Position on slate

[Guest Monica]

The organization I belong to is presenting a slate

One of the members that were given a position is not eligible for the position she was given.

I brought up my concerns to the Nom committee they have chosen to do nothing about it.

Is there something or a motion I can make when they bring the slate to vote at out general membership meeting.

[Edgar Guest]

Raise a point of order to the effect that one of the nominees is ineligible. The chair will rule on the point of order but his ruling can be appealed, in which case the assembly (the members present) will decide who's "right".

 

You might also want to avoid the use of the word "slate". The nominating committee selects individual candidates for individual offices. Use of the word "slate" can mislead members into thinking they have to vote for (or not vote for) the slate as a whole.

[George Mervosh]

Raise a point of order to the effect that one of the nominees is ineligible. The chair will rule on the point of order but his ruling can be appealed, in which case the assembly (the members present) will decide who's "right".

 

You showed a lot of restraint on this one, Mr. Mt.

[Edgar Guest]

You showed a lot of restraint on this one, Mr. Mt.

 

I'm afraid you spoke too soon.

[Guest Guest]

How does the membership not vote for one position and vote for the rest of them.

The organization think you are biting for all or nothing

[Edgar Guest]

How does the membership not vote for one position and vote for the rest of them.

The organization think you are voting for all or nothing

 

Let's say the nominating committee selects Jane Doe for the office of President and Jim Jones (no, not that Jim Jones) for the office of Secretary. And let's say there are additional nominations "from the floor" (i.e. by other members).

 

A member is free to vote for Jane Doe for President and Harry Smith for Secretary (whether Mr. Smith had been nominated or not). Members are free to vote for whomever they want. Or for no one at all. Or for some offices and not others.

[Guest Monica]

We don't do nominations from the floor our bylaws say we do nominations ahead with ten signatures

[Edgar Guest]

We don't do nominations from the floor our bylaws say we do nominations ahead with ten signatures

 

Then do nominations ahead with ten signatures. My point is that you are free to vote whomever you want. You don't have to vote for (or against) "the slate". There is no "slate".

[Gary Novosielski]

How does the membership not vote for one position and vote for the rest of them.

The organization think you are biting for all or nothing

 

The organization apparently does not understand how elections work, or what the job of the Nominating Committee is.

 

The committee presents a report containing list of nominees for the positions to be elected--in some cases more than one nominee for each.  This report is not a "slate" and should not be referred to as one.  

 

After the report of the committee is given, the chair must call for additional nominations from the floor, unless your bylaws have some other rule regarding additional nominations, which it appears they do.  

 

If your bylaws require a ballot vote, then you must hold a ballot vote.  Write-in votes are always permitted for any eligible candidate, whether nominated or not.  If your bylaws do not require a ballot vote, or include an exception for unopposed seats, then unopposed nominees may be declared elected by acclamation, but this is still on an office-by-office basis, not by a take-it-or-leave-it "slate".

[SaintCad]

The organization apparently does not understand how elections work, or what the job of the Nominating Committee is.

Maybe and maybe not.  I know of one organization where they are lucky to get one person to run for an office and they do take nominations from the floor and vote on each office individually.  If everyone is running unopposed then the nominating committee creates a slate and according to the bylaws the members are allowed to vote for "the slate" to speed up the process.

[Dan Honemann]

Maybe and maybe not.  I know of one organization where they are lucky to get one person to run for an office and they do take nominations from the floor and vote on each office individually.  If everyone is running unopposed then the nominating committee creates a slate and according to the bylaws the members are allowed to vote for "the slate" to speed up the process.

 

If everyone is running unopposed, having the members vote for or against "the slate" doesn't speed up the process.

[SaintCad]

If everyone is running unopposed, having the members vote for or against "the slate" doesn't speed up the process.

It does because there is only one vote and not five votes.  I know where you're coming from (p 443) but the bylaws require a vote.

[Richard Brown]

It does because there is only one vote and not five votes.  I know where you're coming from (p 443) but the bylaws require a vote.

Are you sure?  You've seen Guest Monica's bylaws? 

[Edgar Guest]

Are you sure?  You've seen Guest Monica's bylaws? 

 

I believe Mr. Cad has referenced the bylaws of a different organization (though I'm not sure how that's helpful).

 

I know of one organization where they are lucky to get one person to run for an office and they do take nominations from the floor and vote on each office individually.  If everyone is running unopposed then the nominating committee creates a slate and according to the bylaws the members are allowed to vote for "the slate" to speed up the process.

[SaintCad]

I believe Mr. Cad has referenced the bylaws of a different organization (though I'm not sure how that's helpful).

