Nominations from the floor

[Guest Jeff Ursillo]

What is the point of a nominating committee that screens candidates, if anyone with no qualifications can be elected by popular vote?

[Chris Harrison]

Well, hopefully the committee would ask the people they are considering for nomination if they are interested in serving if elected as opposed to floor nominations where the nominee is absent and/or not willing to serve in which case they could decline the office if elected requiring the election be completed (which can be problematic for organizations which meet infrequently). Also, I would imagine that absent some compelling reason to do otherwise the members are more likely to give more weight to someone who the committee nominated over someone who was nominated from the floor.

[Guest Jeff Ursillo]

We have had several situations where the person nominated from the floor (and present at the meeting) has won the election, without having even talked to the Nominating committee about running. The person behind this is usually trying to do an "end run" around the nominating committee by nominating from the floor at the last minute (our Articles say there can be floor nominations on election night) and calling friends before the meeting to come and vote for so-and-so, thus stacking the deck and overturning what the Nominating committee presented. Would it be a viable (and "legal" option) to close nominations the month before the election (knowing that they can be re-opened if voted on to do so).

Jeff

[J. J.]

We have had several situations where the person nominated from the floor (and present at the meeting) has won the election, without having even talked to the Nominating committee about running. The person behind this is usually trying to do an "end run" around the nominating committee by nominating from the floor at the last minute (our Articles say there can be floor nominations on election night) and calling friends before the meeting to come and vote for so-and-so, thus stacking the deck and overturning what the Nominating committee presented. Would it be a viable (and "legal" option) to close nominations the month before the election (knowing that they can be re-opened if voted on to do so).

Jeff

That would violate no rule in RONR.

[Chris Harrison]

We have had several situations where the person nominated from the floor (and present at the meeting) has won the election, without having even talked to the Nominating committee about running. The person behind this is usually trying to do an "end run" around the nominating committee by nominating from the floor at the last minute (our Articles say there can be floor nominations on election night) and calling friends before the meeting to come and vote for so-and-so, thus stacking the deck and overturning what the Nominating committee presented.

Well, in that case the people who the committee are going to nominate should do their own campaigning to get votes and let the best person win.

Would it be a viable (and "legal" option) to close nominations the month before the election (knowing that they can be re-opened if voted on to do so).

No. Your bylaws say that floor nominations are allowed on election night so they must be allowed. Also, the motion to close nominations should not be used until there has been a reasonable opportunity for nominations to be made (RONR p. 288).

[Guest Jeff Ursillo]

It would be hard for the people approved and on the ballot by the nominating committee to campaign as the elections take place directly after the nominations are taken from the floor...If the Articles were changed to give the members 2 monthly meetings to make nominations from the floor (with the elections held at the 3rd meeting), would that be RONR acceptable. I guess the point I need addressed is if RONR specifies that there has to be nominations from the floor on election night?

[Guest Edgar]

The person behind this is usually trying to do an "end run" around the nominating committee by nominating from the floor at the last minute (our Articles say there can be floor nominations on election night) and calling friends before the meeting to come and vote for so-and-so, thus stacking the deck and overturning what the Nominating committee presented.

I think you may be looking at this from the wrong angle. The selections of the nominating committee are just the first step in the electoral process, not the last word. It may be that their selections are the most popular or it might be that they're trying to keep the old guard in office in the face of a changing membership. Whatever the case, it's all decided in the election, not in the meeting of the nominating committee. There's no "end run" involved. If anything, those candidates selected by the nominating committee probably have an advantage over those nominated from the floor. But the victory goes to those who can get out the vote.

And remember, members are free to vote for "write-in" candidates who weren't even nominated.

[Guest Jeff Ursillo]

Edgar, thanks for your reply. I understand your point, but I disagree with part of it. When there is a candidate that this person knows is not qualified, experience wise, for the office and they wait till the last miute to nominate the person from the floor, minutes before the election takes place, and she has stacked the members attending the meeting with friends of hers who will vote as she asks, then there is an end run around the process. There is no time for discussion, campaiging, nothing to show why this new candidate is not qualified....

I am aware of write ins, and for the most part I agree that the election is the final step and that the nominating committee is the start....but if the process allows for unqualified people to get into office in this manor, then having a nominating committee to screen candidates is pointless....

