Sew What

Thanks for all the input. This is just what I needed to hear. I write policies and regulations for school districts for my "real" job". Those are based in law, so I am not a RONR expert by any means. But from my limited knowledge, I was suspicious about the wording. I am not sure where I stand on no write ins or nominations from the floor. And I don't know that I want to take sides. But I can also see how it adds to the feeling of the board being closed and exclusive. My group has some decisions to make. Thanks again. You have been very helpful.

I am on the board of a nonprofit membership organization where chapter presidents are the voting members. We have always been told that write in candidates and nominations from the floor are not allowed during the annual election of board members (directors) and during chapter elections. So I checked the bylaws to find that wording. It says " The nominating committee shall nominate Director candidates who meet the qualifications for Directors and who have submitted an application and information as requested by the nominating committee. No other candidates shall be submitted for a vote." The election takes place at the annual meeting. Those who submit applications go thru a vetting process and not all make it thru to run for the board. The nominating committee of 3 is chosen by the board chair and usually has at least 1 current board member who is not up for election as nominating chair. Then there is a vetting committee chosen by that same board member. This is the directions and process for the national board. There is not similar wording in the section on chapter elections. First, is that wording enough -"no other candidates shall be submitted for a vote" -to forbid write ins and nominations from the floor? or should that be specifically mentioned in the bylaws? I am wondering what to do if a member makes a motion to nominate a candidate during the annual meeting. Is that 1 sentence enough to refuse them? And is it fair to prohibit them? The exec claims that anyone who runs must be vetted and it's not fair if spur of the moment candidates don't get vetted. Secondly, how do we keep this from being a bit incestuous? Because the board is choosing it's own candidates, it often chooses members who support its agenda. Consequently, there is very little change in the organization. Also many times there is really not an election- if there is 1 opening, they will just nominate 1 candidate. Voting members complain about not having a choice. But those voting members have no say in the nominations process. So how do we keep this board from being an exclusive closed group? I am asking because I am the chair of the revision committee for the policies and bylaws. I am willing to revise as needed. I just want to know where we stand with Robert's before I attempt this. Thanks!