When the Chair is interrogated...

[George Mervosh]

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...)

Almost. I think when the chair goes back over the report one office at a time and states "For the office of President, Louise has been nominated" but before he calls for further nominations for that office, Louise's nomination can be debated, then onto any floor nominees, one at a time, if any.

Repeat for each office.

[Louise]

Almost. I think when the chair goes back over the report one office at a time and states "For the office of President, Louise has been nominated" but before he calls for further nominations for that office, Louise's nomination can be debated, then onto any floor nominees, one at a time, if any.

Repeat for each office.

Gotcha.

Thank you for all of your help. I'm glad I have several weeks to gear up for this.

[George Mervosh]

I'm glad I have several weeks to gear up for this.

Proof positive that nominations aren't debated often enough

[Guest Edgar]

I think when the chair goes back over the report one office at a time and states "For the office of President, Louise has been nominated" but before he calls for further nominations for that office, Louise's nomination can be debated, then onto any floor nominees, one at a time, if any.

I'm not saying that's not how RONR says it's done (or not) but it strikes me as a bit odd (and cumbersome). What if, for example, the nominating committee has selected two candidates for the office of president? Do you debate the merits of each one individually? Without any acknowledgement of what the alternatives are? If A, B, and C are nominated for president, the relative merits of A might very well be different than if A, D, and E are nominated. Or is debate limited to why A should or shouldn't be president, regardless of what the alternatives might be?

[George Mervosh]

I'm not saying that's not how RONR says it's done (or not) but it strikes me as a bit odd (and cumbersome). What if, for example, the nominating committee has selected two candidates for the office of president? Do you debate the merits of each one individually? Without any acknowledgment of what the alternatives are? If A, B, and C are nominated for president, the relative merits of A might very well be different than if A, D, and E are nominated. Or is debate limited to why A should or shouldn't be president, regardless of what the alternatives might be?

Conversely, in a society which is not in the habit of having {hotly} contested elections, listing A's or A & B's inefficiencies within the bounds of decorum, might bring about additional nominations where none would normally be forthcoming.

An interesting issue, especially in a practical sense.

[David A Foulkes]

Do you debate the merits of each one individually?

Did this question get answered? I'm still not sure.

[Guest George Mervosh]

I think the answer is yes, under RONR

[Sean Hunt]

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

Where does RONR suggest that each candidate for an election should be debated individually?

[George Mervosh]

I think the passage on p.164 (I'm at home without my book) that says that each proposal to fill a blank is an independent original to be voted on until one is approved by a majority. I'm suggesting that debate would follow a similar path. If I'm wrong I hope Dan or SG clear it up for me as well as everyone else.

[David A Foulkes]

I think the passage on p.164 (I'm at home without my book) that says that each proposal to fill a blank is an independent original to be voted on until one is approved by a majority. I'm suggesting that debate would follow a similar path. If I'm wrong I hope Dan or SG clear it up for me as well as everyone else.

That comes darn close enough for me, pending further clarification. Thanks!

[Louise]

I think the passage on p.164 (I'm at home without my book) that says that each proposal to fill a blank is an independent original to be voted on until one is approved by a majority. I'm suggesting that debate would follow a similar path. If I'm wrong I hope Dan or SG clear it up for me as well as everyone else.

How does this work if our bylaws indicate that "directors must be elected by majority ballot vote or by acclamation"? In past elections, on the rare occasion there have been two candidates, both have been on the ballot that is distributed. I'm trying to envision how debate on each individual candidate would occur in turn in this situation; it seems to me that the merits (or - cough - lack thereof) of both/all candidates would have to be debated at the same time.

Either that, or our bylaws need to be changed...

[George Mervosh]

That comes darn close enough for me, pending further clarification. Thanks!

I think some additional evidence can be found in Parliamentary Law, p. 206. The General makes a timeless observation that nominations are seldom debated, but goes on to note that occasionally the member making the nomination will offer a nominating speech, and sometimes the seconder of the nomination will do so as well, which indicates to me that the time for such a debate is when the nomination is made.

[Sean Hunt]

I think some additional evidence can be found in Parliamentary Law, p. 206. The General makes a timeless observation that nominations are seldom debated, but goes on to note that occasionally the member making the nomination will offer a nominating speech, and sometimes the seconder of the nomination will do so as well, which indicates to me that the time for such a debate is when the nomination is made.

Moving this over to Advanced Discussion.

[Louise]

I need to issue a HUGE thank you to all of you for your assistance on this issue.

Of course, RONR-loser that I am, I didn't think to re-visit this thread until today. I now see that I basically ignored the proper procedure (debating each name as it is brought forward, rather than debating both of them - individually, but consecutively - right before the election took place). Ah well. There's always next time.

