Making and Accepting Nominations from the Floor

[Guest ken]

I serve a non-profit that periodically elects board officers and other people to do special tasks that pertain to this organization. One rule is that in any election nominations from the floor always need to be stated by the moderator.

Do those accepting nominations have to be present at the meeting. If not, would they have had to present something in writing before the meeting saying that they would accept if nominated or is it possible to give them a few days to respond in writing or otherwise to the nomination if they are out of town?

What about those who make nominations. Do they have to be present to make them or can they be made through a proxy?

Where in Roberts Rules of Order can I get clarity on this question?

Thank you.

[Chris Harrison]

The nominees don't have to be at the meeting in order to be nominated (unless the bylaws say otherwise) but they have the opportunity to decline the office if elected. The nominator must be at the meeting (unless the bylaws say otherwise). See RONR pp. 430-447 for how to properly conduct nominations and elections (though if any provisions in the bylaws conflict with what RONR says the provision would govern).

[Tim Wynn]

I serve a non-profit that periodically elects board officers and other people to do special tasks that pertain to this organization. One rule is that in any election nominations from the floor always need to be stated by the moderator.

Do those accepting nominations have to be present at the meeting. If not, would they have had to present something in writing before the meeting saying that they would accept if nominated or is it possible to give them a few days to respond in writing or otherwise to the nomination if they are out of town?

What about those who make nominations. Do they have to be present to make them or can they be made through a proxy?

Where in Roberts Rules of Order can I get clarity on this question?

Thank you.

See RONR (11th ed.), p. 444, ll. 17-25.

[Guest Edgar]

Do those accepting nominations have to be present at the meeting. If not, would they have had to present something in writing before the meeting saying that they would accept if nominated or is it possible to give them a few days to respond in writing or otherwise to the nomination if they are out of town?

Keep in mind that you can even nominate someone who doesn't want to be nominated. In a sense, it's your nomination, not his. His only parliamentary option is to decline the office if elected. Of course he has the political option of letting everyone know he has no interest in the office and will decline if elected. Also note that if an elected candidate is not present and declines the office when notified at a later date, you have an incomplete election and it might not be so easy to schedule additional rounds of voting. So, while not required, a written notice that a particular candidate will serve if elected can be helpful.

Finally, unless of course your rules prevent it, members are also free to cast "write-in" votes for those not nominated.

[jstackpo]

And the same "I decline" option is available to him if the write-in "candidate" wins the election.

[Gary c Tesser]

Why does nobody but me care about the second paragraph on p. 435?

[Tim Wynn]

Why does nobody but me care about the second paragraph on p. 435?

I care, Gary... I care. I'm just not sure in what way you're insinuating that it applies to the original poster's questions.

[Gary c Tesser]

...

No, Tim, strictly speaking, OP Guest_ken didn't ask whether nominees can withdraw their nominations, but I intuited (without insinuation) that he might be interested to know that they can; and I was specifically responding to the second part of Chris H's first sentence (in post #2), in pointing out that someone can reject a nomination well before the time comes to decline an election; and particularly I was refuting Guest Edgar's third sentence (in post #4).

But on behalf of the second paragraph on p. 435, and its predecessor, the even more neglected (because it had more time, so far) top of p. 421 in RONR 10th, I do appreciate that you care. You people who demonstrate compassion for aspects of wood pulp and their representatives on overpriced pixel screens are yourselves underappreciated, and probably for the most part not paid enough.

(Whew! 11 AM. Almost time to go to bed for the week.)

[Guest Edgar]

. . . and particularly I was refuting Guest Edgar's third sentence (in post #4).

The second paragraph on p.435 refers specifically to the nominating committee's responsibility to select candidates who are (presumably) willing to serve. There is no such responsibility placed on members who wish to make nominations from the floor (which happens to be the focus of this particular topic). If I nominate Mr. Tesser for the office of President, Mr. Tesser can't withdraw my nomination.

u3pYaK

[Gary c Tesser]

... If I nominate Mr. Tesser for the office of President, Mr. Tesser can't withdraw my nomination.

u3pYaK

Does RONR somewhere say I can't?

