Question regarding reopening of nominations for an election

[Rez90]

In my organizaion that follows Roberts Rules our president opened the nominations and after obtaining 3 names closed the nominations. This was in October.

He then stated that we will vote at our next meeting which is approx 6 months later.

At the later meeting he re-opened nominations and said "Because we didn't take an immediate vote" that he was able to do so under "Robert's Rules" without a vote from the committee to do so.

Is this correct procedure?

Thanks

[Guest Edgar]

Is this correct procedure?

Not quite.

The first time around the nominations shouldn't have been closed until everyone who wanted to make a nomination had done so. Perhaps this is what happened. But if the president thought that three was "enough" and closed nominations prematurely, he was out of order (not that it matters now).

At the next meeting, the assembly (but not the president on his own) could have re-opened nominations. A majority vote will do it.

In short, the president is acting beyond his authority but the assembly seems unwilling to object so one might argue (I'm not) that he is doing so "without objection". Still, it's not quite kosher. See pp.288-289 for how to do it properly.

I have to say that, with six months elapsing between nominations and voting, re-opening nominations at the election meeting makes a lot of sense since desirable candidates could certainly have emerged in that length of time. Not to mention a whole host of new members who might want to nominate one of their own.

And don't forget that, at least as far as RONR is concerned, members are free to vote for anyone, nominated or not.

[Tim Wynn]

But if the president thought that three was "enough" and closed nominations prematurely, he was out of order . . .

That's a little harsh.

[Josh Martin]

But if the president thought that three was "enough" and closed nominations prematurely, he was out of order (not that it matters now).

That's a little harsh.

I concur. The President's actions would be out of order in this case, but not the President himself.

[Guest Edgar]

The President's actions would be out of order in this case, but not the President himself.

Then I was imprecise but not, I think, too harsh.