As it turns out, there were concerns about the other nominee for president (woo hoo - we actually HAD another nominee for president), and so after nominations were closed, I asked the president (who was presiding at the meeting) if the assembly could discuss those concerns (namely, that the "challenger" is the spouse of the organization's employee). The president agreed that would be a good idea.

I proceeded to ask some questions like, "Does the nominee understand the need to remove himself from meetings when the organization's employee is being discussed?" etc. etc.

When that discussion was done, and before we moved to the vote, I sought the floor again, and stated that I also had a question for the other nominee for president (the incumbent and presiding officer). I guess he felt he had no choice but to let me ask.

I then asked him if he had considered carefully whether or not he had the time to devote to this position, since so many of his duties had not been getting done. He answered that he had in fact considered that, and that he hoped to have more time to attend to things now. Maybe.

I am beyond pleased (and relieved) to report that we have a new president. And I have RONR - and all of you - to thank for that. The debating of nominations is indeed a powerful tool. I have had a number of people thank me for saying what so many of them were thinking.

Whew. Glad that meeting is done and our trajectory is looking a bit more hopeful and positive.

Again, thank you, thank you, THANK you!

[Josh Martin]

Of course, RONR-loser that I am, I didn't think to re-visit this thread until today. I now see that I basically ignored the proper procedure (debating each name as it is brought forward, rather than debating both of them - individually, but consecutively - right before the election took place). Ah well. There's always next time.

I wouldn't beat yourself up over it too much. Even the members of this forum (myself included) were and are a bit foggy on that subject. Based on a thread in the Advanced Discussion forum that was sparked by your question, it seems that it is in order to debate each nomination after it is made and to debate the nominations after nominations are closed. So you were closer to the mark than you thought.

I proceeded to ask some questions like, "Does the nominee understand the need to remove himself from meetings when the organization's employee is being discussed?" etc. etc.

This is not correct unless your rules so provide. Under RONR, the member should probably abstain from voting in such a case (although he cannot be compelled to abstain), but nothing suggests that he should (let alone must) leave the room.

[Louise]

I wouldn't beat yourself up over it too much. Even the members of this forum (myself included) were and are a bit foggy on that subject. Based on a thread in the Advanced Discussion forum that was sparked by your question, it seems that it is in order to debate each nomination after it is made and to debate the nominations after nominations are closed. So you were closer to the mark than you thought.

Good to hear, and to know. Thank you.

This is not correct unless your rules so provide. Under RONR, the member should probably abstain from voting in such a case (although he cannot be compelled to abstain), but nothing suggests that he should (let alone must) leave the room.

I don't believe we have anything in our rules that dictate this. I believe it's just what members "understand" to be the case. Of course, they didn't think the President should be presiding over the elections either, so...

Does this mean our new president is free to take part in such discussions as well, even though he can't vote?

[Josh Martin]

Does this mean our new president is free to take part in such discussions as well, even though he can't vote?

I think there's two separate issues involved here (the member's personal interest in a motion and the fact that the member is the chair), so let's tackle them one at a time.

RONR provides that a member should not vote on a motion if he has a personal or pecuniary interest not in common with other members, but such a member cannot be compelled to abstain. RONR is silent on a member speaking or remaining present during consideration of such a motion, so a member certainly maintains those rights, and RONR doesn't suggest that he refrain from excersing them.

RONR provides that the chair should not speak in debate or make motions and should not vote except when his vote would affect the result or when the vote is taken by ballot. If the chair wishes to speak in debate, he should relinquish the chair until the motion is disposed of. A member should also relinquish the chair if he has a personal or pecuniary interest not in common with other members. Nonetheless, the chair still has all the rights of a member, so he cannot be prevented from voting or speaking in debate if he insists on doing so.

Additionally, it is worth noting that in committees and small boards (about 12 members or fewer), it is generally appropriate for the chair to speak in debate, make motions, and vote the same as any other member.

So to sum up - it's not accurate to say the president can't vote on such a motion, but he shouldn't (for more than one reason). Additionally, he should relinquish the chair until the motion is disposed of - at which point, there's no reason he shouldn't speak in debate.

[Louise]

I think there's two separate issues involved here (the member's personal interest in a motion and the fact that the member is the chair), so let's tackle them one at a time.

RONR provides that a member should not vote on a motion if he has a personal or pecuniary interest not in common with other members, but such a member cannot be compelled to abstain. RONR is silent on a member speaking or remaining present during consideration of such a motion, so a member certainly maintains those rights, and RONR doesn't suggest that he refrain from excersing them.

