Debating Nominations

[Sean Hunt]

In this topic, there was some discussion over the correct manner of debating nominations. In groups I've participated in, it's been quite common to first nominate all candidates, then to ask questions of the nominees, and finally to add any final discussion on any or all nominees. I'm well aware that this isn't supported directly by RONR, but I'm curious as to what is? George's suggestion of debating each nominee individually doesn't quite seem to mesh either, especially after an inconclusive ballot (since debate resumes, but there's no longer a specific sequence of "nominate-debate-nominate-debate").

I'll note that when filling a blank with something other than a person, it's more common to simply have debate on the subject of "what should fill the hole", with suggestions being thrown in every here and there.

So what is the ideal (and correct, if different) procedure for handling election debate, in keeping with the parliamentary principles?

[Shmuel Gerber]

I was in middle of replying to the other topic. Now I gotta start over.

My 2¢:

The procedures for filling blanks are not applicable to an election by ballot.

The goal is to elect someone, not to defeat the others. Debate, if any, should be directed toward why a particular candidate is the best choice; and, as noted in the other thread, members who make or second a nomination may obtain the floor to make a nominating speech. Although this is a customary practice, if nominations are made before the meeting at which the election takes place, I don't think that debate against any candidate would be in order, since technically there is no question pending.

At the election meeting, debate might involve the relative merits of the other candidates, although I suspect that in most ordinary societies nothing would be gained by making any explicitly negative statements directed against particular candidates.

And if there is only one nominee, it would be downright foolish to speak against that nominee rather than nominating a more suitable candidate of whom the member could speak in favor.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Yep, I think I managed to successfully evade the actual question.

[Guest Edgar]

At the election meeting, debate might involve the relative merits of the other candidates, although I suspect that in most ordinary societies nothing would be gained by making any explicitly negative statements directed against particular candidates.

Well then let's rule out explicitly negative statements but I might have nothing to say in favor of Candidate A until Candidate B is nominated. And I still can't help but think that a more meaningful debate would result after knowing who all the nominees were (even if remarks were restricted to positive ones about a particular candidate).

[George Mervosh]

And if there is only one nominee, it would be downright foolish to speak against that nominee rather than nominating a more suitable candidate of whom the member could speak in favor.

For the record, no one is advocating that.....no one

Yep, I think I managed to successfully evade the actual question.

But it was a masterful evasion!

[David A Foulkes]

Yep, I think I managed to successfully evade the actual question.

But it was a masterful evasion!

So masterful, I thought he answered it! Now I have to go back and read it all over again.

[Sean Hunt]

I don't think that it's necessarily true that someone won't have anything negative to say. While, certainly, saying "I don't like Xavier, so we shouldn't elect him" won't work, but something like "I believe that the best choice would be available on Mondays, and Xavier's said he wouldn't be available then." would be quite reasonable.

[Guest Edgar]

. . . but something like "I believe that the best choice would be available on Mondays, and Xavier said he wouldn't be available then." would be quite reasonable.

And even more reasonable if it's offered in debate after Julio is nominated and it's clear that Julio will be available 24/7.

[Shmuel Gerber]

And I still can't help but think that a more meaningful debate would result after knowing who all the nominees were (even if remarks were restricted to positive ones about a particular candidate).

After nominations have been closed and before the voting begins, further debate would still be in order. It doesn't have to be only one or the other.

[Guest Edgar]

After nominations have been closed and before the voting begins, further debate would still be in order. It doesn't have to be only one or the other.

That works for me. Thanks.

6b9jfy

[Guest Nancy N.]

For the record, no one is advocating that.....no one

I bloody well will.

I have seen secretaries run unopposed who sent out three, four, or five of the monthly meeting notices, and who showed up at six of the monthly meetings blandly stating that he did not have last month's minutes to submit, sloughing off all questions as to why, or as to whether we would be likely to see them produced some time soon. I have seen treasurers nominated unopposed who unapologetically produced maybe two of the required twelve monthly reports; who screamed on the telephone when asked politely why our printer, a personal friend, asked after payment for a product duly and promptly delivered and billed three, four, six, or eighteen months ago. And nobody else wants the jobs.

You can't tell me that it is inappropriate or out of order to say negative things in debate about unopposed candidates like these. Regardless.

ct 1

[George Mervosh]

At the election meeting, debate might involve the relative merits of the other candidates, although I suspect that in most ordinary societies nothing would be gained by making any explicitly negative statements directed against particular candidates.

