Nominating Committee

[Guest R_Brown]

I am a member of a national membership organization that is governed by national and chapter by-laws. The chapter by-laws provide that, annually, in February, the chapter selects a nominating committee that is responsible for presenting a slate of candidates to hold office at our March meeting. The chapter is then to vote on the officers at the April meeting. The nominating committee is going to ask for its time to present the slate be delayed until April. The chapter would also vote on the slate at the April meeting after the candidates are presented. The nominating committee is going to claim that it needs additional time because our February meeting was held one week late due to inclement weather. However, I am aware that they are really going to ask for the extension due to some internal political issues. One, will they be allowed to ask and receive an extension to present the slate when the By-Laws clear state that the slate is to be presented in March. Is there any way to prevent this from happening? Our meeting is on March 1. Thanks for your timely responses.

[Gary c Tesser]

I feel I'm on shaky ground here, but I'm pretty sure that the bylaws requirement that the nominating committee present its "slate" in February is a rule of order, and, as such, can be suspended. If I am correct, then at the February meeting, someone -- most likely the reporting member of the NomCom -- should move that the rules be suspended and the NomCom, then, present its report of its recommended "slate" at the April meeting.

Whether this request is due to past bad weather, internal committee political disputes, or the recent crocodile infestation is irrelevant: if the assembly wants to decide (by vote) to have the NomCom report (the "slate") given at the April meeting, then at the April meeting shall the report be given.

Note that the assembly might not choose to give the NomCom the requested extension, so they better have SOME list of nominees ready, if only naming themselves (called "volunteering").

[Kim Goldsworthy]

I am a member of a national membership organization that is governed by national and chapter by-laws.

The chapter by-laws provide that, annually, in February, the chapter selects a nominating committee that is responsible for presenting a slate of candidates to hold office at our March meeting.

The chapter is then to vote on the officers at the April meeting.

The nominating committee is going to ask for its time to present the slate be delayed until April.

The chapter would also vote on the slate at the April meeting after the candidates are presented.

The nominating committee is going to claim that it needs additional time because our February meeting was held one week late due to inclement weather.

However, I am aware that they are really going to ask for the extension due to some internal political issues.

Q1. Will they be allowed to ask and receive an extension to present the slate when the Bylaws clearly state that the slate is to be presented in March?

Q2. Is there any way to prevent this from happening?

Our meeting is on March 1.

Review (for the calendar-challenged reader):

JAN - nothing

FEB - select Nom. Comm.

MAR - Nom. Comm. presents slate

APR - Election

A1. Yes. They can ask. No harm in asking.

Yes. they can receive an extension, if the assembly votes affirmatively to do so.

(Maybe the assembly will vote negatively, and deny the extension.)

A2. Yes -- vote against the extension. It isn't automatic, you know.

But that would be foolish, because if the committee isn't ready in March, and if you don't extend time, then you are implying, "If you don't report now (in March), then don't report at all," which is pretty close to nonsensical, since every voter will want to know the data on the Nom. Comm. report, before voting in April.

So I don't see the meaning of your proposed denial of the committee doing its reporting later.

What do you want the Nom. Comm. to do, if it isn't ready to report in March? Sit on it?

[Gary c Tesser]

See, Kim? It doesn't always help to type less.

[David A Foulkes]

At the March meeting, move to set an adjourned meeting one week later for the committee to report. They started a week late, give them one more week. That seems fair.

[Gary Novosielski]

A1. Yes. They can ask. No harm in asking.

Yes. they can receive an extension, if the assembly votes affirmatively to do so.

...presumably by a 2/3 vote, as this would amount to a suspension of the rule.

An adjourned meeting could be used to grant an effective extension but not as far as the next regular meeting, and would simply require a majority vote.

[Guest Guest]

Review (for the calendar-challenged reader):

JAN - nothing

FEB - select Nom. Comm.

MAR - Nom. Comm. presents slate

APR - Election

A1. Yes. They can ask. No harm in asking.

Yes. they can receive an extension, if the assembly votes affirmatively to do so.

(Maybe the assembly will vote negatively, and deny the extension.)

A2. Yes -- vote against the extension. It isn't automatic, you know.

But that would be foolish, because if the committee isn't ready in March, and if you don't extend time, then you are implying, "If you don't report now (in March), then don't report at all," which is pretty close to nonsensical, since every voter will want to know the data on the Nom. Comm. report, before voting in April.

So I don't see the meaning of your proposed denial of the committee doing its reporting later.

What do you want the Nom. Comm. to do, if it isn't ready to report in March? Sit on it?

