nominations

[Guest fire debt prez]

In our November meeting we take nominations for positions. A member asked if he was allowed to accept a nomination with a hand written letter due to his anticipated absents from the meeting. I was under the impression that one needed to be present to accpet. Is this true/common practice?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

No, a member does not have to be present to accept a nomination.

[Edgar Guest]

No, a member does not have to be present to accept a nomination.

 

And, in fact, there's no such thing as "accepting" (or, for that matter, rejecting) a nomination.

 

But a note from the absent candidate indicating that, if elected, he will serve can be very helpful.

[Rev Ed]

A person cannot refuse a nomination according to RONR.  That means I can nominate whoever I wish.  However, as nominations are debatable, a member can state that he/she would not accept election.  A person can refuse election, however.  An election is not complete until an elected person accepts the election.  As such, an absent member may be wise to send in (or send along) a letter indicating acceptance of election, just in case he/she is the successful candidate.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

RONR says, "It is desirable policy for the nominating committee, before making its report, to contact each person whom it wishes to nominate, in order to obtain his acceptance of nomination."

 

So what is being done at this November meeting? Is it a nominating committee meeting? Or is it the election meeting where there will be nominations from the floor?

 

In any case, a member can be elected while being absent from the meeting.

[Guest mike]

Hieu, we have a committee in place, appointed by myself as president of the company. Between October and November they have about a mon the to compile a slate of candidates that they as the committee how come up with. (Procedure in place in our by laws). The slate is generally just the current officer holders. So the list that is created contains candidates that have been approached, asked if they would like to run again, and if they say yes, they are added to the slate of nominations given to the body at the meeting. Directly following, I open the slate to the floor for additional nominations. This is where the question comes into play. I was approached by a member that would like to run for a spot, but is not on the list from the committee, and believes he will be nominated from the floor. He is concerned because he will not be at the meeting. I don't recall seeing anything in my set of by laws stating the need to be present for the nomination. Ou r bylaws state that anything in question that is not covered directlyrics in our bylaws, is to follow suit according to Roberts rules... what I have seenough stated above leads me to believe that it is not the nomination that needs to be accepted, but the position itself by the person if elected. Elections are the following month in December...

[Kim Goldsworthy]

 

... leads me to believe that

it is not the nomination that needs to be accepted,

but the position itself by the person if elected.

That is the right "minimum" -- i.e., under Robert's Rules, you don't need consent from the nominee for another member to nominate that person.

In other words, to nominate Person P in absentia [Latin] is permitted.

 

It is a popular myth that:

(a.) the nominee must be present at the moment of nomination.

(b.) the nominee must give his assent to have his name put up in nomination.

 

***

 

Robert's Rules is flexible when it comes to elections.

* Anyone can be nominated.

* Anyone can be elected.

* There are no qualifications for nominations.

* There are no qualifications to be elected to office.

[Richard Brown]

Robert's Rules is flexible when it comes to elections.

* There are no qualifications to be elected to office.

Huh??

 

Well, depending on how you look at it, perhaps.  I guess anybody can be elected to anything just like anybody can sue someone else for anything.  But, if the person elected does not meet the qualifications for office stated in the bylaws, or if the election violated certain fundamental principles of parliamentary law, the election is null and void.

[J. J.]

Huh??

 

Well, depending on how you look at it, perhaps.  I guess anybody can be elected to anything just like anybody can sue someone else for anything.  But, if the person elected does not meet the qualifications for office stated in the bylaws, or if the election violated certain fundamental principles of parliamentary law, the election is null and void.

 

 

But there is none in RONR. 

[Hieu H. Huynh]

... Elections are the following month in December...

 

At the election meeting, additional nominations from the floor can be made. If voting is by ballot, write-in votes are allowed for candidates who have not been nominated.

 

In the end, all it takes to get elected to office is for the majority of voters to vote for this member, whether he's present or not.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Huh??

 

Well, depending on how you look at it, perhaps.  I guess anybody can be elected to anything just like anybody can sue someone else for anything.  But, if the person elected does not meet the qualifications for office stated in the bylaws, or if the election violated certain fundamental principles of parliamentary law, the election is null and void.

Richard,

I never said, "Check your bylaws."

I said, "Under Robert's Rules . . ."

There are no qualifications for officer under Robert's Rules.

[Josh Martin]

what I have seenough stated above leads me to believe that it is not the nomination that needs to be accepted, but the position itself by the person if elected.

 

Yes, and as noted above, it is perfectly acceptable (even advisable) for the member to send in a letter indicating his willingness to serve if elected.