When the Chair is interrogated...

[Louise]

At our upcoming AGM, I foresee the possiblity of our President being grilled about some things. I suspect he may become a bit emotional and/or defensive if this occurs.

Since the Chair of the meeting is supposed to be the eptiome of detached and calm (yes, I said "supposed to be" - I realize it doesn't always happen), what should occur if the President and his actions are the focus of numerous questions, and/or he loses his impartiality?

Should a temporary Chair be elected for that meeting, or that portion of the meeting, and at what point does that happen?

(And what section of RONR does one cite when doing so...assuming it can/should be done?)

[Gary c Tesser]

P. 451 - 455 help some, yes?

[George Mervosh]

Of course if you replace him as chair, what rule requires him to answer any questions? At least when he is in the chair he must answer legitimate requests for information. Being "grilled" might not even be in order, depending upon what you exactly mean by that word.

[Louise]

P. 451 - 455 help some, yes?

Perfect. Thank you.

Of course if you replace him as chair, what rule requires him to answer any questions? At least when he is in the chair he must answer legitimate requests for information. Being "grilled" might not even be in order, depending upon what you exactly mean by that word.

I suspect there may be some questions arising as to his competency in the office and his inability (or unwillingness?) to do tasks he has promised to do. Hopefully before the election takes place (which is usually the first item on the agenda...and I suspect our President will most definitely want the election over and done with, with his re-election in place, before anyone can ask any uncomfortable questions). Hmmm. I hadn't considered that he might not have to answer questions put to him if he's not chairing the meeting...

[Tim Wynn]

I hadn't considered that he might not have to answer questions put to him if he's not chairing the meeting...

Then you're probably not clear on which questions he would have to answer while he's in the chair.

[Louise]

Then you're probably not clear on which questions he would have to answer while he's in the chair.

Snort! Apparently not. Time to start reading again...

[Gary c Tesser]

a...and I suspect our President will most definitely want the election over and done with, with his re-election in place, before anyone can ask any uncomfortable questions). ..

Bear in mind that nominations are debatable. And that speeches in debate can include questions, though no one is obliged to answer them. So placing the election early, or even first, won't deprive the members of the opportunity to ask them before the voting starts.

[Louise]

Bear in mind that nominations are debatable. And that speeches in debate can include questions, though no one is obliged to answer them. So placing the election early, or even first, won't deprive the members of the opportunity to ask them before the voting starts.

Excellent point.

Are nominations brought forth by the nominating committee also debatable, I wonder? They must be, but truly, I don't recall ever having been at a meeting where nominations were actually debated before the vote was taken...whether the nominations were made from the floor or brought forth by the nominating committee.

[Gary c Tesser]

Excellent point.

Are nominations brought forth by the nominating committee also debatable, I wonder?

Thank you.

I don't think there's any rule making an exception of the nominees named by the NomCom [neat neologism, eh? I think it's Dr Stackpole's].

... I don't recall ever having been at a meeting where nominations were actually debated before the vote was taken...whether the nominations were made from the floor or brought forth by the nominating committee.

Me neither. Apparently it's not common, and a sorely neglected, powerful tool, which is partly why we should thank those who push this point, notably George Mervosh. I bet most organizations who shy away from debating nominations do so out of fear of disruption, rancor and/or hurt feelings (such as us Canads). One chairman at election meetings of the New York Science Fiction Society -- The Lunarians used to specifically prohibit debate that was not clearly a real question (he specifically took aim at questions like what p. 295, lines 20 - 23 describes) during what were characterised as Q & A sessions that preceded the elections. (Yes, I know.)

[Louise]

Thank you.

I don't think there's any rule making an exception of the nominees named by the NomCom [neat neologism, eh? I think it's Dr Stackpole's].

[Where is that "like" button?] "NomCom"...yep, has a certain ring to it, no question.

Me neither. Apparently it's not common, and a sorely neglected, powerful tool, which is partly why we should thank those who push this point, notably George Mervosh. I bet most organizations who shy away from debating nominations do so out of fear of disruption, rancor and/or hurt feelings (such as us Canads). One chairman at election meetings of the New York Science Fiction Society -- The Lunarians used to specifically prohibit debate that was not clearly a real question (he specifically took aim at questions like what p. 295, lines 20 - 23 describes) during what were characterised as Q & A sessions that preceded the elections. (Yes, I know.)

"Canads"? I'm not sure I like that one as much as NomCom (which, in turn, as I roll it around in my mind some more, brings to mind comic book festivals for some reason...)

How would one not-so-hypothetically go about...hang on...(just checking the FAQ before I ask this...okay, I do not see it there...all systems go...)...okay, back to the question:

How would one go about initiating debate on nominations since it never seems to be done? It doesn't seem proper to make a motion to debate it, since it's already debatable...but if the chair (and everyone else) is clueless that nominations can be debated (even if they rarely or never are), how would Joe or Jill Member bring it up, and what part of RONR would he/she reference?

Whoops. That was two questions, not one.

[Louise]

Okay, so I guess someone could raise a Point of Order with the chair, "reminding" him that nominations are debatable (and pointing him to the appropriate reference in RONR...like Table II on pp.18-19 of the Charts, Tables and Lists section). If that convinces the Chair, or ultimately the Assembly (both of which, I suspect, will remain unconvinced at least the first time this is brought forward), then this someone can then proceed to bring forth the reasons a specific person should not be nominated for a particular position...say, President.

Awkward.

