Slate of Officers - Additional Nominations From The Floor

[Guest Dante Lewis]

By our constitution, our officers are selected by a nominating committee and presented to the general body for approval as a slate. Our constitution states that nominations can come from the floor. My question...if there are nominations from the floor, do those nominations go back to the nominating committee to determine their qualifications and then present it back to the body for approval as a slate or can the body vote on indiviual positions? I am asking because we are a church and we have always voted on slates of officers not by indiviual positions.

Please help ASAP!!!!!

[J. J.]

My question...if there are nominations from the floor, do those nominations go back to the nominating committee to determine their qualifications and then present it back to the body for approval as a slate or can the body vote on indiviual positions? I

A nomination from the floor would not be sent to the nominating committee.

[Guest Dante Lewsi]

A nomination from the floor would not be sent to the nominating committee.

Then how would you determine ones qualification? Also, would the body have to then vote on individual positions??

[Gary c Tesser]

Please note that the determination of qualifications of a candidate is a separate question from the question of the right of members to vote for him. As far as parliamentary law (as codified in Robert's Rules) is concerned, there is no question of qualifications: members can vote for whoever they want, and the winner of the election is elected. And the election of one candidate is not dependent on the election, or qualification, of anyone else.

It is a whole other set of issues if your church has its own rules about who is qualified to be elected, or whether a whole slate has to be elected at once (or if the whole slate is thrown out if one of its members is disqualified).

(Sometimes I forget why "slate" is a bad idea; then I see questions like this one, of Guest_Dante Lewis, and am vividly reminded.)

[David A Foulkes]

Then how would you determine ones qualification?

Do you mean determining if they would be a good choice for the position, like for Treasurer are they good with numbers, no gambling problem, no criminal history of theft? Or do you mean that they satisfy some kind of rules-restrictions to hold office, such as residency, length of membership, shoe size,, favorite movie, that sort of thing?

[Trina]

By our constitution, our officers are selected by a nominating committee and presented to the general body for approval as a slate. Our constitution states that nominations can come from the floor. My question...if there are nominations from the floor, do those nominations go back to the nominating committee to determine their qualifications and then present it back to the body for approval as a slate or can the body vote on indiviual positions? I am asking because we are a church and we have always voted on slates of officers not by indiviual positions.

Please help ASAP!!!!!

This is not a direct response to your question, but it sounds like it would be a good idea (for your organization, not this forum) to look closely at the language in the constitution. If it actually says that a slate is to be presented for approval, what happens if things don't go to plan? What if the slate is not approved? What if the voters are fine with everyone except one candidate -- do they have no option but to vote against the whole slate?

If floor nominations are allowed, that may suggest that the writers of the constitution did not really picture a monolithic 'slate' -- because, as you point out with your questions, it's unclear how a person nominated from the floor fits into the slate paradigm.

Your group may want to clarify the constitution by amendment, at some point.

In the meantime, RONR provides some useful principles of bylaws interpretation (11th ed. pp. 588-591).

[Rev Ed]

As far as RONR is concerned, the members would vote for whichever candiate they prefer and the person who receives a majority of votes cast will win.

As for qualifications found in your Constitution/By-laws, if someone feels that a candidate does not meet the qualifications, then during debate, the member can ask the candidate (through the Chairman) several questions that would determine if the member meets the qualifications. If not, a Point of Order can be made.

[Gary Novosielski]

By our constitution, our officers are selected by a nominating committee and presented to the general body for approval as a slate. Our constitution states that nominations can come from the floor. My question...if there are nominations from the floor, do those nominations go back to the nominating committee to determine their qualifications and then present it back to the body for approval as a slate or can the body vote on indiviual positions? I am asking because we are a church and we have always voted on slates of officers not by indiviual positions.

Please help ASAP!!!!!

Nothing in RONR provides for voting on candidates for various offices as a "slate". If your bylaws do, then you should read and follow them carefully. It is my suspicion that there is actually nothing in there about voting for a slate as a whole.

It is a common misconception when a nominating committee is charged with developing a list of candidates (sometimes unfortunately referred to as a slate) that the voting also takes place on the entire list at once, instead of by individual offices. But unless your bylaws actually specify this, that isn't how it's done.

After the report of the nominations committee is read, the chair should call for additional nominations from the floor for each office in turn, and if any are made, then that office is contested. Sometimes the bylaws will permit an uncontested election to be completed by acclamation, but sometimes not. You need to read your bylaws and see. If they specify that a ballot must be used, then it must be used regardless of how many offices are contested or not.

Although your bylaws are the final authority, It seems very likely to me that you should be voting for each office separately. That is, it should be possible for a member to vote for each office individually, and not as a slate. Although it is acceptable to do this all on one combined paper ballot, this is treated the same as if it were a series of individual ballots for individual offices. I haven't read your bylaws, and so I could be wrong, but experience suggests that what "everybody knows" about your bylaws may in fact be misremembered. I have seen other organizations fall into the habit of electing "slates" when a long series of elections without opposition make the election process seem like little more than a ceremonial exercise.