It was merely a counter to post #9.  My example may have nothing to do with Monica's organization but it did illustrate that in organizations where people run unopposed (and in Monica's case that would be known a priori) but a ballot must be held, that the unopposed offices are elected as a slate put forth by the nominating committee.

[Edgar Guest]

 . . . in organizations where people run unopposed (and in Monica's case that would be known a priori) but a ballot [vote] must be held, that the unopposed offices are elected as a slate put forth by the nominating committee.

 

That does not constitute a vote by ballot. Where is the opportunity for write-in votes?

[SaintCad]

That does not constitute a vote by ballot. Where is the opportunity for write-in votes?

In the organization I am referencing, write-in ballots are not allowed and possibly in Monica's considering nominees cannot be nominated by the floor.

 

Look, I'm not saying the the process of electing via slate is the best or even appropriate in most cases.  But I am saying that the definitive procedure given in Post #9 is not always the appropriate one either.  There does exist an organization in which:

1)  Many candidates run unopposed

2)  There are nominations from the floor which typically results in no more nominations.

3)  There are no write in ballots

4)  Even if running unopposed, according to the bylaws the person must be voted in. 

 

In this case, having those that are running unopposed elected as a slate is a standard procedure rather than electing each office individually.

[Dan Honemann]

In the organization I am referencing, write-in ballots are not allowed and possibly in Monica's considering nominees cannot be nominated by the floor.

 

Look, I'm not saying the the process of electing via slate is the best or even appropriate in most cases.  But I am saying that the definitive procedure given in Post #9 is not always the appropriate one either.  There does exist an organization in which:

1)  Many candidates run unopposed

2)  There are nominations from the floor which typically results in no more nominations.

3)  There are no write in ballots

4)  Even if running unopposed, according to the bylaws the person must be voted in. 

 

In this case, having those that are running unopposed elected as a slate is a standard procedure rather than electing each office individually.

 

Yes, many organizations have silly bylaws.

[Richard Brown]

In this case, having those that are running unopposed elected as a slate is a standard procedure rather than electing each office individually.

 

The fact is, though, that it is not a "slate" unless the organization's bylaws define it as such.  It is a list of nominees.  There is a difference. 

 

Edited to add:  Unless the bylaws require a ballot vote, if there is only one nominee for each office, they can be declared elected by acclamation or unanimous consent.  RONR p. 443, lines 7-12.   There is no need to refer to the list is nominees as a "slate".  It is not a slate.  RONR does not once use the term "slate".

 

And we should be careful not to let readers get confused by answering a question based on what a particular organization we might belong to does rather than sticking to the question asked by the original poster about the situation in her organization and based on the rules of her organization.  If we are going to use another organization as an example, we should be very clear in our posts that we are using a different organization as an example.  One of your earlier posts seemed to be a response based on one of your own organizations rather than Monica's organization without making that distinction.  That gets confusing.  And misleading.

[Gary Novosielski]

It does because there is only one vote and not five votes.  I know where you're coming from (p 443) but the bylaws require a vote.

They bylaws require a vote but NOT a ballot vote??  

 

That's an odd bylaw indeed and, more ot the point, has little resemblance to the rules in RONR.

[Josh Martin]

In the organization I am referencing, write-in ballots are not allowed and possibly in Monica's considering nominees cannot be nominated by the floor.

 

Look, I'm not saying the the process of electing via slate is the best or even appropriate in most cases.  But I am saying that the definitive procedure given in Post #9 is not always the appropriate one either.  There does exist an organization in which:

1)  Many candidates run unopposed

2)  There are nominations from the floor which typically results in no more nominations.

3)  There are no write in ballots

4)  Even if running unopposed, according to the bylaws the person must be voted in. 

 

In this case, having those that are running unopposed elected as a slate is a standard procedure rather than electing each office individually.

 

The standard procedure in RONR when candidates are running unopposed and the bylaws do not require a ballot vote (or when the bylaws require a ballot vote but provide an exception if the candidates are unopposed) is for the President to declare the candidates elected by acclamation, without any vote. Voting on the slate doesn't speed up anything, and it creates a confusing situation if the assembly votes "no." If the bylaws require an up or down vote on the slate, then it certainly must be done, but the bylaws should be amended as soon as possible to change this.

[SaintCad]

The standard procedure in RONR when candidates are running unopposed and the bylaws do not require a ballot vote (or when the bylaws require a ballot vote but provide an exception if the candidates are unopposed) is for the President to declare the candidates elected by acclamation, without any vote. Voting on the slate doesn't speed up anything, and it creates a confusing situation if the assembly votes "no." If the bylaws require an up or down vote on the slate, then it certainly must be done, but the bylaws should be amended as soon as possible to change this.

I get that.  This organization decided to write up their own rules and are a case study for why large (national) organizations should hire PRPs when they want to make up their own Rules of Order.