I can see, though, that a debate following a nomination would be far more effective and useful when there are at least two names nominated for a position. Because debating a nomination would be especially awkward if there were no one else running for that position. Of course the assembly gets exactly what it deserves in that case.

[Tim Wynn]

then this someone can then proceed to bring forth the reasons a specific person should not be nominated for a particular position...say, President.

Make that "elected."

[Louise]

Make that "elected."

Ack! Quite so.

[George Mervosh]

Okay, so I guess someone could raise a Point of Order with the chair, "reminding" him that nominations are debatable (and pointing him to the appropriate reference in RONR...like Table II on pp.18-19 of the Charts, Tables and Lists section). If that convinces the Chair, or ultimately the Assembly (both of which, I suspect, will remain unconvinced at least the first time this is brought forward), then this someone can then proceed to bring forth the reasons a specific person should not be nominated for a particular position...say, President.

Awkward.

I can see, though, that a debate following a nomination would be far more effective and useful when there are at least two names nominated for a position. Because debating a nomination would be especially awkward if there were no one else running for that position. Of course the assembly gets exactly what it deserves in that case.

In addition Louise, See RONR (11th ed.), p. 430, ll. 4-6, and p. 164, ll. 24-25 The wording in the latter citation is modified slightly from the 10th edition, p. 156.

As long as proper decorum is used, that "awkward" debate can reflect on the lack of qualifications or experience, or poor past performance of a nominee. Just don't get personal, don't use names, or "you". Third person talk - "this candidate", or something like that would be better.

Most assemblies spend more time in debate planning a social event than who will lead their organization for the next year or two.

[Tim Wynn]

In addition Louise, See RONR (11th ed.), p. 430, ll. 4-6, and p. 164, ll. 24-25 The wording in the latter citation is modified slightly from the 10th edition, p. 156.

As long as proper decorum is used . . .

Sounds like all the necessary ingredients for . . . Smoother Meetings.

[Guest Edgar]

Sounds like all the necessary ingredients for . . . Smoother Meetings.

Hey! I never would have noticed. Congratulations, Mr. M.

(And it goes to show that just when you think all the good domain names have been taken, someone clever thinks of a new one.)

[Tim Wynn]

(And it goes to show that just when you think all the good domain names have been taken, someone clever thinks of a new one.)

. . . and takes it.

[Gary c Tesser]

Great Steaming Cobnuts. And I have to read about it on the Internet. I bet I don't get an invitation to the wedding, either.

[Gary c Tesser]

How would one go about initiating debate on nominations since it never seems to be done? It doesn't seem proper to make a motion to debate it, since it's already debatable...but if the chair (and everyone else) is clueless that nominations can be debated (even if they rarely or never are), how would Joe or Jill Member bring it up, and what part of RONR would he/she reference?...

I'd say start with giving the heads-up to the presiding officer, and then as many as the probably attending members as you can collar.

[Louise]

In addition Louise, See RONR (11th ed.), p. 430, ll. 4-6, and p. 164, ll. 24-25 The wording in the latter citation is modified slightly from the 10th edition, p. 156.

Perfect. Thank you. I'm not sure I'll be able to convince them that the reference on page 164 refers to nominations, but I will do my best.

As long as proper decorum is used, that "awkward" debate can reflect on the lack of qualifications or experience, or poor past performance of a nominee. Just don't get personal, don't use names, or "you". Third person talk - "this candidate", or something like that would be better.

Thank you. Again, I'll do my best. Being a polite, peace-keeping Canadian and all, I'm naturally averse to confrontation. Unfortunately (or perhaps not), I'm even more averse to needed confrontation being avoided. Ack. I wish more people shared this latter aversion; sometimes I feel like I'm the only one stirring the pot. But who knows? Perhaps others will be emboldened to say something as well.

Most assemblies spend more time in debate planning a social event than who will lead their organization for the next year or two.

Now there's a money quote if ever I saw one. May I use that if I attribute it to you?

Great Steaming Cobnuts. And I have to read about it on the Internet. I bet I don't get an invitation to the wedding, either.

Well, if it's on the internet, you know it's true. Especially if George wrote it. I didn't see anything about the wedding, though. I guess I'm not invited either...

I'd say start with giving the heads-up to the presiding officer, and then as many as the probably attending members as you can collar.

Oh, I'm sure the presiding officer will be utterly thrilled at the prospect of being publicy critiqued just prior to the election, snort! But yes, you're right, I need to do my best to educate as many members as possible on our parliamentary authority...even in advance of the next meeting. Thanks again.

[Guest George Mervosh]

Louise keep reading after the cited lines on p. 164. The first couple of sentences in the next subsection should add some clarity.

Ct1 Tesser.

[Louise]

Louise keep reading after the cited lines on p. 164. The first couple of sentences in the next subsection should add some clarity.

Ct1 Tesser.

Thanks, George. That will (hopefully) help.

[Gary Novosielski]

As for how to start debate, I would think you could just get recognized and start speaking. I.e. the regular way.

[George Mervosh]

As for how to start debate, I would think you could just get recognized and start speaking. I.e. the regular way.

Right. I think each nomination becomes debatable immediately after it's made. Then onto the next, etc.

[Louise]

As for how to start debate, I would think you could just get recognized and start speaking. I.e. the regular way.

Right. I think each nomination becomes debatable immediately after it's made. Then onto the next, etc.

So in the case of the list of candidates brought forward by the "NomCom", the time for debate would be immediately following the committee's presentation of its list but before the chair calls for further nominations from the floor, yes? (...she asked hopefully...)