Nominating Commitee - Slate

[Guest D Durham]

Hello,

Re: Small organization w/ nominating committee presenting a slate to membership

A qualified member was presented to the committee for consideration. No other candidate come forward for the office. Four members of the six member committee agreed on this candidate. The chair said another candidate must be found and did not explain the purpose was to present a slate to the membership with only one person per office. With this information another candidate was solicited. Then the committee was informed they would have to choose. If the definition of a slate had been explained, the committee would not have gone out to solicit another canidate. Should the Chair have asked for a vote on the candidate that came forward before the committee solicited another? Was this improper? If, so, please, explain and list an reference to the Robert Rules, please.

Thank you so very much!

[Guest Edgar]

Firstly, the use of the word "slate" should be avoided. The nominating committee selects individual candidates (usually, but not always, one for each open office) and, at the election, those candidates are voted on individually (not as a "slate").

Secondly, the committee is free to nominate whomever it chooses. It doesn't have to accept anyone who "comes forward". But that's a decision the committee, as a whole, makes. The chair has no more authority than any other member.

[Guest D Durham]

Thank you so very much!

If the Chair had advised the committee that in our bylaws it states only one person can be on the slate per office then the qualified person would have been approved then (no question on that point) and no other would have been solicited. Instead the Chair said they needed to get another to have two on the slate, clearly a violation of our bylaws. What should happen?

[Guest Edgar]

. . . clearly a violation of our bylaws. What should happen?

When the nominating committee makes its report (to the general membership) you could raise a point of order to the effect that the bylaws limit its selections to one candidate per office. The chair (of the general membership meeting, not of the nominating committee) will rule on the point of order (and his ruling can be appealed). One solution might be to drop the second candidate since, after the first was selected, there was no more "room".

And, in any event, this second candidate can be nominated "from the floor" so failing to be nominated by the committee isn't such a big deal.

And if the election has come and gone then none of this is serious enough to warrant a second look.

[Guest D Durham]

Thank you so very much! I was looking for a violation that the chair didn't direct the nominating committee properly since the majority would have, if given the opportunity, voted not to seek another candidate.

[Trina]

Hello,

Re: Small organization w/ nominating committee presenting a slate to membership

A qualified member was presented to the committee for consideration. No other candidate come forward for the office. Four members of the six member committee agreed on this candidate. The chair said another candidate must be found and did not explain the purpose was to present a slate to the membership with only one person per office. With this information another candidate was solicited. Then the committee was informed they would have to choose. If the definition of a slate had been explained, the committee would not have gone out to solicit another canidate. Should the Chair have asked for a vote on the candidate that came forward before the committee solicited another? Was this improper? If, so, please, explain and list an reference to the Robert Rules, please.

Thank you so very much!

So, in the end the committee did select just one nominee for the position? It sounds as though the chair persuaded the committee members to waste their time searching for a second candidate, and the committee members, for whatever reasons, believed what the chair told them and went forth to cooperate in the time-wasting activity. The chair is only one member, and doesn't have the right to dictate an action that the majority of the committee members oppose. However, if the members let the chair get away with it, they have basically consented.

If the Chair had advised the committee that in our bylaws it states only one person can be on the slate per office then the qualified person would have been approved then (no question on that point) and no other would have been solicited. Instead the Chair said they needed to get another to have two on the slate, clearly a violation of our bylaws. What should happen?

Yes, it's undesirable for the chair to lie (or even to be honestly mistaken) about the bylaws. Presumably the other committee members should have been familiar with the bylaws also, and should have recognized the error. If I understand post #1 correctly, the committee didn't actually try to place two names on the slate, in violation of the bylaws.

I was looking for a violation that the chair didn't direct the nominating committee properly since the majority would have, if given the opportunity, voted not to seek another candidate.

The chair doesn't seem to have acted very competently (perhaps there was even an element of dishonesty). However, what does it matter now? The nominating committee ceases to exist after making its report, so you can't throw him out of his position (it no longer exists). I suppose he could be reprimanded, if the members of the organization feel that's worth the effort. What kind of recourse were you hoping for?

[Gary Novosielski]

Thank you so very much! I was looking for a violation that the chair didn't direct the nominating committee properly since the majority would have, if given the opportunity, voted not to seek another candidate.

Are we talking about the chair of the nominating committee, or the presiding officer of the society? If the latter, he should have nothing to do with the workings of the nominating committee.