Withdrawal of a nominee at a meeting to elect

[Guest kwe]

A nominee named J. recommended by the Nominating Committee, at a meeting called for the purpose to elect her to a governing board, withdrew her name from the election process, and walked out of the meeting, when a nomination from the floor was made by another member of this organization and was accepted. The nominee from the floor is named T. J. believed the nomination from the floor was in response to her views on a variety of topics that are controversial for this organization.

The Moderator of the meeting was left with no candidate from the Nominating Committee and a nominee made from the floor of the congregation. His first inclination was to bring the meeting to a close and meet at a future time. This would allow the Nominating Committee to present another candidate to the membership. His reasons focused on the fact that the Nominating Committee was part of the governing board of the organization. The governing board was elected by the membership. Unless a name was put forward by the governing board (through the Nominating Committee), could we go forward with a nominee from the floor?

This inclination, verbalized at the meeting, was met with anger and statements about 'points of order.' Those who objected believed that such a decision would be prejudicial against the T., the nominee from the floor. To prevent further dissension within the organization, the Moderator suggested that the membership vote by majority as to whether they wanted to proceed with the election. If the majority ruled, we would go forward with the election. T. would be voted on by ballot. If he won a majority of votes, he would serve on the board. If the majority voted no on T., the Nominating Committee to bring forward another candidate to the membership at a future time.

The membership voted in favor in proceeding with the election and voted in favor of T.

What guidance does Roberts Rules offer on how this meeting was conducted?

[tctheatc]

RONR p 242 l 27 says no vote is taken on a point of order unless there is an appeal or the chair is in doubt. I'm not sure what exactly is meant by "anger and statements about 'points of order.'" but if a point of order was raised and the chair were in doubt, voting would certainly be a way to go. It might not have been a classic textbook example of how the process should work, but the basic intent (majority rules) was there.

[Tim Wynn]

A nominee named J. recommended by the Nominating Committee, at a meeting called for the purpose to elect her to a governing board, withdrew her name from the election process, and walked out of the meeting, when a nomination from the floor was made by another member of this organization and was accepted. The nominee from the floor is named T. J. believed the nomination from the floor was in response to her views on a variety of topics that are controversial for this organization.

The Moderator of the meeting was left with no candidate from the Nominating Committee and a nominee made from the floor of the congregation. His first inclination was to bring the meeting to a close and meet at a future time. This would allow the Nominating Committee to present another candidate to the membership. His reasons focused on the fact that the Nominating Committee was part of the governing board of the organization. The governing board was elected by the membership. Unless a name was put forward by the governing board (through the Nominating Committee), could we go forward with a nominee from the floor?

This inclination, verbalized at the meeting, was met with anger and statements about 'points of order.' Those who objected believed that such a decision would be prejudicial against the T., the nominee from the floor. To prevent further dissension within the organization, the Moderator suggested that the membership vote by majority as to whether they wanted to proceed with the election. If the majority ruled, we would go forward with the election. T. would be voted on by ballot. If he won a majority of votes, he would serve on the board. If the majority voted no on T., the Nominating Committee to bring forward another candidate to the membership at a future time.

The membership voted in favor in proceeding with the election and voted in favor of T.

What guidance does Roberts Rules offer on how this meeting was conducted?

See RONR (10th ed.), p. 421, l. 1-5. The nominating committee should choose another candidate if time permits.

Also, see p. 399, l. 34 - p. 400, l. 4.

[David A Foulkes]

See RONR (10th ed.), p. 421, l. 1-5. The nominating committee should choose another candidate if time permits.

It appears this (J's declination of nomination) happened at the election meeting. There's a hint in the OP's first sentence that this was a Special Meeting called for this purpose. Would it be appropriate to adjourn without completing the election to allow the nominating committee to reconvene, as there was an apparently valid floor nomination made?

[Tim Wynn]

It appears this (J's declination of nomination) happened at the election meeting. There's a hint in the OP's first sentence that this was a Special Meeting called for this purpose. Would it be appropriate to adjourn without completing the election to allow the nominating committee to reconvene, as there was an apparently valid floor nomination made?

There would be no need to adjourn, and if the committee couldn't select another nominee in reasonable time, the election can proceed without it. The committee, by agreement from every member, can select a nominee without a meeting.

[Josh Martin]

Unless a name was put forward by the governing board (through the Nominating Committee), could we go forward with a nominee from the floor?

Yes.

What guidance does Roberts Rules offer on how this meeting was conducted?

The process was a bit sloppy, but honestly, the end result would have been more or less the same if you'd followed the correct process. If the chair had started with his improper attempts to delay the election unilaterally, his ruling could be followed by an Appeal, and a majority vote would overturn his ruling. If the chair had butted out (as he should), and some other member had made a qualified motion to Adjourn, a majority vote would be required to delay the election. Either motion is debatable.

Would it be appropriate to adjourn without completing the election to allow the nominating committee to reconvene, as there was an apparently valid floor nomination made?

It would be appropriate, but it would not be required. The assembly would decide the question by majority vote (and since the motion to Adjourn would be qualified, it would be debatable).