Bob Posted February 10, 2011 at 01:11 AM Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 at 01:11 AM The By-Laws specifically call for nominations from the floor at the annual meeting. The Chair called said that there would be no nomimations from the floor since the chair had told everyone prior to the annual meeting ( two weeks ahead) and that conuted as asking for nominations from the floor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted February 10, 2011 at 01:13 AM Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 at 01:13 AM The By-Laws specifically call for nominations from the floor at the annual meeting. The Chair called said that there would be no nomimations from the floor since the chair had told everyone prior to the annual meeting ( two weeks ahead) and that conuted as asking for nominations from the floor.Sounds like it might be time for a new chair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted February 10, 2011 at 01:15 AM Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 at 01:15 AM The By-Laws specifically call for nominations from the floor at the annual meeting. The Chair called said that there would be no nomimations from the floor since the chair had told everyone prior to the annual meeting ( two weeks ahead) and that conuted as asking for nominations from the floor.The chairman is obligated under the rules to call for nominations from the floor at the annual meeting. If some nominations have been made earlier, he should first read the names of the candidates already nominated and ask if there are any further nominations. RONR (10th ed.), pp. 421, 422. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted February 10, 2011 at 05:12 AM Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 at 05:12 AM The By-Laws specifically call for nominations from the floor at the annual meeting. The Chair called said that there would be no nomimations from the floor since the chair had told everyone prior to the annual meeting ( two weeks ahead) and that counted as asking for nominations from the floor.Nothing he did prior to the meeting can be considered a substitute for a specific bylaws requirement that nominations must be called for during the meeting.In the short run, if he does not call for nominations from the floor, raise a Point of Order that this is a bylaws requirement, and cannot be suspended. If necessary, be prepared to Appeal an unfavorable ruling. You could simply move to open nominations. This motion is in order at the meeting when the election will occur, and only requires a majority vote to pass, but I hesitate to recommend it because, even if it should fail, the bylaws still require it, so the matter is really not up for a vote. It's mandatory, even if everyone is against the idea.Of course, if everyone is against the idea, nobody will make a nomination from the floor, so this becomes a distinction without a difference. But what is completely improper is a chair who is derelict of his duty to enforce the bylaws. Chairs who declare their intent to violate the bylaws should probably be removed, sooner rather than later. (See FAQ #20) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted February 10, 2011 at 04:36 PM Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 at 04:36 PM ...and cannot be suspended...I would be interested in any amplification on this that you could provide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted February 10, 2011 at 06:49 PM Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 at 06:49 PM I would be interested in any amplification on this that you could provide.Well, I don't know that I'd be able to clearly identify it as a rule of order. If it dealt with the method of nominations, I'd agree, but protecting the right to have nominations at all is, I think, more in the nature of a guaranteed right. Something much closer to a requirement for a ballot vote.If you would not go that far, fine, but I'm sure we'd agree that it's not "suspendable", or shall we say "ignorable", by any unilateral act of the chair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted February 10, 2011 at 06:54 PM Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 at 06:54 PM Well, I don't know that I'd be able to clearly identify it as a rule of order. If it dealt with the method of nominations, I'd agree, but protecting the right to have nominations at all is, I think, more in the nature of a guaranteed right. Something much closer to a requirement for a ballot vote.If you would not go that far, fine, but I'm sure we'd agree that it's not "suspendable", or shall we say "ignorable", by any unilateral act of the chair.There's no doubt the chair can't do it unilaterally, however, when the vote is by ballot, nominations aren't even necessary since a member can write-in anyone's name. Rules relating to nominations, including having them to begin with, are clearly suspendable in almost every instance, especially when the vote is by ballot. The wisdom of suspending rules relating to nominations is another matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted February 10, 2011 at 06:55 PM Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 at 06:55 PM If it dealt with the method of nominations, I'd agree, but protecting the right to have nominations at all is, I think, more in the nature of a guaranteed right. Something much closer to a requirement for a ballot vote.I think that if the rule that calls for nominations from the floor at the annual meeting can be suspended, then I would hope it could only be suspended at the annual meeting, not at the previous meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted February 10, 2011 at 07:46 PM Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 at 07:46 PM There's no doubt the chair can't do it unilaterally, however, when the vote is by ballot, nominations aren't even necessary since a member can write-in anyone's name. Rules relating to nominations, including having them to begin with, are clearly suspendable in almost every instance, especially when the vote is by ballot. The wisdom of suspending rules relating to nominations is another matter.I agree with George. In particular, the failure of the president to call for nominations from the floor would not invalidate the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted February 10, 2011 at 07:55 PM Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 at 07:55 PM I agree with George. In particular, the failure of the president to call for nominations from the floor would not invalidate the election.But the right to make a nomination is a basic right that cannot be suspended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted February 10, 2011 at 08:05 PM Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 at 08:05 PM But the right to make a nomination is a basic right that cannot be suspended.Well, there is a distinction between the basic right of an individual member and the parliamentary right of members. I'm not claiming the basic right of an individual member to make a nomination is suspendable (except as a result of a disciplinary action or the operation of some rule in the bylaws); I'm saying the parliamentary right of members to make nominations is suspendable.The case is similar to the right to debate. The adoption of the Previous Question suspends the parliamentary right of members to speak in debate, and a member who has yet to speak cannot exercise his basic right of an individual member to speak in debate on the question(s) affected by the order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted February 10, 2011 at 08:12 PM Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 at 08:12 PM Well, there is a distinction between the basic right of an individual member and the parliamentary right of members. I'm not claiming the basic right of an individual member to make a nomination is suspendable (except as a result of a disciplinary action or the operation of some rule in the bylaws); I'm saying the parliamentary right of members to make nominations is suspendable.The case is similar to the right to debate. The adoption of the Previous Question suspends the parliamentary right of members to speak in debate, and a member who has yet to speak cannot exercise his basic right of an individual member to speak in debate on the question(s) affected by the order.Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted February 10, 2011 at 08:27 PM Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 at 08:27 PM Well, there is a distinction between the basic right of an individual member and the parliamentary right of members. I'm not claiming the basic right of an individual member to make a nomination is suspendable (except as a result of a disciplinary action or the operation of some rule in the bylaws); I'm saying the parliamentary right of members to make nominations is suspendable.The case is similar to the right to debate. The adoption of the Previous Question suspends the parliamentary right of members to speak in debate, and a member who has yet to speak cannot exercise his basic right of an individual member to speak in debate on the question(s) affected by the order.I agree as well. Nominations may be closed by a two-thirds vote. I just get a little concerned about announcing ahead of time that they will not be permitted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted February 10, 2011 at 08:29 PM Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 at 08:29 PM I agree as well. Nominations may be closed by a two-thirds vote. I just get a little concerned about announcing ahead of time that they will not be permitted.Oh sure, Rob and I weren't advocating anything other than a good ole proper motion to do away with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted February 10, 2011 at 08:40 PM Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 at 08:40 PM Oh sure, Rob and I weren't advocating anything other than a good ole proper motion to do away with them. The point being that a Point of Order would have had to have been made at the time; and, none having been made, what was done stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 11, 2011 at 12:36 AM Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 at 12:36 AM I think that if the rule that calls for nominations from the floor at the annual meeting can be suspended, then I would hope it could only be suspended at the annual meeting, not at the previous meeting.Of course. A motion to Suspend the Rules cannot be applied to a future session. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted February 11, 2011 at 02:43 AM Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 at 02:43 AM The point being that a Point of Order would have had to have been made at the time; and, none having been made, what was done stands.The time is still in the future, from my understanding of the situation. The president announced at a past meeting that nominations would not be allowed. But I believe that at the annual meeting, still to come, a Point of Order that nominations are in order--notwithstanding the chair's improper previous announcement, would be timely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted February 11, 2011 at 06:16 AM Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 at 06:16 AM I'm saying the parliamentary right of members to make nominations is suspendable.No can do. "In very large bodies, the formality of a motion to close nominations is sometimes allowed, but this motion is not in order until a reasonable opportunity to make nominations has been given; as noted above, it is out of order if a member is seeking the floor to make a further nomination, and it always requires a two-thirds vote."RONR (10th ed.), p. 277, l. 8-13. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted February 11, 2011 at 02:00 PM Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 at 02:00 PM No can do. "In very large bodies, the formality of a motion to close nominations is sometimes allowed, but this motion is not in order until a reasonable opportunity to make nominations has been given; as noted above, it is out of order if a member is seeking the floor to make a further nomination, and it always requires a two-thirds vote."RONR (10th ed.), p. 277, l. 8-13.That's assuming nominations are in progress. What about a motion to suspend the rules so as not to have them at all, which is what Rob and I were saying earlier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted February 11, 2011 at 02:10 PM Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 at 02:10 PM That's assuming nominations are in progress. What about a motion to suspend the rules so as not to have them at all, which is what Rob and I were saying earlier?I would hold that it is not in order, especially when the right is guaranteed specifically in the bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted February 11, 2011 at 02:14 PM Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 at 02:14 PM I would hold that it is not in order, especially when the right is guaranteed specifically in the bylaws.In this case, Gary, the nature of rule is not changed by where it's placed. Bylaws are routinely loaded with special rules of order which may be suspended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted February 11, 2011 at 05:02 PM Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 at 05:02 PM No can do. "In very large bodies, the formality of a motion to close nominations is sometimes allowed, but this motion is not in order until a reasonable opportunity to make nominations has been given; as noted above, it is out of order if a member is seeking the floor to make a further nomination, and it always requires a two-thirds vote."RONR (10th ed.), p. 277, l. 8-13.That's assuming nominations are in progress. What about a motion to suspend the rules so as not to have them at all, which is what Rob and I were saying earlier?I think the rule I quoted implies that when nominations are required, they can be omitted only by unanimous consent. A two-thirds vote to suspend the rules for this purpose would not be sufficient, because the rule that a reasonable opportunity to make nominations must be given protects a minority as small as one member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted February 11, 2011 at 05:07 PM Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 at 05:07 PM I think the rule I quoted implies that when nominations are required, they can be omitted only by unanimous consent. A two-thirds vote to suspend the rules for this purpose would not be sufficient, because the rule that a reasonable opportunity to make nominations must be given protects a minority as small as one member.I think it's clearly a suspendable rule of order only when, the vote is by ballot and write-in votes are permitted. At all other times I would agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted February 11, 2011 at 06:37 PM Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 at 06:37 PM I think it's clearly a suspendable rule of order only when, the vote is by ballot and write-in votes are permitted. At all other times I would agree with you.No, no. An election can also proceed without nominations when the method of voting is a roll call vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.