Documention of "Nominations Debatable" ?

[jstackpo]

Is there any explicit statement that nominees are debatable, as to their suitability to office, of course?

Just to be precise the methods for making nominations (not the nominations themselves) are not debatable -- Section 31.

To be sure, tinted motion #49 certainly hints that noms are debatable, but the description "Nominations, to make", is a tad misleading, in my view. It might better read "Nominations, once made".

Also the debatability is certainly implicit in the descriptions of noms as "filling a blank", (Section 46) but I couldn't spot any EXPLICIT statement that noms are indeed debatable, in that section, or elsewhere.

I'm asking because the question comes up often enough on this forum -- it would be nice to just point to a specific statement and not have to reason through the implicit hints that are there.

[George Mervosh]

Whatever you feel is lacking in RONR can be supplemented by what is said in PL, on pp. 206-207, and the answer to Question 144, on p. 465.

[jstackpo]

True for us parliamentarians, but not so true for the average Guest_Guest on the Bull-Board.

I take it you couldn't come up with anything additional in RONR, either.

[Josh Martin]

Is there any explicit statement that nominees are debatable, as to their suitability to office, of course?

Just to be precise the methods for making nominations (not the nominations themselves) are not debatable -- Section 31.

To be sure, tinted motion #49 certainly hints that noms are debatable, but the description "Nominations, to make", is a tad misleading, in my view. It might better read "Nominations, once made".

Also the debatability is certainly implicit in the descriptions of noms as "filling a blank", (Section 46) but I couldn't spot any EXPLICIT statement that noms are indeed debatable, in that section, or elsewhere.

I'm asking because the question comes up often enough on this forum -- it would be nice to just point to a specific statement and not have to reason through the implicit hints that are there.

 

It could certainly be made clearer in the text that nominations are debatable. I don't think there is anything explicit besides the bit in the tinted pages.

 

It would also be nice if there was some information about how debating nominations works. Judging by the discussions on that subject over the years, that is not too clear even for us parliamentarians.

[mikalac]

Whatever you feel is lacking in RONR can be supplemented by what is said in PL, on pp. 206-207, and the answer to Question 144, on p. 465.

What is PL?

 

Norm

[Shmuel Gerber]

What is PL?

 

Norm

 

Read this and you'll find out:

http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_5

[Ann Rempel]

PL is Parliamentary Law, a 1923 book by General Robert.  It is a worthwhile addition to anyone's library.

[mikalac]

 

PL is Parliamentary Law, a 1923 book by General Robert.  It is a worthwhile addition to anyone's library.

 

I don't see that I can use this as a reference at an owner meeting since our bylaws specify the latest edition of Robert as the authority. Maybe just an interesting bit of history for aficionados?

 

Norm

[mikalac]

Whatever you feel is lacking in RONR can be supplemented by what is said in PL, on pp. 206-207, and the answer to Question 144, on p. 465.

As I said in my last post, this might be interesting history, but I doubt that I could use it at a meeting, since it is not in our bylaws.

 

Norm

[Chris Harrison]

I don't see that I can use this as a reference at an owner meeting since our bylaws specify the latest edition of Robert as the authority. Maybe just an interesting bit of history for aficionados?

 

Norm

PL isn't actually designed to be a parliamentary authority as much as helping to flesh out what Robert's Rules of Order does say. While the 11th Edition is much more fleshed out than the 4th (when PL was written) the way things are done hasn't really changed (except for advances in technology) so PL still could be very useful. 

 

I wouldn't hesitate to use PL to help buttress my case and if someone raises the point you did I would direct them to RONR pp. 16-17 which says "in matters on which an organization's adopted parliamentary authority is silent, provisions found in other works on parliamentary law may be persuasive - that is, they may carry weight in the absence of overriding reasons for following a different course - but they are not binding on the body."  I think few works can be considered more persuasive than one that was written by the guy who wrote the original parliamentary authority. 

[Josh Martin]

I don't see that I can use this as a reference at an owner meeting since our bylaws specify the latest edition of Robert as the authority. Maybe just an interesting bit of history for aficionados?