Jeff

[Chris Harrison]

It would be hard for the people approved and on the ballot by the nominating committee to campaign as the elections take place directly after the nominations are taken from the floor.

So you are saying that the folks the nominating committee is going to nominate are surprised at the meeting that they are the committee's pick?

[Guest Jeff Ursillo]

No, not al all. What I am saying is that if there are 5 slots on the ballot all running unopposed and a third party nominates someone to oppose a person already on the ballot, there is no time to campaign, as the elections take place right after the close of nominations on election night...If you are not expceting competition, there is usually no campaigning....

Jeff

[David A Foulkes]

Any members who would like to be candidates, especially if they don't know even know they've been nominated already by the Nominating Committee, can very easily arrange to have someone else plan to nominate them, and can even nominate themselves. It's called volunteering, and violates no rule in RONR.

Nominations are debatable, and thus at the election meeting, candidates can obtain the floor and "run", and supporters can obtain the floor and "campaign."

"Although it is the duty of every member who has an opinion on a question to express it by his vote, he can abstain, since he cannot be compelled to vote." (RONR 11 p. 407 ll. 12-15, emphasis added) That is, every member has a duty to show up and vote (and especially for elections, in my humble opinion). It's what gives you the right to kvetch when the other guy wins. If a majority of members prefer an unqualified candidate, nominated at the last minute from the floor, that's the voice of democracy ringing out. Members who wish someone else to win must show up and vote.

What the nominating committee does as far a screening candidates for qualification-worthiness in no way precludes any other person eligible to be elected from being nominated. What prevents such a person from being elected is the vote of the membership.

[Guest Jeff Ursillo]

David, Thanks for your reply...

I am aware of how floor nominations occur and the meaning and intent behind them. I never said or implied, intentionally, that I was opposed to floor nomiations...I AM opposed to them being used to put unqualified candidates up for election. The members have 3 months including election night, to be nominated for office. The Nomminating committee does not close nominations, currently, till right before the elections. This, to me, is where the problem exists. There is currently no way for the qualified candidates to campaign against the un-qualified. What I am trying to find out is if the Nominating Committee is able, under RONR, to close nominations the month before the election, thereby stopping last minute nominations and the ability of un-qualified candidates to get on the ballot. This would give members 2 month to nominate from the floor, and all candidates, if running opposed time to campaign.

Jeff

[Chris Harrison]

No, not al all. What I am saying is that if there are 5 slots on the ballot all running unopposed and a third party nominates someone to oppose a person already on the ballot, there is no time to campaign, as the elections take place right after the close of nominations on election night...If you are not expceting competition, there is usually no campaigning....

I can understand that could be disconcerting the first time it happens but now that it has been shown that nominations from the floor have changed the equation in the past the candidates should know to campaign even if they are currently unopposed. Also, since the floor nominations are part of the process of using nominating committees (RONR pp. 435-436) and your bylaws specifically say that they could happen the candidates should never have taken as a given that they would be unopposed in the first place and have campaigned for the office in the case that there would be nominations from the floor.

[Guest Edgar]

If you are not expceting competition, there is usually no campaigning....

Then I guess you learn not to take your re-election for granted. But there's always next time.

"No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Winston Churchill

[Chris Harrison]

What I am trying to find out is if the Nominating Committee is able, under RONR, to close nominations the month before the election, thereby stopping last minute nominations and the ability of un-qualified candidates to get on the ballot. This would give members 2 month to nominate from the floor, and all candidates, if running opposed time to campaign.

That is the first problem. Unless your bylaws say otherwise the nominating committee's job is done as soon as they present their nominations and then the Chair/President/Moderator/whatever title the assembly's presiding officer uses asks for nominations from the floor. Your bylaws allow floor nominations at the meeting (and RONR calls for them anyway even if the bylaws don't) and that unexpected floor nominations might happen is all part of the process and the candidates should not have assumed that they would remain unopposed and have marshaled the troops in case there were any floor nominations. I understand you feel that the committee (and the candidates) were ambushed but now they know and as they say "forewarned is forearmed".

