Guest netgnat Posted April 28, 2014 at 07:39 PM Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 at 07:39 PM One more question please- Our bylaws state we need 5 people on a nominating commitee to elect a new group leader, one of which needs to hold a certain staff position. However, the committee (that was approved by the body in an earlier vote) had 7 and no staff members. This committee then made a recomendation to the body for a new group leader that was voted on and rejected by the body, and the vote is now certified. Is this vote null and void under Article, 8, paragraph 47 of RR (Votes that are Null and Void even if Unanimous)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted April 28, 2014 at 07:49 PM Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 at 07:49 PM Our bylaws state we need 5 people on a nominating commitee to elect a new group leader, one of which needs to hold a certain staff position. However, the committee (that was approved by the body in an earlier vote) had 7 and no staff members. This committee then made a recomendation to the body for a new group leader that was voted on and rejected by the body, and the vote is now certified. Oh, more of this yes/no vote nonsense... So did the assembly proceed to elect someone else instead? Is this vote null and void under Article, 8, paragraph 47 of RR (Votes that are Null and Void even if Unanimous)? If the copy of Robert's Rules you're reading has articles, it's very out of date. Let me guess - you're reading what you found online? That would be the 4th edition (1915), since that text is in the public domain. No, the vote is not null and void. The latest time at which a member could have raised a Point of Order about the composition of the nominating committee was when it made its report. It's too late to complain about it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted April 28, 2014 at 07:51 PM Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 at 07:51 PM Once you voted on the new group leader it was too late to complain about any irregularities in the nominating committee. The vote stands (but you could always make a new motion to select a new group leader). I'm assuming this was more of an appointment than an election. If it was a true election you don't vote "yes" or "no", you either vote for a candidate (any one) or you don't vote at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest netgnat Posted April 28, 2014 at 08:02 PM Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 at 08:02 PM Thanks again. Yes, I did get the rules online. Sorry if they are out of date. We had one person nominated and the body voted either yer or no for him, so I guess that's a confirmation of a nomination instead of an election. Thanks so much. It seems like it's a done deal then. You guys are great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted April 28, 2014 at 08:06 PM Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 at 08:06 PM We had one person nominated and the body voted either yer or no for him, so I guess that's a confirmation of a nomination instead of an election. That's not how you're supposed to do it. Members have to vote for someone. If they don't like the nominee, they can vote for someone else. In this case the nominee was "rejected." So what did the assembly do next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest netgnat Posted April 29, 2014 at 02:38 PM Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 at 02:38 PM In this case the nominee did not receive the requisite affirmative vote (75% of those present), so he was not confirmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted April 29, 2014 at 04:39 PM Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 at 04:39 PM Look, you never had an election. All you did was vote on (and reject) the nominating committee's report. Why you ever voted on it is beyond me, but it only would have taken a majority vote to accept it, because it's not an election. In any case, regardless of the mess you're now in, you need to elect someone. Open the floor to nominations, and if there is more than one nominee, proceed to a ballot vote. There are no Yes/No choices on a ballot vote! There are names. And there are spaces to write in additional name(s). Your required threshold of 75% is outrageous, and I hope you got it wrong and it does not actually say "of those present", but rather "those present and voting", but they're your bylaws and you have to live with them. If no candidate gets the requisite number of votes, you vote again, and again, and again, and again, and if you get tired of that process, you might be able to fit in an amendment to your bylaws to remove that 75% requirement entirely. Under the rules of RONR you will then only need a majority of those present and actually voting--blanks and abstentions are not counted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest netgnat Posted April 29, 2014 at 05:24 PM Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 at 05:24 PM Our bylaws say only one name at a time is put before the body by the nominating committee to be voted on. So, we'll wait for the nominating committee to nominate another person. And yes, 75% is a high threshold, but I imagine it was set this high becuase the person selected will be the head of the body. Also, the bylaws say "those present", not "those present and voting". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted April 29, 2014 at 05:38 PM Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 at 05:38 PM Our bylaws say only one name at a time is put before the body by the nominating committee to be voted on. So, we'll wait for the nominating committee to nominate another person. If your bylaws do in fact require this ridiculous procedure, then I suppose it will need to be followed until the bylaws can be changed. I would highly recommend changing it, as it seems problematic for several reasons. By only allowing for an up or down vote on the choice of the nominating committee and permitting no other nominees or write-in votes, this gives a tremendous amount of authority to the nominating committee.By waiting for the nominating committee to submit another nominee (at a later meeting, no less) before trying again, this would suggest that it could take quite some time to actually elect someone.The voting threshod of 75% of the members present is absurdly high. I certainly hope your bylaws provide that officers shall serve "until their successors are elected," since it would seem that it may take a long time to complete an election in some cases. And yes, 75% is a high threshold, but I imagine it was set this high becuase the person selected will be the head of the body. I think this reasoning only goes so far. Your body currently has a higher threshold of election than is required for the Pope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Ralph Posted April 29, 2014 at 05:57 PM Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 at 05:57 PM Our bylaws say only one name at a time is put before the body by the nominating committee to be voted on. So, we'll wait for the nominating committee to nominate another person. And yes, 75% is a high threshold, but I imagine it was set this high becuase the person selected will be the head of the body. Also, the bylaws say "those present", not "those present and voting".If that's the case, they rank among the worst bylaws I've heard of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lages Posted April 29, 2014 at 08:12 PM Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 at 08:12 PM Our bylaws say only one name at a time is put before the body by the nominating committee to be voted on. While your organization is going to have to be the final interpreter of what your bylaws mean, I think it's possible that your yes/no election procedure for one candidate at a time isn't really what is mandated by this bylaw provision. Having the nominating committee put forward only one nominee is, in fact, what RONR recommends: "Although it is not common for the nominating committee to nominate more than one candidate for any office..." (p.433, ll.22-24), and "It is usually not sound to require the committee to nominate more than one candidate for each office..." (p. 433, ll.25-26). What should happen after the nominating committee presents its report is where your procedure goes off the rails. There should be nominations from the floor, and an election, preferably by ballot so that members have the opportunity to cast write-in votes for someone not nominated. Josh Martin has commented on the problems of not permitting other nominations or write-in votes, but I don't see anything you've posted which indicates that these are, in fact, prohibited by your bylaws. Are you certain your bylaws specifically prohibit other nominations and write-in votes? (And the bylaws not addressing these items is not the same as prohibiting them.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest netgnat Posted April 29, 2014 at 10:35 PM Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 at 10:35 PM I'm not asking how good or bad they are, but we've had them for 25 years and they've worked fine until now. Of course there's always room for improvement. Thanks again for everyone's time and advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted April 29, 2014 at 10:54 PM Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 at 10:54 PM . . . we've had them for 25 years and they've worked fine until now. I'm reminded of the joke about the guy who jumps (or falls) off the top of the Empire State Building. As he's passing the 25th floor someone sticks his head out the window and asks how it's going. "So far, so good". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.