 

Oh, it's much more than that. Parliamentary Law is still used as a reference by professional parliamentarians, as much of what it says still applies today. A wise assembly would consider it to be highly persuasive.

 

In the main text, you'd use the following to make your case:

• Nominations are explicitly listed as debatable in the tinted pages in the back of the book. (RONR, 11th ed., tinted pgs. 20-21)
• A nomination is effectively a proposal to fill a blank, which is explicitly listed as debatable in the main text. (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 164, 430)

[mikalac]

 

Oh, it's much more than that. Parliamentary Law is still used as a reference by professional parliamentarians, as much of what it says still applies today. A wise assembly would consider it to be highly persuasive.

 

In the main text, you'd use the following to make your case:

• Nominations are explicitly listed as debatable in the tinted pages in the back of the book. (RONR, 11th ed., tinted pgs. 20-21)
• A nomination is effectively a proposal to fill a blank, which is explicitly listed as debatable in the main text. (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 164, 430)

 

I wise assembly we are not. However, I'll order a copy from amazon just in case I find myself in a position where a little more push will win the day.

 

Norm

[J. J.]

I would also note that the literature on the subject is strong.  I would refer you to "Nominations:  The Great (Lack of) Debate," National Parliamentarian, 1st Quarter, 2005.

[Gary Novosielski]

At the last election I participated in, this question came up, but I'm not sure it was handled properly.

 

Nominations were made for the office of President without any debate on each one, and then closed.  At that point, someone asked if remarks from the nominees were allowed.  The chair was unsure.  I offered the fact that, according to RONR, nominations were debatable, which would imply that not only candidates, but any members could discuss the merits of nominations.  I wasn't sure about whether they should have been debated as they were made, or whether it would be in order to have a discussion on all of them together, but I offered that if there were no objections*, I saw no reason why the latter course would be improper.  And that's the way it was handled.

 

(If there's a continuing breach in effect, I don't want to know about it, because I won the election.) 

 

__________

* I could have said 2/3--sufficient to suspend the rules--but I didn't think there would be any objections, and there were not.

[Josh Martin]

Nominations were made for the office of President without any debate on each one, and then closed.  At that point, someone asked if remarks from the nominees were allowed.  The chair was unsure.  I offered the fact that, according to RONR, nominations were debatable, which would imply that not only candidates, but any members could discuss the merits of nominations.  I wasn't sure about whether they should have been debated as they were made, or whether it would be in order to have a discussion on all of them together, but I offered that if there were no objections*, I saw no reason why the latter course would be improper.  And that's the way it was handled.

 

(If there's a continuing breach in effect, I don't want to know about it, because I won the election.) 

 

__________

* I could have said 2/3--sufficient to suspend the rules--but I didn't think there would be any objections, and there were not.

 

Nominations do not need to be debated as they are made, but debate is only in order while nominations are in order, so the debate should have occurred before nominations were closed. See this thread.

 

Nonetheless, it is certainly correct that Suspend the Rules can get around that, which may be adopted by a 2/3 vote or unanimous consent.

[Gary Novosielski]

Nominations do not need to be debated as they are made, but debate is only in order while nominations are in order, so the debate should have occurred before nominations were closed. See this thread.

 

Nonetheless, it is certainly correct that Suspend the Rules can get around that, which may be adopted by a 2/3 vote or unanimous consent.

 

Thanks for the link, Josh.  I vaguely remembered that thread, and on rereading it, it does have useful information beyond the original question of debate between ballots.  I'll inform our Board Secretary (who presides at the organizational meeting until a President is elected) that debate should take place before formally closing nominations (an admittedly unnecessary but, in our case, customary step)

[Guest Zev]

Nonetheless, it is certainly correct that Suspend the Rules can get around that, which may be adopted by a 2/3 vote or unanimous consent.

If as a member I believed that allowing further debate or comments on nominations, why would I move to Suspend the Rules, which requires a 2/3rds vote, when the same effect can be achieved by Reopening Nominations, which only requires a majority vote (RONR/11 p. 287 SDC 7)? Am I missing something here?