RONR provides that the chair should not speak in debate or make motions and should not vote except when his vote would affect the result or when the vote is taken by ballot. If the chair wishes to speak in debate, he should relinquish the chair until the motion is disposed of. A member should also relinquish the chair if he has a personal or pecuniary interest not in common with other members. Nonetheless, the chair still has all the rights of a member, so he cannot be prevented from voting or speaking in debate if he insists on doing so.

Additionally, it is worth noting that in committees and small boards (about 12 members or fewer), it is generally appropriate for the chair to speak in debate, make motions, and vote the same as any other member.

So to sum up - it's not accurate to say the president can't vote on such a motion, but he shouldn't (for more than one reason). Additionally, he should relinquish the chair until the motion is disposed of - at which point, there's no reason he shouldn't speak in debate.

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

So with regard to his being chair, in one sense that is perhaps an advantage since he is supposed to remain impartial, not speak in debate, or make motions. However, if a motion is made regarding the employee and the resulting vote is a tie, what happens then? How does the chair break the tie if he's married to the employee, without looking biased? Would one solution be to have the vice-chair also not vote on such questions so that her vote can break a potential tie? Or does that muddy the waters too much?

Having asked that, though, I strongly suspect that the board, the larger membership, and even the president himself are going to want to go beyond "shouldn't" speak (or be present) to "can't" speak (or be present). Does this mean we should adopt a special rule stating such, or are there potential negative ramifications if we do so? (Because it is becoming increasingly clear to me that RONR has the rules it does and not others - like the one we'd possibly like to adopt in this situation - for good reason.)

[Josh Martin]

However, if a motion is made regarding the employee and the resulting vote is a tie, what happens then? How does the chair break the tie if he's married to the employee, without looking biased? Would one solution be to have the vice-chair also not vote on such questions so that her vote can break a potential tie? Or does that muddy the waters too much?

Well, as I noted, if the chair has a personal or pecuniary interest in a motion, he should relinquish the chair until the motion is disposed of. So the vice chair would take over, and since he is currently in the chair, he would follow the usual rules for maintaining the appearance of impartiality while presiding.

In any event, if a vote is tied the motion is lost. There is not a need to break a tie. The chair would only vote if he intended to vote in the affirmative, causing the motion to be adopted. If he wants the motion to be defeated he should do nothing. Conversely, it is appropriate for the chair to vote in the negative if the affirmative is currently winning by one vote, making it a tie and causing the motion to fail.

Having asked that, though, I strongly suspect that the board, the larger membership, and even the president himself are going to want to go beyond "shouldn't" speak (or be present) to "can't" speak (or be present). Does this mean we should adopt a special rule stating such, or are there potential negative ramifications if we do so? (Because it is becoming increasingly clear to me that RONR has the rules it does and not others - like the one we'd possibly like to adopt in this situation - for good reason.)

A special rule would not be sufficient. A rule providing that members cannot vote, speak, make motions, or be present in certain circumstances would need to be in the bylaws.

It will be up to the organization to determine whether it should adopt such a rule. As for potential ramifications, consider what happens when it is unclear whether the rule applies. Leaving it to the assembly to decide whether a member can vote in the circumstances could get messy and heated.

Note that under RONR it is certainly appropriate to discipline a member who habitually disregards the "personal or pecuniary interest" rule, so you might wish to consider that before developing elaborate "conflict of interest" rules.

[Louise]

Well, as I noted, if the chair has a personal or pecuniary interest in a motion, he should relinquish the chair until the motion is disposed of. So the vice chair would take over, and since he is currently in the chair, he would follow the usual rules for maintaining the appearance of impartiality while presiding.

Ah. Right. Someday this will sink in, truly.

In any event, if a vote is tied the motion is lost. There is not a need to break a tie. The chair would only vote if he intended to vote in the affirmative, causing the motion to be adopted. If he wants the motion to be defeated he should do nothing. Conversely, it is appropriate for the chair to vote in the negative if the affirmative is currently winning by one vote, making it a tie and causing the motion to fail.

Again, I will remember this eventually. I will. I will.

A special rule would not be sufficient. A rule providing that members cannot vote, speak, make motions, or be present in certain circumstances would need to be in the bylaws.

It will be up to the organization to determine whether it should adopt such a rule. As for potential ramifications, consider what happens when it is unclear whether the rule applies. Leaving it to the assembly to decide whether a member can vote in the circumstances could get messy and heated.

Note that under RONR it is certainly appropriate to discipline a member who habitually disregards the "personal or pecuniary interest" rule, so you might wish to consider that before developing elaborate "conflict of interest" rules.

This is all good to know. Thank you (yet again).