Questions about Nominating Committees

[JayW]

A couple of questions about Nominating Committees and ballots.

1. Our club votes for Board members (among other things) by mail, as allowed in our Bylaws. If the Nominating Committee submits its nominees to the members one month prior to the deadline for members to submit their own nominees ("from the floor", as it were), is it appropriate (allowed, proper) for the ballot, which goes out about a month after nominations close, to indicate which nominees were selected by the Committee? (Attached to the ballot is a brief "biography" of each candidate, which also indicates by whom they were nominated.) Does having an asterisk next to a nominee's name (which is how the Committee selections are noted) somehow provide a bias toward that candidate?

2. We also vote on judges for our annual event. In the past a candidate was nominated by two members and if they accepted, they were put on the ballot. (We typically have around 10-12 nominees, of which two are chosen.) The Board recently decided to change this process, and create a "Selection Committee" of five to whom all the members' nominations would go, and the Committee will narrow down the nominations to three; only those three would go on the ballot (again with two being chosen). Our Bylaws are silent on the selection of judges (but do allow the President and Board to create committees). If this were a Nominating Committee for the Board elections, I'd think that the process would not be allowed since nominations from the floor must be accepted unless the bylaws state otherwise. Since this is not about Board positions, however, and not technically a "Nominating" Committee, I'm not sure the same Rules apply. It would seem to me that this process will infringe on the rights of members to have their candidates voted on by the membership, but maybe in a non-election situation that's not exactly a right of the members....

As usual, any insight would be appreciated!

[jstackpo]

1) Indications or asterisks allowed? No. A nominee is a nominee and all should have equal treatment.

2) If the Board has the authority to change your (apparent) customs, then change can happen. You will have to look closely at your bylaws. The general rule is that Boards (and officers) have only those powers spelled out in the bylaws.

[Josh Martin]

1) Indications or asterisks allowed? No. A nominee is a nominee and all should have equal treatment.

Based on the principles of fairness and common sense, this seems self-evident, but would RONR actually prohibit this?

2) If the Board has the authority to change your (apparent) customs, then change can happen. You will have to look closely at your bylaws. The general rule is that Boards (and officers) have only those powers spelled out in the bylaws.

I concur, and it's also worth noting that write-in votes are permitted unless the Bylaws provide otherwise.

[George Mervosh]

Based on the principles of fairness and common sense, this seems self-evident, but would RONR actually prohibit this?

Certainly not since a member can still vote for any candidate he chooses. The packet already states who nominated who, so a pattern of knowing who endorsed each candidate exists anyway.

[JayW]

Thanks all, as always!

Certainly not since a member can still vote for any candidate he chooses. The packet already states who nominated who, so a pattern of knowing who endorsed each candidate exists anyway.

Yes, for those who bother to look at the bios. I believe that most of our members are rather apathetic and simply vote for whomever has an asterisk by their name, which invariably keeps the status quo of a Board who is not especially interested in what the members want. I was hoping for a nice, easy, "You can't do that" but should have known better. The burden lies on us, then, to shake more members out of their apathy and get them to vote the self-serving Board members out of office.

2) If the Board has the authority to change your (apparent) customs, then change can happen. You will have to look closely at your bylaws. The general rule is that Boards (and officers) have only those powers spelled out in the bylaws.

It may be a Standing Rule rather than a custom, I have no idea since the Standing Rules aren't written down anywhere. Regardless, the Board would have voted to create the Standing Rule so would vote to change it if they wanted to. Our bylaws say that "The government and management of the Club shall be vested in the Board of Directors", which has been interpreted to mean the Board can do anything that the Bylaws do not specifically 'assign' to the members. Since the Bylaws are silent on selection of judges, it seems then that the Board can enact this pre-screening of candidates without violating anything in RONR. (Am I right in thinking that if it were an election of officers/board members, presenting only the pre-screened candidates would not be allowed?)

it's also worth noting that write-in votes are permitted unless the Bylaws provide otherwise.

I had thought of write-ins after I sent this, so thanks for confirming that it's a viable option.

[Guest Edgar]

Our bylaws say that "The government and management of the Club shall be vested in the Board of Directors", which has been interpreted to mean the Board can do anything that the Bylaws do not specifically 'assign' to the members.

Not without recourse. See Official Interpretation 2006-13.

[Dan Honemann]

Our bylaws say that "The government and management of the Club shall be vested in the Board of Directors", which has been interpreted to mean the Board can do anything that the Bylaws do not specifically 'assign' to the members.

Not without recourse. See Official Interpretation 2006-13.

