to any committee.

Section D. Vacancies

‘Should the office of president become vacant, the vice president shall succeed to the office of president for

the unexpired term and the vacancy arises in the office of vice president.

The trustee-elect shall be called to succeed to the office of trustee to fill the unexpired term of the first

vacancy that may arise and shall perform all duties of a trustee, except the trustee-elect shall not assume an

unexpired one-year term of an elected officer of the Board.

Any subsequent vacancies that may arise before the next Annual Meeting shall be filled by action of the

trustees and subject to confirmation by the Association at the next Annual Meeting. If confirmation is not

given by the Association, the office shall be declared vacant and the trustee-elect, elected at this same

meeting, shall fill the vacancy for the unexpired term.

 

Robert 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't.   Looks to be that the previous nominating committee has completed its one-year term, and there are no committee members at all.  This is because your bylaws do not contain the recommended (RONR, p. 573, line 33ff.) phrase "or until the election of their successors".

About the only proper way I can see out of your problem is to call a special meeting of the association (presuming your bylaws allow that) and finish the incomplete election of new nominating committee members.  (And amend the bylaws to include the "or until..." phrase as well.).  No floor nominations allowed?  --  well, do some informal "suggesting" and have the "suggestions" written in on the ballot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you i had not considered another meeting to fill the vancacies, this is exactly what we need to do then, to follow our by laws and rules, it takes an Annual Meeting or full membership meeting to amend our by laws, and a 30 day notice to call the meeting and include the changed before hand.

 

thank you for the assist. 

Robert 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you plan to go to the extra trouble of amending the bylaws, you would also do well to strike out the "Nominations shall not be received from the floor" rule.  That might save you some trouble down the line if the Nominating Committee puts forth a bunch of turkeys for office.  Floor nominations serve as a sort of safety valve.  Or a "last resort" salvation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you need a Nom. Comm. of some kind for next year, then have your board create a special committee.

The special committee will act like a Non. Comm., but will not be the "official" Nom. Comm.

Whatever report this committee presents will have to be ratified, by the appropriate party, since this committee cannot be charged exactly as the official Nom. Comm. can be charged.

The AGM delegates may reject this report from this committee. But given the dire straits, the AGM will more likely take what it can get.

***

It is down to a choice of which rule do you want to violate? Which rule is easier to live with? Pick your poison.

   • Take the unofficial committee's report at the Day 45 deadline, (and hope the AGM does not reject the report).

   • Suspend the rules and nominate from the floor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreeing with the last sentence of Mr Goldsworthy's post, it seems to me that the prohibition against floor nominations is in the nature of a rule of order and can be suspended. 

However, I have this nagging fear that others have opined otherwise on this forum. 

Comments? Can it be suspended?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Agreeing with the last sentence of Mr Goldsworthy's post, it seems to me that the prohibition against floor nominations is in the nature of a rule of order and can be suspended. 

However, I have this nagging fear that others have opined otherwise on this forum. 

Comments? Can it be suspended?

The argument would be that the rule is not capricious, but intends to protect absentees, in which case no.

I can see a rebuttal to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A "No nominations from the floor" rule, in bylaws of course, is clearly equivalent to a previous notice for a matter to come up before the meeting.  The "matter", of course, is the election of Joe, or Bill, or Hill, or Donald.     It is a notice that is absolutely required by the bylaws, otherwise there would be nobody to vote for.  And as noted, it protects the rights of absentees as do required notices in other contexts. So it is a non-suspendable rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jstackpo said:

A "No nominations from the floor" rule, in bylaws of course, is clearly equivalent to a previous notice for a matter to come up before the meeting.  The "matter", of course, is the election of Joe, or Bill, or Hill, or Donald.     It is a notice that is absolutely required by the bylaws, otherwise there would be nobody to vote for.  And as noted, it protects the rights of absentees as do required notices in other contexts. So it is a non-suspendable rule.

I read the RONR rule on "previous notice" differently.

Previous notice, under RONR, only refers to motions like main motions and amendments.

Elections have no motion involved.  RONR says that elections are like "filling a blank". You are not making any motions. You are plugging in a name to a seat, without a main motion, and without an amendment. It is closer to being an administrative detail than a true motion.

So "previous notice" ought not apply to "lists of candidates".

I would treat the ("nominations from the floor") prohibition as a "special rule of order", i.e., making X out of order. -- So a suspension of the rules would be all you need to make X in-order. You taking a prohibition, and turning it into an ordinary Robertian act (viz., nominations from the floor), which is considered a right of membership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An election is an assumed motion that _________ be elected to office.  Nominations are in the nature of filling a blank in the motion, but when the election is complete, the motion, with an actual name in the blank, has been adopted.  

It's true that nominations are not main motions, and are not, strictly speaking a method of amendment.  But even if I agree that this cannot be considered a form of previous notice, I still think that a rule against nominations from the floor, however inadvisable, is a rule that is intended to protect absentees and may not be suspended.

But I think it is still a fair question to ask whether this rule improperly abridges the rights of members to make nominations.  Although the nominating committee shall receive nominations from members, it is then free to throw all but a few away, and propose a "slate" which by all appearances is at that point effectively elected.   We're not told what the rules are on balloting, but I'd say that barring a rule to the contrary, members are free to write in votes for off-slate candidates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

... But I think it is still a fair question to ask whether this rule improperly abridges the rights of members to make nominations....

But Gary, the rule appears in the bylaws, so (by definition or something) the abridgement cannot be improper -- how could it be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this:

9 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

...   We're not told what the rules are on balloting, but I'd say that barring a rule to the contrary, members are free to write in votes for off-slate candidates.

... a rebuttal (or, I would hope, a clarification) to this? :

12 hours ago, jstackpo said:

...  otherwise there would be nobody to vote for....

If so, thanks for pointing it out.  I had been scratching my head (metaphorically, or mephistophorically, take your pick)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...