I tend to mention in replies that the qualifications or lack thereof can be included in debate simply because the average member, for example, may not realize that an officer running for re-election may not have carried out the duties of his office properly, and citing a couple of general examples within the bounds of decorum might be useful. The goal is to elect the right someone, and that's done by defeating his opponent. But perhaps this is all tactics, since there's no disagreement nominations are debatable.

For an unupposed candidate, even though it appears within the rules, I really don't support negative statements if you aren't going to nominate someone else.

And thanks for post #9.

[Louise]

I tend to mention in replies that the qualifications or lack thereof can be included in debate simply because the average member, for example, may not realize that an officer running for re-election may not have carried out the duties of his office properly, and citing a couple of general examples within the bounds of decorum might be useful. The goal is to elect the right someone, and that's done by defeating his opponent. But perhaps this is all tactics, since there's no disagreement nominations are debatable.

For an unupposed candidate, even though it appears within the rules, I really don't support negative statements if you aren't going to nominate someone else.

And thanks for post #9.

(Wading in where angels fear to tread...the Advanced Discussion forum...[shudder]...well, at least I fear to tread here anyway...)

I totally understand your misgivings about negative statements...but might it not be the case that those negative statements (yes, within the bounds of decorum, of course) are what motivate another member to stand for election?

I think sometimes our (people in general, that is) insistence on being nice and polite and our refusal to rock the boat (even the tiniest bit) keeps various organizations with a distinct lack of good leadership...or any leadership at all, as the case may be.

But your point is well taken, George: Ideally there needs to be someone - as in a second someone - willing to accept the nomination before the meeting even takes place.

[/journey into Scary Advanced Discussion Forum]

[George Mervosh]

[/journey into Scary Advanced Discussion Forum]

Learning isn't scary. Learning is why I come to this website!

[Louise]

Learning isn't scary. Learning is why I come to this website!

Agree 100%!

But reading - and learning (at least eventually) - the information on a website and posting (particularly on an especially intimidating part of that website!) are two very different things, At least imvho.

[George Mervosh]

The procedures for filling blanks are not applicable to an election by ballot.

Can you expand on this a bit because I want to understand your point more clearly.

The book says it's appropriate to vote to fill a blank by ballot when there is a hotly contested issue, and an election seems to qualify. Also, since a nomination is a proposal to fill a blank in an assumed motion, routinely this assumed motion is voted upon by ballot.

So I've missed your point, and I would appreciate whatever clarification you care to make.

[Shmuel Gerber]

The procedures for filling blanks are not applicable to an election by ballot.

Can you expand on this a bit because I want to understand your point more clearly.

The book says it's appropriate to vote to fill a blank by ballot when there is a hotly contested issue, and an election seems to qualify. Also, since a nomination is a proposal to fill a blank in an assumed motion, routinely this assumed motion is voted upon by ballot.

So I've missed your point, and I would appreciate whatever clarification you care to make.

I should have been more precise. The procedures on pages 164-165 in regard to "Filling a Blank with Names" are not applicable to an election by ballot. I think this is pretty much self-evident, so I'm not really sure why you seem to have referred to them in the other thread that Sean Hunt linked to in post #1.

See, now you're the one who has to explain. :-)

Any more questions about filling blanks by ballot, please see http://robertsrules....stions-part-ii/

and address them to Dan Honemann.

[George Mervosh]

I should have been more precise. The procedures on pages 164-165 in regard to "Filling a Blank with Names" are not applicable to an election by ballot. I think this is pretty much self-evident, so I'm not really sure why you seem to have referred to them in the other thread that Sean Hunt linked to in post #1.

See, now you're the one who has to explain. :-)

Any more questions about filling blanks by ballot, please see http://robertsrules....stions-part-ii/

and address them to Dan Honemann.

I will review this thread again for sure, and I thought I retained more of it than I did. Dan typed a lot there and I don't want it going to waste!

Why did I refer to filling a blank with names? I thought it might relate to how debate flows. That is, the chair repeats each name as it is proposed, and debate is in order at that time before moving on to the next name (not that debate can't continue before the election begins also). The discussion in the other thread was exclusively regarding debating the proposals, not voting in the election itself. Lines 24-25 on p. 164 don't say how debate is to flow, and perhaps there is no special format, but I thought the subsection below might give a clue to the answer.

If I have more questions I'll let you know, since you barely enjoy typing more than others.