Nominations by Slate

[Guest Bill Lewis]

Thanks in advance for the thoughts/guidance. This question relates to a process our church utilizes to fill specific ministry teams. A slate approach for the approval of teams is used As an example, we have a Trustees Team that is positioned as a slate for approval from the Nominations Team. There are 7 names brought forward from the work the Nominations Team has done to fill the team. The process is to have all the members listed on the slate and the attendees at the church conference are able to vote yes or no for the entire team. If it is no, a second ballot is passed out that lists each person by name with a yes/no box by the name and nominations are also accepted from the floor. A second vote is then held. Your thoughts as to the merits and acceoptability of this approach. There is nothing in a constitution regarding it. Thanks!.

[Guest Edgar]

Your thoughts as to the merits and acceptability of this approach.

It's unacceptable.

Members are (or should be) free to vote for any combination of candidates. For some or for none at all. There is nothing in RONR that would justify voting by "slate".

On the other hand, if there are no further nominations "from the floor" after the nominating committee makes it report, and if your bylaws do not require a ballot vote, then, and only then, the chair can declare each uncontested nominee elected "by acclamation".

[Gary c Tesser]

If you want to use this procedure, you'd need to codify it, at least as a special rule of order (and possibly not as a special rule, but only as a bylaws-level rule, or above).

Merits? It probably saves time. (The less choice the members have, the less time they spend choosing. Is that a good thing?) It ensures (or close to it) that the team members are able and willing to work well together. (No, I don't see a down side to this.) RONR doesn't come close to anything like it. (Oh wait, that's hardly a merit: it's a caution.)