Nominating Comittee and Executive Committee are the same

[Guest Cathy J]

After serving their 2 years (by-Laws state my serve 2 years, not sure what that means for limits, but in the past executive members have only served 2 years in same seat) our board who also is the nominating committee reelected themselves. I guess my question is this even proper?

[Edgar Guest]

First of all, the nominating committee doesn't elect anyone.

 

Secondly, it seems doubtful that your board has the authority to elect its own members.

 

What do your bylaws say about how board members are elected?

 

And what do your bylaws say about how the members of the executive committee are elected?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Is what improper?

* serving 2 years?

* board acting as the nominating committee?

* board re-electing themselves?

 

If I were a board member, and if I could vote, I certainly would re-elect myself.

So that does not strike me as amazingly out of the ordinary.

 

It isn't unusual for a board to be in charge of a nominating committee.

So having board members sit on the nominating committee does not strike me as being unduly weird.

 

So, are your bylaws being obeyed?

If yes, then what is your parliamentary question?

[Guest Cathy J]

Our Executive Committee is our nominating committee and although others expressed interest in being placed on the ballot the nominating committee turned them down and instead chose to stay in place. there was no elections they basically told us the nominating committee, which they are, felt like the executive board should stay as it is, which they are. At our previous meeting when nominations were discussed and people either expressed interest in we as members were informed they would advertise the position and then at next meeting a slate would be presented, this never occurred. At the meeting they presented themselves as a slate and asked for someone to second it and they were once again our Executive Committee. When some tried to speak up they were basically dismissed and now we as members are trying to figure out what we can do.

[Edgar Guest]

Do you have both a board and an executive committee (the latter usually being a subset of the former) or are you using both terms interchangeably?

 

In any event, members have a right to vote for (and elect) whomever they want. See FAQ #20 if you think it might be time to get rid of this executive committee.

[Timothy]

It isn't surprising that the nominating committee would nominate the same people as before, even if the nominating committee were made up of different people. But a nominating committee just makes nominations and other members can nominate additional people, if they like. If it is a ballot vote, then nomination isn't required, people can still vote for whomever they like, though people are more likely to vote for someone who is listed on the ballot.

 

I don't see a statement about how the vote was taken. If voting hasn't been done yet, then vote for someone else. If it was by unanimous consent, it appears to have been done improperly, so vote again and vote for someone else. But if voting was done properly, then you're kind of stuck with whatever the majority decided.

[Rev Ed]

This not that unusual.  Yes, I do agree with the Nominating Committee not be made up of Board members for this reason, but according to RONR, the group with the power to appoint the Committee will appoint whoever they want.  The only caveat is with the Nominating Committee is that the President should not be an ex-officio member of the Nominating Committee.  However, RONR does not prevent the President, or any other Board member, from being on the Nominating Committee.

 

One reason why you may see a Board member or two (if not more) on the Nominating Committee, is if they are experienced hiring managers in other positions (or another job where you need to be good at 'judging others') where they may have a better idea how to 'judge' potential candidates so that the best candidate is nominated.

 

I have also experienced groups where the Board/Executive Committee has operated as the Nominating Committee as it is easier from a practical point of view - although there should always be an option to nominate further candidates.

[Josh Martin]

Our Executive Committee is our nominating committee and although others expressed interest in being placed on the ballot the nominating committee turned them down and instead chose to stay in place. there was no elections they basically told us the nominating committee, which they are, felt like the executive board should stay as it is, which they are. At our previous meeting when nominations were discussed and people either expressed interest in we as members were informed they would advertise the position and then at next meeting a slate would be presented, this never occurred. At the meeting they presented themselves as a slate and asked for someone to second it and they were once again our Executive Committee. When some tried to speak up they were basically dismissed and now we as members are trying to figure out what we can do.

 

Do your bylaws require a ballot vote for elections?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

[. . .] although others expressed interest in being placed on the ballot the nominating committee turned them down and instead chose to stay in place.

A nominating committee is free to nominate a single person per office.

That indeed the ideal goal of the nominating committee; to find the best person, out of the pool of people who are qualified to serve in office, and to put up a single name per open slot.

 

I don't know why your nominations from the floor never occurred.

Under plain-vanilla Robert's Rules, the Nom. Comm. presents its report, and the chair immediately opens up the floor for nominations.

 

[At the meeting they presented themselves as a slate and asked for someone to second it and they were once again our Executive Committee.]

 

There was a motion, and a second.

Surely, there was a vote. Or something.

What was that something?

How do you know that the slate was elected (if you did not cast ballots)?

[Gary Novosielski]

It isn't surprising that the nominating committee would nominate the same people as before, even if the nominating committee were made up of different people. But a nominating committee just makes nominations and other members can nominate additional people, if they like. If it is a ballot vote, then nomination isn't required, people can still vote for whomever they like, though people are more likely to vote for someone who is listed on the ballot.

 

I don't see a statement about how the vote was taken. If voting hasn't been done yet, then vote for someone else. If it was by unanimous consent, it appears to have been done improperly, so vote again and vote for someone else. But if voting was done properly, then you're kind of stuck with whatever the majority decided.

 

When the nominating committee presents its report, the chair must ask for additional nominations from the floor.  Even if no nominations are made from the floor, members are still free to vote for whomever they want.

 

It sounds from what you've described as if your elections were never held,  in which case the next step is to hold them.