[Guest Jeff Ursillo]

So, Chris, are you saying that RONR makes it mandatory to have floor nominations at the election meeting? (Sorry I do not have my copy of RONR at work...). I am aware that currently we have it in the Articles that they are accepted on election night, but I am willing to start the procedure to change that if they are not mandatory under RONR.

[Guest Edgar]

So, Chris, are you saying that RONR makes it mandatory to have floor nominations at the election meeting?

Your organization is free to adopt bylaws which would prevent nominations from the floor. You could even empower the "nominating committee" to select your officers and avoid the messy election process altogether.

[David A Foulkes]

So, Chris, are you saying that RONR makes it mandatory to have floor nominations at the election meeting? (Sorry I do not have my copy of RONR at work...). I am aware that currently we have it in the Articles that they are accepted on election night, but I am willing to start the procedure to change that if they are not mandatory under RONR.

Section 46 (RONR 11th Ed.) details six methods of nominations. You will see in there that two of them explicitly allow floor nominations: 1) nominations from a committee, and 2) nominations from the floor (obviously). If nominations by ballot are used, members do not have the right to make floor nominations also, unless a motion for such method is adopted by a majority vote of the assembly. So, RONR says yes sometimes, no sometimes, and doesn't explicitly say one way or the other for other methods.

To change your current rules, you would need to amend your bylaws, which supersede RONR, and can say whatever the organization adopts for that process. Just be careful what you wish for. It might be that the best candidate for the job is not nominated by the committee, and would only have a chance by way of floor nomination at the election.

[Rev Ed]

What is the point of a nominating committee that screens candidates, if anyone with no qualifications can be elected by popular vote?

The nominating simply tries to find people to run. In some organizations it does take some work to get people to run for office. And not everyone is going to like the person who is nominated so they decide to run. Nothing wrong with that.

At the same time, the Nominating Committee is not stopped from nominating more than one person for each position.

I do question what you mean by someone without any qualifications. You are free to vote for whoever you want. Any member, or non-member, is qualified to run for the Board unless the By-laws specify specific qualifications. And if the person is qualified to run, then he/she has the right to run.

[Trina]

So, Chris, are you saying that RONR makes it mandatory to have floor nominations at the election meeting? (Sorry I do not have my copy of RONR at work...). I am aware that currently we have it in the Articles that they are accepted on election night, but I am willing to start the procedure to change that if they are not mandatory under RONR.

Your bylaws can say whatever the organization wishes; where the bylaws contradict the rules in RONR, the bylaws supersede RONR. Some organizations prohibit nominations from the floor. Some prohibit write-in votes. Some prohibit both.

However, as Mr. Foulkes pointed out, be careful what you wish for. The rules in RONR have a long history of trial and error behind them, and should be viewed accordingly.

[Josh Martin]

What is the point of a nominating committee that screens candidates, if anyone with no qualifications can be elected by popular vote?

The purpose of a nominating committee, like any other committee, is to make recommendations - in this case, recommendations (in the form of nominations) of who to elect. Like any other recommendation, the assembly is not obliged to follow the committee's advice.

Would it be a viable (and "legal" option) to close nominations the month before the election (knowing that they can be re-opened if voted on to do so).

Yes, although this would require a 2/3 vote.

If the Articles were changed to give the members 2 monthly meetings to make nominations from the floor (with the elections held at the 3rd meeting), would that be RONR acceptable.

It is "RONR acceptable," and the Articles supersede RONR anyway.

I guess the point I need addressed is if RONR specifies that there has to be nominations from the floor on election night?

No, RONR does not require that there must be nominations from the floor on election night. When nominations are made by a committee, nominations from the floor must be taken, but the time when such nominations shall be taken is up to the organization's rules, or at the discretion of the assembly if those rules are silent. It would be in order, for instance, to take nominations from the floor at the meeting prior to the election meeting, although the nominations could be reopened by majority vote. See RONR, 11th ed., pg. 435, lines 10-18; pg. 289, lines 7-8.

There is no time for discussion, campaiging, nothing to show why this new candidate is not qualified....

This is not correct. Nominations are debatable - that is, you can have the discussion at the meeting itself. I concede that this may not fully address your concerns, but I think it's worthwhile information all the same.