Thanks so much for your response. The nominating committee, which consists of 5, actually has a slate of candidates; the chapter members are not aware of this (I am privy to information that I should not be). There is one member on the nominating committee who clearly has a personal issue with the Vice-President who is slated to be President. This same member has the ear of the Nominating Committee Chair. Basically, they are requesting an extension because this member, while she will not admit it, wants it to try to figure out how to present another candidate for president (Our chapter history is that the VP moves up to President, if she wants it, and no one runs against her. The current VP wants to be President. Three other people, including myself, have been contacted and they all refuse to run against the VP but will run if she's not on the slate. (I know this is just one caddy mess ). In short, they have a slate and those of us who know that want them to present in in March, as it is a perfectly fine slate.

Since my initial post one of the five nominating committee members has "recused" herself from the nominating committee. Are we required to replace her? Does the president appoint someone? If so, should it be someone who did not receive enough votes to be on the nominating committee in February or can it be anyone in the chapter?

Thanks again! I cannot wait for all of this to be over.

[Gary Novosielski]

Our chapter history is that the VP moves up to President, if she wants it, and no one runs against her. The current VP wants to be President. Three other people, including myself, have been contacted and they all refuse to run against the VP but will run if she's not on the slate. (I know this is just one caddy mess). In short, they have a slate and those of us who know that want them to present in in March, as it is a perfectly fine slate.

Since my initial post one of the five nominating committee members has "recused" herself from the nominating committee. Are we required to replace her? Does the president appoint someone? If so, should it be someone who did not receive enough votes to be on the nominating committee in February or can it be anyone in the chapter?

RONR does not recognize "recusing" oneself. If the member has resigned, she should be replaced by the same body which appoints the nominating committee in the first place. The president should normally have nothing to do with the nominating committee.

But after the nominating committee's report is presented, and before the election, the president should call for nominations from the floor. The nominating committee's report should not be the last word. And even people who have not been nominated can still be voted for by write-in votes.

So it seems to me you're making mountains out of molehills. No matter what you do, if you don't interfere with the election, the majority favorite for each office will be elected.

It sounds like some of your members have no confidence that a good result can occur unless the election is fixed. RONR won't be of much help to you in that case, as it puts its faith in democracy.

[Guest Guest_R_Brown_*]

...presumably by a 2/3 vote, as this would amount to a suspension of the rule.

An adjourned meeting could be used to grant an effective extension but not as far as the next regular meeting, and would simply require a majority vote.

Thanks so much for your assistance. This situation has made me start the inevitable, which is to learn RONR.

One quick follow-up question. Apparently, this is how the nominating committee is going to go about getting its extension. However, they plan to set the time and date as immediately before our next chapter meeting (i.e. We meet 4/15 @ 6:30pm. The plan to set the time/date for the adjourned meeting for 4/15 @ 6:29). Is this permissible. Does the meeting simply need to adjourn before the next one starts?

[Gary Novosielski]

Thanks so much for your assistance. This situation has made me start the inevitable, which is to learn RONR.

One quick follow-up question. Apparently, this is how the nominating committee is going to go about getting its extension. However, they plan to set the time and date as immediately before our next chapter meeting (i.e. We meet 4/15 @ 6:30pm. The plan to set the time/date for the adjourned meeting for 4/15 @ 6:29). Is this permissible. Does the meeting simply need to adjourn before the next one starts?

Well, they can't really get much accomplished in one minute. But I guess that's long enough to file a report.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

However, they plan to set the time and date as immediately before our next chapter meeting (i.e. We meet 4/15 @ 6:30pm.

The plan to set the time/date for the adjourned meeting for 4/15 @ 6:29).

Is this permissible?

Does the meeting simply need to adjourn before the next one starts?

"Permissible"?

While RONR has no rule about how much gap there must be between one meeting and the next meeting, I serious doubt the author(s) of RONR ever anticipated a one minute gap, since RECESS is available.

I mean, it is the wrong tool for the job. -- You don't Fix The Time To Which To Adjourn, when all you are going to do is equivalent to a bathroom break, a smoking break, a coffee break, etc.

[Gary Novosielski]

"Permissible"?

While RONR has no rule about how much gap there must be between one meeting and the next meeting, I serious doubt the author(s) of RONR ever anticipated a one minute gap, since RECESS is available.

I mean, it is the wrong tool for the job. -- You don't Fix The Time To Which To Adjourn, when all you are going to do is equivalent to a bathroom break, a smoking break, a coffee break, etc.

No, effectively what they are doing is Postponing something until the next meeting, but since the bylaws specify it must happen at a particular meeting, they're using an Adjourned meeting to effect the postponement.

[Guest R_Brown]

No, effectively what they are doing is Postponing something until the next meeting, but since the bylaws specify it must happen at a particular meeting, they're using an Adjourned meeting to effect the postponement.

