Nominations, Bylaws versus Roberts Rules of Order

[Guest Guest_Maureen]

Please help me figure out what is needed to do in this situation. As President of a PTO I appointed a Nominating Committee according to the bylaws. All offices were open; however, the VP and I as President were the only people to submit our names to the nominating committee. As stated in the bylaws, the nominating committee gave their report at the April meeting, stating that only the VP and President were the only positions where there were any nominations. At that time, we opened up for nominations from the floor for each position and there were none. The bylaws state that if there are multiple people for each position, then we need to vote in May. There were not multiple people for any position as stated above.

I was given advice that since the Treasurer and Secretary positions were not filled and there were no nominations from the floor that ALL positions needed to remain open until the May meeting while we try to get people to fill the two open positions. They said this is a Roberts Rules rule; however, this is not in our bylaws. I worry that the PResident and VP positions are being set up for an ambush in May. Please tell me what is proper. Please let me know if, according to our bylaws I have attached below, do Roberts Rule trump our bylaws.

Thank you so much for answering this question. I truly appreciate any information you can supply to me.

COPIED FROM OUR BYLAWS:

*Officers shall be elected annually prior to the end of the school year at the

last regular business meeting of the year.

*There shall be a nominating committee appointed by the president by the March

meeting consisting of at least three members, one of whom shall be selected from the

Executive Board, and two or more selected from the general membership. The president

shall appoint one of the nominating committee to serve as chairman of the committee.

*The nominating committee shall attempt to select at least two nominees for

each office.

*Following the report of the nominating committee, an opportunity shall be

given for nominations from the floor. Voting shall be done by ballot at the last

meeting of the school year if multiple nominations occur . Votes shall be tabulated

and results given before the end of the school year.

*A vacancy occurring in any office shall be filled for the unexpired term by a person elected

by a majority vote of the remaining members of the Executive Board.

Article

*Robert's Rules of Order Revised shall govern this organization in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these by-laws.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

The bylaws state that if there are multiple people for each position, then we need to vote in May. There were not multiple people for any position as stated above.

I was given advice that

since the Treasurer and Secretary positions were not filled and

since there were no nominations from the floor

then ALL positions needed to remain open until the May meeting

while we try to get people to fill the two open positions.

They said this is a Roberts Rules rule.

It isn't any rule from Robert's Rules of Order.

Your "adviser" was wrong.

Under Robert's Rules of Order, each electable position is its own "question".

If there is a problem with filling (say), the office of treasurer or secretary (like zero nominees or like multiple nominees), then that problem(s) does not cascade up/down to the other offices which have a sole nominee.

[Gary Novosielski]

Your bylaws always trump Robert's Rules. But I don't see anything there to support what you seemed to suggest--that if only one nomination was made for an office, that the person could be declared victorious in April.

We can't interpret your bylaws, but based on the small piece that you quoted (which is always dangerous), things seem fairly straightforward. Here's what appears to be true:

• The actual decision always takes place at the last meeting (presumably May). That's true whether the decision is by ballot or by acclamation. Before that, nothing gets decided. The nominations are irrelevant. The election is not till May for anyone.
• The nominations committee did not do their job, which they apparently interpreted as sitting and waiting for nominations to come to them, instead off beating the bushes and recruiting people. The membership should have instructed them to keep working and not quit till they were done.
• Nominations may be and probably should be reopened at the May meeting. You may wish to restrict them only to the offices for which no nominations were reported, but you probably can't. It only takes a majority vote to re-open nominations, and such a motion would be in order in May, prior to the election.
• Elections for each office are considered separately. If President ends up with only one nominee, but Secretary has three, then the President is elected by acclamation, and the Secretary is elected by ballot.
• You cannot use your vacancy-filling provisions to fill these seats, as there is no unexpired term left at this point. You must elect someone.

If worse comes to worse, pass out blank paper ballots for the offices were not filled, and have people write in names. There is no rule that only nominated people may be elected (believe it or not). If nobody gets a majority, keep voting. When the kids get cranky and start whining, "Mommmmmmyyyyyyyyyyyyy, when are we going hoooooooooooooome??", maybe people will volunteer for the other positions.

Worst case, explain to the members that if nobody is willing to step into positions of leadership, maybe the organization is dying or dead, and should simply disband. A good speech will often get some sucker, er, civic minded citizens to step up. Turn on the tears if need be. Also, consider why nobody wants to run. Do they see it as too much work, too much responsibility with not enough help, or what? You need to make them understand that the Board and all the members are committed to make their job as easy as possible. Make everyone stand up and raise their right hand if you need to. (Subject to a Point of Order that this is bogus, but nobody will raise it, trust me.)

Your problems are primarily people problems and political problems, not parliamentary problems. (Jeez, were there a lot of P's in that sentence?) Anyway, if you solve your real problems, the rules of order will work out. You're the leader. Looks like a good time to lead.

Good luck.

[Josh Martin]

• You may wish to restrict them only to the offices for which no nominations were reported, but you probably can't.

Is this a comment on the practical/political likelihood of limiting the nominations to specific offices, or are you suggesting that it would be out of order to limit the nominations to specific offices?

[Gary Novosielski]

Is this a comment on the practical/political likelihood of limiting the nominations to specific offices, or are you suggesting that it would be out of order to limit the nominations to specific offices?

I'm suggesting that it may be the president's desire, as the sole nominee, to discourage further nominations for the office of president but that, should the assembly desire to do so, it may reopen nominations for any office.

If handled adroitly, the president could begin the election process, if they bylaws do not mandate nominations from the floor at that meeting, by stating that, without objection, Maureen G, as the sole nominee, is elected by acclamation. She could then do the same for the VP, and then ask if there are nominations for the next (open) position.

And she would very likely get away with it (if that's the right term for using a perfectly proper procedure). But if there are actually people intent upon staging an "ambush", they would probably object or raise a point of order that they were not given the opportunity to be recognized for the purpose of offering a motion to reopen nominations. And I think they would have grounds to do so.