Picking a slate before nominating committee meeting

[TNB5555]

I am the president of a small board. Per our bylaws, I appointed a nominating committee to nominate officers for 2013. The committee consists of three board members, and one member agreed to serve as chair of the committee.

Before calling a meeting of the committee, the chair spoke with possible nominees and had a slate already in mind, which he then presented to the committee at its meeting. One committee member was very unhappy with this and complained to me.

Are there any rules about identifying and contacting potential nominees before a nominating committee meeting? Was it OK for the chair to do so, and then present a slate for consideration to the committee members?

(I am stepping down at the end of my term, December 31 2012, so I am not running in this election.)

[Guest Edgar]

Are there any rules about identifying and contacting potential nominees before a nominating committee meeting? Was it OK for the chair to do so, and then present a slate for consideration to the committee members?

As far as RONR is concerned, the chair did nothing wrong (and, of course, the other committee members are free to reject his suggestions).

Though you might want to avoid the use of the word "slate".

[TNB5555]

Edgar, thanks for your quick reply. Is there a section you could point me to in RandR so I can show it to the unhappy committee member? (I tried searching this site and several others before posting my question.) Thanks in advance.

[Chris Harrison]

Let's just say that there is nothing in RONR that would support his claim that the Committee Chair did something wrong (if he claims there is have him show it to you). If he has an issue with who the Chair suggested he could have and should have made his own suggestions for the Committee's consideration.

[George Mervosh]

Edgar, thanks for your quick reply. Is there a section you could point me to in RandR so I can show it to the unhappy committee member? (I tried searching this site and several others before posting my question.) Thanks in advance.

I doubt the Fab 5 changed it in the 11th edition (which I don't have at my office now) but the 10th edition stated "It is desirable policy for the nominating committee, before making its report, to contact each person whom it wishes to nominate, in order to obtain his acceptance of nomination - that is, his assurance that he will serve in the specified office if elected. The bylaws can make such a practice mandatory." RONR 10th Ed, p. 419-420 (one of my good friends here will update you with the 11th ed page numbers). Your chair may have jumped the gun but it's perfectly fine.

P.S. If the 11th Edition ever comes out in CD format, I'll always have it here at the office...hint hint.........

P.S.S. Oh and please don't use RandR....it hurts to read it.

[David A Foulkes]

I doubt the Fab 5 changed it in the 11th edition (which I don't have at my office now) but the 10th edition stated "It is desirable policy for the nominating committee, before making its report, to contact each person whom it wishes to nominate, in order to obtain his acceptance of nomination - that is, his assurance that he will serve in the specified office if elected. The bylaws can make such a practice mandatory." RONR 10th Ed, p. 419-420 (one of my good friends here will update you with the 11th ed page numbers).

RONR 11th Ed., p. 434 ll. 1-7 (unchanged from 10th Ed.)

[Guest Edgar]

P.S.S. Oh and please don't use RandR....it hurts to read it.

Maybe even more than it hurts to read "P.S.S."

[George Mervosh]

Maybe even more than it hurts to read "P.S.S."

I have to do something to catch your attention, Mr. Mt..

[Gary Novosielski]

Maybe even more than it hurts to read "P.S.S."

Yeah, P.S.S. would look something like this:

Unless otherwise indicated, citations refer to the current edition of RONR as of the date of posting. The rules in your bylaws supersede those in RONR.

--

=GPN

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." -Margaret Mead

Unless otherwise indicated, citations refer to the current edition of RONR as of the date of posting. The rules in your bylaws supersede those in RONR.

--

=GPN

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." -Margaret Mead

[TNB5555]

Thank you all for your replies. Sorry about "RandR"! I think that came out phonetically. Also I looked up "slate" per RONR and realize I was using it incorrectly here. I'm a copyeditor, so I am also a stickler for correct usage. Forgive a newbie!

Our board is somewhat informal, and we usually don't have to invoke the rules, but when there's a disagreement, I like to go to an impartial source. This has helped clear up what was becoming a thorny matter.

[Sean Hunt]

Personally, I would say that it's good initiative on the part of the chair, as long as everyone bears in mind that the chair does not decide who the committee finally wants to recommend, and that that decision can be made only by a majority of the committee.

[g40]

I am the president of a small board. Per our bylaws, I appointed a nominating committee to nominate officers for 2013. The committee consists of three board members, and one member agreed to serve as chair of the committee.

Before calling a meeting of the committee, the chair spoke with possible nominees and had a slate already in mind, which he then presented to the committee at its meeting. One committee member was very unhappy with this and complained to me.

Are there any rules about identifying and contacting potential nominees before a nominating committee meeting? Was it OK for the chair to do so, and then present a slate for consideration to the committee members?

(I am stepping down at the end of my term, December 31 2012, so I am not running in this election.)

I would call this either a misunderstanding or miscommunication type issue. it sounds like the complaining committee member wanted/expected that the committee would meet first -- then decide on how to proceed. Did the Chair of the committee insist on making a decision at that meeting? What the complaining member, IMO, should have done is insist that the committee remain open to all committee members being given the opportunity to discuss possible nominees, contact such potential nominees, etc. Did the complaining member vote to approve the proposed nominees?