[Josh Martin]

If as a member I believed that allowing further debate or comments on nominations, why would I move to Suspend the Rules, which requires a 2/3rds vote, when the same effect can be achieved by Reopening Nominations, which only requires a majority vote (RONR/11 p. 287 SDC 7)? Am I missing something here?

 

Certainly in most cases, Reopen Nominations would be the preferable choice, but that does not appear to be what Mr. Novosielski did (since he was unaware that debate on nominations is only in order when nominations are open).

[Ann Rempel]

Certainly in most cases, Reopen Nominations would be the preferable choice, but that does not appear to be what Mr. Novosielski did (since he was unaware that debate on nominations is only in order when nominations are open).

 

 

In the real world, I find that the routine speeches by nominees for an office are being made after nominations are closed. As I best recall, too, that has been the way nominees' speeches have been handled at NAP Conventions. The 2013 agenda for the business meeting lists "Candidates' Speeches" immediately following "Nominations for All Offices to be Elected."

[Timothy]

In the real world, I find that the routine speeches by nominees for an office are being made after nominations are closed. As I best recall, too, that has been the way nominees' speeches have been handled at NAP Conventions. The 2013 agenda for the business meeting lists "Candidates' Speeches" immediately following "Nominations for All Offices to be Elected."

 

Would this be a special case since "Candidates' Speeches" is an agenda item? I wouldn't expect having it as an agenda item to prevent non-candidates from speaking during nominations, or even for the candidates to speak during nominations, but they might choose not to, since they know they will be speaking later anyway.

[Josh Martin]

In the real world, I find that the routine speeches by nominees for an office are being made after nominations are closed. As I best recall, too, that has been the way nominees' speeches have been handled at NAP Conventions. The 2013 agenda for the business meeting lists "Candidates' Speeches" immediately following "Nominations for All Offices to be Elected."

 

Doesn't NAP adopt its own rules on this subject?

 

In my own experience in the real world, I find that organizations either typically have no debate on nominations or have extensive special rules on the subject. (Although I do not doubt that in many organizations, debate on nominations is handled as you describe.)

[George Mervosh]

Doesn't NAP adopt its own rules on this subject?

 

I thought so, and in my view they certainly discourage debate, sadly.

[Ann Rempel]

I thought so, and in my view they certainly discourage debate, sadly.

 

The rules regarding candidates' speeches were in the 2013 Convention Standing Rules (and as I recall, usually are at each NAP Convention).

 

"10.       CANDIDATE SPEECHES: Nominations and candidate speeches will occur on Friday. Immediately after nominations for all elected officers, each of the nominees shall be given five minutes to address the assembly.

            After nominations for each office, the nominated candidates shall draw for the order of speaking which shall also be the order in which the candidate’s name will appear on the screen associated with the keypad voting or the paper ballot."

 

 

If you will recall, there was lively and lengthy debate about the convention standing rules and it took almost forever to adopt them.

 

There is always so much debate about every issue, that I cannot agree that NAP discourages debate.     Maybe that is an idea whose time has come!

[Shmuel Gerber]

The rules regarding candidates' speeches were in the 2013 Convention Standing Rules (and as I recall, usually are at each NAP Convention).

 

"10.       CANDIDATE SPEECHES: Nominations and candidate speeches will occur on Friday. Immediately after nominations for all elected officers, each of the nominees shall be given five minutes to address the assembly.

            After nominations for each office, the nominated candidates shall draw for the order of speaking which shall also be the order in which the candidate’s name will appear on the screen associated with the keypad voting or the paper ballot."

 

 

If you will recall, there was lively and lengthy debate about the convention standing rules and it took almost forever to adopt them.

 

There is always so much debate about every issue, that I cannot agree that NAP discourages debate.     Maybe that is an idea whose time has come!

 

That seems quite unfair to the nominees who just aren't any good at drawing. :-)

[Ann Rempel]

That seems quite unfair to the nominees who just aren't any good at drawing. :-)

 

We'll count on Shmuel raising a point of order to that effect if this reappears in the 2015 convention standing rules.