Officer elections

[Guest Lee]

When nominations are in progress, is it proper procedure to ask nominees if they are willing to let their names stand for election or should the Chair wait until nominations are closed?

Our group's past practice is to accept nominations at one meeting, then table them and continue at the next meeting where the election takes place. If a candidate declines nomination at the first meeting, can they accept nomination at the second meeting or are they out of the running?

I have a copy of RONR but am unable to find anything that relates to my questions.

[Gary c Tesser]

I don't see anything specifically about this, either.  Probably a lot of it is left to common sense, or the organization's itself adopting rules to govern these particulars (p. 438, lines 24 - 31, and probably also elsewhere).

 

One thing, now, Guest Lee: you do see the top of p. 434?  Though it is indeed specific to what a nominating committee does, I think the implication is that it's generally a good idea; what do you think?

 

Oh, and that's not "table."  Try to avoid saying "table" as a verb, you'll be better off:  99% of the time what is meant by "table" is "postpone," and most of the remaining 1% is obscure; but, without going into the details unless you ask, there is a real and significant difference between postponing and laying on the table, and the difference should be respected.

 

Oh, and there's no rule in RONR prohibiting someone who has declined being nominated from changing his mind and accepting if he is nominated again.  Look at Julius Caesar.  But remember how that turned out.

[David A Foulkes]

When nominations are in progress, is it proper procedure to ask nominees if they are willing to let their names stand for election ....

 

There is a school of thought here (and in some more remote regions of the outlying colonies) that one cannot decline a nomination, only an election, which results in another round of balloting.  It would be a courtesy on the part of the nominees to let the voting membership know they will decline office if elected, but no rule prevents enough members from writing in their names and electing them anyway, or from nominating them again at the election meeting.

[Guest Guest]

Thank you for the responses.

[Rev Ed]

Technically, once nominated, a person cannot refuse the nomination per RONR.  However, the organization is free to allow this.  Usually, if someone is nominated and does not want to be elected, he/she would simply state "I will not accept being elected as ____" and this would be the end of it.

 

But there is nothing wrong with a rule requiring nominees to accept the nomination.  It can avoid the issue of receiving votes for an office one will not accept. 

[Weldon Merritt]

But there is nothing wrong with a rule requiring nominees to accept the nomination.  It can avoid the issue of receiving votes for an office one will not accept. 

Not necessarilly, since members are free to write in the names of those who declined. It probably will be less lilkely that a someone who declined will get a significant number of votes, but it certainly is not precluded.

[Gary Novosielski]

And in no case would it be proper question nominees on whether they accept the nomination, i.e., if they would (if elected) accept election.  Nor would candidates be required to answer such a question.  If they wish to volunteer this information, that's up to them.

[Josh Martin]

And in no case would it be proper question nominees on whether they accept the nomination, i.e., if they would (if elected) accept election.  Nor would candidates be required to answer such a question.  If they wish to volunteer this information, that's up to them.

 

It seems to me that a Request for Information regarding whether a nominee would accept the position if elected is in order, and I personally think it may be a very good idea. I certainly agree that the nominee is not obligated to answer such a question (although it would generally seem to be advantageous to do so).