On the face of it, it would appear that JayW has this right and that Official Interpretation 2006-13 is inapplicable.

[Guest Edgar]

On the face of it, it would appear that JayW has this right and that Official Interpretation 2006-13 is inapplicable.

Could the general membership have pre-emptively said "no asterisks!" (or otherwise defined the format of the ballot)? Is it only too late now because the board has acted on the issue?

[Josh Martin]

Regardless, the Board would have voted to create the Standing Rule so would vote to change it if they wanted to. Our bylaws say that "The government and management of the Club shall be vested in the Board of Directors", which has been interpreted to mean the Board can do anything that the Bylaws do not specifically 'assign' to the members. Since the Bylaws are silent on selection of judges, it seems then that the Board can enact this pre-screening of candidates without violating anything in RONR.

It will ultimately be up to the organization to interpret its Bylaws. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591. Based on the facts presented, however, I believe the board does have the authority to adopt and amend the rule in question.

(Am I right in thinking that if it were an election of officers/board members, presenting only the pre-screened candidates would not be allowed?)

I think it depends on what the Bylaws say about the nominations and election process for officers and board members. Certainly the board cannot adopt a rule which conflicts with the Bylaws.

[sMargaret]

It may be a Standing Rule rather than a custom, I have no idea since the Standing Rules aren't written down anywhere.

Perhaps this is just because I haven't had my morning coffee yet - but what would be the difference between a standing rule that isn't written down anywhere, and a custom?

[David A Foulkes]

...the Standing Rules aren't written down anywhere.

Check the minutes. If they aren't at least written down there, then they probably aren't Standing Rules.

[Josh Martin]

Perhaps this is just because I haven't had my morning coffee yet - but what would be the difference between a standing rule that isn't written down anywhere, and a custom?

I don't think there would be one, if the rule truly isn't written anywhere. It's possible, however, that the society's standing rules are simply not collected in a single document. If there is a standing rule on the subject then it should, at the very least, be written in the minutes of the meeting the rule was adopted at.

[Guest Nancy N.]

1) Indications or asterisks allowed? No. A nominee is a nominee and all should have equal treatment..

John, I'm toying with changing my mind about this. (Abandoning your standard, twice in a dozen years. What a flip-flopper. Sorry also, Josh and Edgar and whoever else.) In principle, there should be no difference between the way nominations are handled in a meeting context (O, I have finally written that phrase! frissons!) and in extracameral (proud, JJ?) transaction of business -- and clearly, at a meeting, the NomCom's candidates are given preferential treatment: clearly and, I say, rightly so.

1 ( b ). And why not? That's what the organization went to the trouble of appointing a nominating committee for, and what they went to the trouble of sifting the candidates for candidacy (is that phrase exponential candidacy, or Goldsworthyan "cascading," or just creepily incestuous?) for.

Jay W (post 5):

Yes, for those who bother to look at the bios. I believe that most of our members are rather apathetic and simply vote for whomever has an asterisk by their name, which invariably ...

Jay W. If you really think so, stop using asterisks for those nominees. Put 'em in boldface or italics, with a note on the bottom saying so; or a plain statement at the bottom, or the top, saying straight out who the nominating committee's choices are. If that's too biased, write it in pig Latin, make 'em work for their laziness.

C.T. 2

[Guest JayW]

It's possible, however, that the society's standing rules are simply not collected in a single document.

Yes, I should have been more clear; it may be something that was at one time adopted by the members or the Board, and would be in the minutes somewhere, but our Standing Rules are not, so far as I have been able to find out, documented as such anywhere except in the minutes of the meeting at which they were adopted (and/or amended).

Jay W. If you really think so, stop using asterisks for those nominees. Put 'em in boldface or italics, with a note on the bottom saying so; or a plain statement at the bottom, or the top, saying straight out who the nominating committee's choices are.

The asterisked folk are the NomCom's choices. I would prefer that all nominees be presented equally, so that people at least look at the names rather than just say "I'll pick whomever the NomCom picked", but again, if it's not a procedural problem to have the preferential designation on the ballot then we'll just have to work at creating a more engaged membership.

[Guest Edgar]

I would prefer that all nominees be presented equally, so that people at least look at the names rather than just say "I'll pick whomever the NomCom picked", but again, if it's not a procedural problem to have the preferential designation on the ballot then we'll just have to work at creating a more engaged membership.

I've frequently advocated a neutral ballot on this forum but, if that's not what the assembly wants, there may be some small consolation in the fact that the imprimatur of the establishment is not always seen as a positive attribute.