What I am trying to find out is if the Nominating Committee is able, under RONR, to close nominations the month before the election, thereby stopping last minute nominations and the ability of un-qualified candidates to get on the ballot.

The Nominating Committee has no authority to close nominations unless your rules state otherwise, but the assembly itself may close nominations by a 2/3 vote.

So, Chris, are you saying that RONR makes it mandatory to have floor nominations at the election meeting?

If a nominating committee is used, then nominations from the floor are mandatory, but it is not required that they be taken at the election meeting.

I am aware that currently we have it in the Articles that they are accepted on election night, but I am willing to start the procedure to change that if they are not mandatory under RONR.

It is not mandatory to take nominations from the floor on election night, and your Articles supersede RONR anyway.

Section 46 (RONR 11th Ed.) details six methods of nominations. You will see in there that two of them explicitly allow floor nominations: 1) nominations from a committee, and 2) nominations from the floor (obviously). If nominations by ballot are used, members do not have the right to make floor nominations also, unless a motion for such method is adopted by a majority vote of the assembly. So, RONR says yes sometimes, no sometimes, and doesn't explicitly say one way or the other for other methods.

To change your current rules, you would need to amend your bylaws, which supersede RONR, and can say whatever the organization adopts for that process. Just be careful what you wish for. It might be that the best candidate for the job is not nominated by the committee, and would only have a chance by way of floor nomination at the election.

Let's take a closer look at the original poster's question, and at RONR, 11th ed., pg. 435, lines 10-18. Currently, the original poster's organization permits nominations from the floor at the election meeting and at the two meetings prior to the election meeting. The original poster's question is not whether RONR requires nominations from the floor when a nominating committee is used (it does), but whether RONR requires such nominations to be permitted at the election meeting (it does not). Permitting nominations for just the two meetings prior to the election meeting would still afford members a chance to nominate the best candidate for the job from the floor, and since nominations could be reopened or members could have a write-in campaign, there are still "last resort" options if they are needed.

I do question what you mean by someone without any qualifications.

Based on the facts presented, I get the feeling that the poster means that the candidate(s) are not qualified in the opinion of the original poster, the nominating committee, and presumably also of some other members. I don't believe it is a reference to any formal qualifications in the Bylaws (if it is, that changes everything).

[Guest Jeff Ursillo]

Sorry for the delay in replying, Work interupts outside interests sometimes

Josh, Thank you very much for taking the time to answer my questions...I got the information I need now, so I do appreciate your time and effort. To address your last point...in the interest of fairness, the only qualifications we have for running for office isare in our Standing rules, and they are that the person be a member in good standing and that they have been an active member for a year prior to the elections. The situation I was addressing that happened a while back was a member of the Nominating commitee, who despite concurring with the slate we selected, nominated a whole new slate from the floor on election night, most of whom were people the Committee had passed on due to inexperience with the Society. Most of her slate, including president,, got elected. AT that time the Society had over 250 members. 2 years later, after the "new" presidnet's term limit was reached, the club had 85 members. The loss can alomst directly be traced to him....after 6 years we are back to just a hair under 200 members now and growing. So that is what I was referring to as far as qualified.

Again, I appreciate all your help....

[Guest Edgar]

The loss can almost directly be traced to him....

It wouldn't be the first time the "wrong" person got elected.

[tctheatc]

The loss can almost directly be traced to him....

wouldn't be the first time the "wrong" person got elected.

.....by will of the majority, one might add!!!

[Josh Martin]

To address your last point...in the interest of fairness, the only qualifications we have for running for office isare in our Standing rules, and they are that the person be a member in good standing and that they have been an active member for a year prior to the elections.

A standing rule which prescribes qualifications for office is null and void. Qualifications for office must be placed in the Bylaws (or Articles, which appears to be the equivalent document for your organization). So if your organization wishes to enforce these qualifications, it should amend the Articles. The society should also define in that document the meaning of the term "active member" if it is not already defined, since RONR has no definition for what makes a member "active." Good standing is defined in RONR, although it simply means a member whose rights are not under suspension from disciplinary procedures or a specific provision in the Bylaws, so that term should be defined as well if the society means something more than that. (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 6, footnote)