[Guest Edgar]

Does RONR somewhere say I can't?

I say you can't. Show me where it says you can withdraw my nomination of you and I'll gladly concede the point.

[Tim Wynn]

Page 3, lines 5-9. A member's nomination can be withdrawn by another as equally as his vote can be withdrawn by another, which is to say not at all.

By the way, p. 441, ll. 5-8, does not imply anything to the contrary.

[Gary c Tesser]

Gary c Tesser, on 05 July 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

Does RONR somewhere say I can't?

I say you can't. Show me where it says you can withdraw my nomination of you and I'll gladly concede the point.

Um. Indeed, it doesn't say that. But p. 435 does not explicitly limit a nominee's right to withdraw his nomination solely to the nominees of the nominating committee. And it grants the nominee that right, beyond what is mentioned in the previous paragraph -- his being able to say "no thanks" when the Nom. Com. calls him and asks if he's interested.

You might argue that the nomination by a nominating committee has less authority, or weight, than the nomination by a member, since, as Mr Wynn points out (post #12), nominating is a membership right, while clearly nominating committees do not have the right to nominate -- it is an assigned duty; so that a member might have the right to refuse a nomination by a Nom.Com. ("withdrawal"), but not that of a member. I would reply that, notwithstanding duties that may adhere to membership (p. 289, p. 290, p. 407), a member has a right to be left alone -- that is, not being bothered with an undesired and not-compulsory nomination (p. 290), much like his right to unilaterally rescind (plain English) his membership in the organization altogether (the fresh wording in RONR 11th Ed., p. 291 - 292, is refresing).

(Incidentally, I was a little unhappy with my phrasing in post 8, though I couldn't put my finger on it, until something, perhaps the tone, in Guest_Edgar's reply (in post #9) brought me to the realization that my saying flatly that I was refuting what Guest Edgar had said was presumptuous and discourteous, and I apologize. This is so regardless of the actual strengths of our positions.)

[Gary c Tesser]

Page 3, lines 5-9.

A good citation: my commendations to Mr Wynn. (It is, *sigh* one more of the changes to the 11th that I have still overlooked.)

A member's nomination can be withdrawn by another as equally as his vote can be withdrawn by another, which is to say not at all.

Followed up with an opinion with which I disagree. The right to nominate is clearly *not* as strong and fundamental as the right to vote. Otherwise, the right to nominate would be up there in the previous sentence; and nominations would be mentioned with votes on p. 445 - 446.

By the way, p. 441, ll. 5-8, does not imply anything to the contrary.

Oh Tim. You can say whatever you might infer. But you cannot validly say what it implies unless Sarah Corbin Robert, who probably wrote it for the 7th Edition, told you. (Or someone that she told. Like maybe her son Mr Robert III. Perhaps she chatted away with dreamy reminiscence about it when tucking him into bed in his youth. (Certainly I hope in his youth.) That seems reasonable. I can see how decades later, there would be Tim Wynn and Henry Martyn Robert III sitting in a bistro at some parliamentary convention, chuckling away over endless pepperoni pizza and absinthe about the history of the editions of Robert's Rules' ongoing unerring and clear discussions of the question of withdrawing nominations, with the likes of Rod Davidson, Dan Seabold, Jonathan Jacobs, Alan Jennings, and Nancy Sylvester looking on enviously from two tables away, and of course with the likes of me looking on enviously from typically two time zones away.)

Are you saying that p. 441, lines 5 - 8, do not imply that a candidate can withdraw? (Your point cannot be that it is not an implication, but an explicit statement. Please tell me it is not.) What then, remotely or directly related, are you asserting that it implies or states?

