Nominations from Convention Floor of Nominating Committee Member

[Guest David Buckwalter]

I am the appointed parliamentarian for a national nonprofit association governed by an annual national convention, with most actions delegated to a board of directors between convention sessions. The convention, scheduled next month, includes election of national officers, and a question has arisen concerning nominations from the convention floor of a nomination committee member.

 

The association uses an appointed, board-approved nominating committee that has produced a slate of nominees, and according to our bylaws, nominations from the convention floor are permitted. Several years ago, a properly approved change to our bylaws added the restriction that: "Any member of the [nominating] committee, once the committee is formed, will be ineligible to run for national officer or director during the election cycle of his/her service on the committee."  Additionally, a provision was added that: "At the first meeting of the Nominating Committee, the Chairman will ask if any member intends to run for national officer or director during the election cycle. If anyone does intend to run, they are to withdraw from the Committee per paragraph 6.b. above.

 

RONR provides that nominating committee members remain eligible to run for office (RONR (11th ed.), p. 433, ll. 29-35); but the association bylaws presumably supersede this provision, and committee members were advised that service on the committee would render them ineligible for election. Should a nomination of a member of the 2014 nominating committee come from the floor, I plan to advise the Presiding Officer to rule the nomination out of order because it conflicts with the bylaws.

 

An additional issue comes from another bylaws provision in our bylaws that has been part of the established convention procedures for over 15 years. The bylaws state: "After receiving advice from the Parliamentarian on any questions of procedure, the ruling thereon by the Presiding Officer shall be final, except that any delegate may appeal the ruling of the chair for decision by the delegates; provided, however, that no such ruling by the Presiding Officer may be overruled except by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the delegates on the floor of the Convention at the time of the vote."

 

If no appeal were made, or the ruling were sustained on appeal, nominations would proceed normally. Any write-in votes for a member of the 2014 nominating committee member would presumably be "illegal votes" for an "ineligible person." (RONR (11th ed.), p.413. ll. 2-6). These votes would be part of the total vote, however, and could affect the other candidates' ability to obtain a majority.  Should the chair's initial out-of-order ruling be overturned, a dilemma would arise.  The convention would have [properly, according to our rules] reached a decision, the effect of which would be to place an ineligible person [according to our bylaws] on the ballot.

 

My specific questions are:

1. Is the out-of-order ruling of a nomination from the floor of a 2014 Nominating Committee member the proper response by the Presiding Officer?

2. Should any write-ins for a 2014 Nominating Committee member be counted as "illegal votes" for an "ineligible" person?

3.  If the Presiding Officer's initial out-of-order ruling were overturned on appeal, would a proper course of action be:

a. Ruling the appeal motion out-of-order because its effect, if adopted, would conflict with the bylaws nominating committee provisions; or

b. Allow the nomination to proceed, but instruct the Inspector of Elections to count any votes for a 2014 Nominating Committee member as "illegal votes" for an "ineligible" person?

 

Thank you for your advice on this matter. 

[Timothy]

I think the question the organization is going to have to decide is what does it mean to "run for office?" Normally, I would think that rules like this are to prevent the members of the nominating committee from using their position to gain an office, but that may not be the case for this organization. I would question whether a person is "running" if he never asked someone to nominate him, never gave a speech, and never did anything else to encourage people to vote for him, but it is not for me to decide.

 

As for #3, I think you're asking for trouble. If the assembly decides that the bylaws mean that the nominating committee cannot nominate themselves, but they can be nominated from the floor, I think you'd better assume that they also interpret the bylaws to mean that the votes should be counted.

[Edgar Guest]

This probably won't answer your specific questions but I'm troubled by the use of the term "run for" in your bylaws. Firstly, it's not defined in RONR. Secondly, one could argue that a reluctant candidate could be nominated and elected to a position he never "ran for" (i.e. actively sought). Now I'm sure that what was intended was to prevent a member of the nominating committee from being elected. But that's not what they bylaws say.

 

Edited to add: What Mr. Fish said.

[Transpower]

I think the original poster's analysis is correct.

[Gary c Tesser]

I think the original poster's analysis is correct.

 

That he has a dilemma?

Why don't you trans some of that power over to him for a change?

 

[With thanks and/or apologies to Groucho Marx for the template, re. Jennings waxing wroth]