But they're not supposed to be.

[Guest Dante Lewis]

Nothing in RONR provides for voting on candidates for various offices as a "slate". If your bylaws do, then you should read and follow them carefully. It is my suspicion that there is actually nothing in there about voting for a slate as a whole.

It is a common misconception when a nominating committee is charged with developing a list of candidates (sometimes unfortunately referred to as a slate) that the voting also takes place on the entire list at once, instead of by individual offices. But unless your bylaws actually specify this, that isn't how it's done.

After the report of the nominations committee is read, the chair should call for additional nominations from the floor for each office in turn, and if any are made, then that office is contested. Sometimes the bylaws will permit an uncontested election to be completed by acclamation, but sometimes not. You need to read your bylaws and see. If they specify that a ballot must be used, then it must be used regardless of how many offices are contested or not.

Although your bylaws are the final authority, It seems very likely to me that you should be voting for each office separately. That is, it should be possible for a member to vote for each office individually, and not as a slate. Although it is acceptable to do this all on one combined paper ballot, this is treated the same as if it were a series of individual ballots for individual offices. I haven't read your bylaws, and so I could be wrong, but experience suggests that what "everybody knows" about your bylaws may in fact be misremembered. I have seen other organizations fall into the habit of electing "slates" when a long series of elections without opposition make the election process seem like little more than a ceremonial exercise.

But they're not supposed to be.

Our constitution states that the nominating committee provide a slate of officers to the body for approval. It also states that there can be nominations from the floor once that slate is presented. Now, unlike in the past, we may have a contested position. Therefore, should we vote on that position separately or send the entire slate back to the nominating committee for resolution. I will say however, that there is no election process in our constitution. Therefore, one would have to be defined?

[Guest Edgar]

Therefore, should we vote on that position separately or send the entire slate back to the nominating committee for resolution. I will say however, that there is no election process in our constitution. Therefore, one would have to be defined?

Once the nominating committee makes it report (i.e. submits its list of candidates), its work is done.

Nominations from the floor are then taken.

Then everyone votes. For anyone they choose.

[Thomas Ralph]

Sounds to me like you should be voting for each office individually. There is no single up/down vote for the entire group.

I have long been a vociferous opponent of the term "slate", and I'm glad Mr. Tesser is reminded why.

[tctheatc]

Our constitution states that the nominating committee provide a slate of officers to the body for approval. It also states that there can be nominations from the floor once that slate is presented. Now, unlike in the past, we may have a contested position. Therefore, should we vote on that position separately or send the entire slate back to the nominating committee for resolution. I will say however, that there is no election process in our constitution. Therefore, one would have to be defined?

Think about that. If you sent the 'slate" back to the/a nominating committee for "resolution" you'd basically be having them do the electing.

For each position where there is only one candidate, that person is elected by acclamation.

For each position where you have more than one, vote. The assembly, not the nominating committee, decides who wins. How do you determine qualifications? (your question in post 3) You can debate/discuss during nominations and vote for the one you believe most qualified. Honestly, you seem to be making the process more difficult than it is by giving too much importance to the "slate" of the nominating committee. It's their report and nothing else, and that committee's work is done when they present it. The assembly is the proper body that decides who gets which positions. Just remember that and you should be fine.

[Josh Martin]

For each position where there is only one candidate, that person is elected by acclamation.

...unless the Constitution requires a ballot vote.

Then how would you determine ones qualification?

Well, that depends on what you mean. If you mean "qualifications" in the sense that your Constitution require that a person must meet certain criteria to be eligible for office, then I imagine a Request for Information directed to the candidate or an officer should probably solve the issue. If you mean qualifications in the sense of who is a good choice (or the best choice) for a particular office, it is up to the assembly to determine this. Debate is permitted, and the election is ultimately determined by majority vote.

Therefore, should we vote on that position separately or send the entire slate back to the nominating committee for resolution.

So far as RONR is concerned, the nominations would not go back to the nominating committee. The body would proceed to vote on all positions separately (although uncontested positions may be handled by acclamation unless your Constitution require a ballot vote).

Since your Constitution apparently provides "that the nominating committee provide a slate of officers to the body for approval," however, it will be up to your organization to interpret its own Constitution. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation.

I will say however, that there is no election process in our constitution. Therefore, one would have to be defined?

If your organization uses RONR as its parliamentary authority, the election process is already defined in RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 438-446. It is therefore unnecessary to define an election process unless the assembly does find that the rule in the Constitution about "approving the slate" supersedes RONR's rules on the subject or if the organization wishes to create additional rules for the process. Special rules for debate, for instance, are common for elections.