I think that I have caused some confusion. Please forgive me I am still learning, studying RONR. What I was trying to convey is they are going to fix the time to adjournment so that the meeting tonight ends next April, right before the scheduled meeting starts. I am sorry that I am not educated enough on the rules. Hopefully, you understand what I am trying to convey. Does everything have to be done before the next meeting starts? Since the next meeting is scheduled in April for 6:30pm, do we have to finish with this (March) meeting by 6:29pm, or can we discuss/finish the adjourned March meeting at the outset of the April meeting at 6:30 and then when we finish the March meeting start April's meeting say at 7pm.

I have either thoroughly confused you more, or clarified what I am trying to ask. Please let me know.

[Guest R_Brown]

No, effectively what they are doing is Postponing something until the next meeting, but since the bylaws specify it must happen at a particular meeting, they're using an Adjourned meeting to effect the postponement.

What is the motion that I make, if any, to stop the use of an adjourned meeting to effect a postponement?

[tctheatc]

What is the motion that I make, if any, to stop the use of an adjourned meeting to effect a postponement?

Speak against it and try to convince others to vote it down.

[Gary Novosielski]

I think that I have caused some confusion. Please forgive me I am still learning, studying RONR. What I was trying to convey is they are going to fix the time to adjournment so that the meeting tonight ends next April, right before the scheduled meeting starts. I am sorry that I am not educated enough on the rules. Hopefully, you understand what I am trying to convey. Does everything have to be done before the next meeting starts? Since the next meeting is scheduled in April for 6:30pm, do we have to finish with this (March) meeting by 6:29pm, or can we discuss/finish the adjourned March meeting at the outset of the April meeting at 6:30 and then when we finish the March meeting start April's meeting say at 7pm.

I have either thoroughly confused you more, or clarified what I am trying to ask. Please let me know.

I think I see the problem: The motion is not to "Fix the time of adjournment." It is Fix the time TO WHICH to adjourn.

The motion to Fix the Time To Which To Adjourn does not set the ending time for this meeting. It says that, when this meeting, today, adjourns, it will stay adjourned until it is restarted again at the time fixed by the motion. The meeting does not keep going until then. It ends today, and another meeting called an "adjourned meeting", which is considered to be part of the same session, begins at that future time.

So the motion you've proposed would sound like this: "I move that when this meeting adjourns, it adjourn to meet on April xxth at 6:29 p.m." Then right away or later, you adjourn. Now there is a meeting scheduled for April xxth at 6:29. That meeting starts at 6:29, but can't run longer than a minute, because you have a regular meeting scheduled for 6:30.

In between now and April, there is no meeting, so you can't do anything that requires a meeting.

Understand?

[Gary Novosielski]

What is the motion that I make, if any, to stop the use of an adjourned meeting to effect a postponement?

None. What you do is vote No, and in debate convince others to do the same, to defeat the motion to Fix the Time To Which To Adjourn.

[Guest R_Brown]

None. What you do is vote No, and in debate convince others to do the same, to defeat the motion to Fix the Time To Which To Adjourn.

Got it! Thanks a ton!

[Gary c Tesser]

I think I see the problem: The motion is not to "Fix the time of adjournment." It is Fix the time TO WHICH to adjourn.

[snip]

Now there is a meeting scheduled for April xxth at 6:29. That meeting starts at 6:29, but can't run longer than a minute, because you have a regular meeting scheduled for 6:30.

[snip]

Understand?

I don't like reviving a week-old, stale discussion thread, to stagger around zombie-like, of little interest to anyone except the parliamentary geeks (hmm ... yuk, maybe everyone here), accomplishing little except occasionally impulsively gnawing at someone's leg in competition with the regular leg-gnawing crocodiles that we have hanging around for literary purposes. But I can't let this go. Are we sure that if the adjourned meeting runs past 6:30, it will be interrupted (adjourned?) by the regularly-scheduled monthly meeting, which is to start then?

[Gary Novosielski]

I don't like reviving a week-old, stale discussion thread, to stagger around zombie-like, of little interest to anyone except the parliamentary geeks (hmm ... yuk, maybe everyone here), accomplishing little except occasionally impulsively gnawing at someone's leg in competition with the regular leg-gnawing crocodiles that we have hanging around for literary purposes. But I can't let this go. Are we sure that if the adjourned meeting runs past 6:30, it will be interrupted (adjourned?) by the regularly-scheduled monthly meeting, which is to start then?

"Sure"? What's that?

[Josh Martin]

Are we sure that if the adjourned meeting runs past 6:30, it will be interrupted (adjourned?) by the regularly-scheduled monthly meeting, which is to start then?

While I agree that a meeting does not automatically adjourn on the sole basis that the scheduled time for another meeting has arrived, it seems a moot point, since the original strategy which led to that issue is highly flawed.