[Dan Honemann]

For whatever it’s worth, I agree that, as far as the rules in RONR are concerned, a nominee may decline to accept a nomination when it is made, regardless of whether it is made by a committee or by another member, or, if he has not done that, he may “withdraw” his nomination at a later time. If he does either of these things, he should not be listed as a nominee on subsequent ballots. This will not, of course, prevent members from casting votes for him.

[Shmuel Gerber]

For whatever it’s worth, I agree that, as far as the rules in RONR are concerned, a nominee may decline to accept a nomination when it is made, regardless of whether it is made by a committee or by another member, or, if he has not done that, he may “withdraw” his nomination at a later time. If he does either of these things, he should not be listed as a nominee on subsequent ballots. This will not, of course, prevent members from casting votes for him.

If Gary nominates this question for an RONR Official Interpretation, who will have the right to withdraw it? :-)

[Tim Wynn]

A good citation: my commendations to Mr Wynn. (It is, *sigh* one more of the changes to the 11th that I have still overlooked.)

You're welcome.

Oh Tim. You can say whatever you might infer. But you cannot validly say what it implies unless Sarah Corbin Robert, who probably wrote it for the 7th Edition, told you.

I didn't mention what Sarah didn't imply. I mentioned what the words themselves didn't imply, since that's what we have to go on when we use RONR as a parliamentary authority.

Are you saying that p. 441, lines 5 - 8, do not imply that a candidate can withdraw?

No, I'm not saying that, though you may have accidentally inferred it.

I'm saying that there is a distinction between withdrawing from candidacy and invalidating another member's right to nominate. Furthermore, I'm saying that the referenced citation does not offer proof that a member's nomination can be withdrawn by another.

As a shabby example, if a motion dies for lack of a second, that fact has not prevented the member from making the motion. It would be wrong for such a situation to be characterized as, "Ms. Smith made a motion, but the rest of the assembly withdrew it."

When I hear that a nominee withdrew someone else's nomination, my mind quickly jumps to the fact that a nomination is, in effect, a proposal to fill the blank in an assumed motion (first sentence of Section 46), and I can't help but imagine the dangers of a member being able to unpropose another's proposal.

C'mon, imagine with me, Gary, a motion That _____ be censured. "No thanks, I decline."

"Oh, well, you can't decline a censure if it's adopted; it's not like an election."

"In that case, I'll withdraw the proposal of my name."

[Dan Honemann]

I'm saying that there is a distinction between withdrawing from candidacy and invalidating another member's right to nominate. Furthermore, I'm saying that the referenced citation does not offer proof that a member's nomination can be withdrawn by another.

As a shabby example, if a motion dies for lack of a second, that fact has not prevented the member from making the motion. It would be wrong for such a situation to be characterized as, "Ms. Smith made a motion, but the rest of the assembly withdrew it."

When I hear that a nominee withdrew someone else's nomination, my mind quickly jumps to the fact that a nomination is, in effect, a proposal to fill the blank in an assumed motion (first sentence of Section 46), and I can't help but imagine the dangers of a member being able to unpropose another's proposal.

C'mon, imagine with me, Gary, a motion That _____ be censured. "No thanks, I decline."

"Oh, well, you can't decline a censure if it's adopted; it's not like an election."

"In that case, I'll withdraw the proposal of my name."

There may be some point to all of this, but if there is I’m afraid it’s meaningless.

If a nominee voluntarily withdraws (as mentioned on p. 441, ll. 7-8), what happens is exactly the same regardless of whether he nominated himself or whether he was nominated by someone else (his name is removed from the list of nominees for succeeding ballots). As a consequence, there is no harm whatsoever in saying that a candidate may “withdraw his nomination”, instead of saying that he may “withdraw his name from nomination”, and it is pointless to insist upon drawing a distinction between the two.

But go right ahead if you must.

[Tim Wynn]

If Gary nominates this question for an RONR Official Interpretation, who will have the right to withdraw it? :-)

Nancy N.