Choosing Nomination Committee

[Guest Willie Watson]

We have only two classes of membership in our assembly (regular and emeritus members). The only difference between emeritus and regular members is that emeritus members are exempted from assembly dues.  However, here is a direct quote from our current constitution

12.1 The Nomination Committee will consist of the past chapter presidents.  The immediate past president will serve as the chairman.

This means (in my opinion) that:

1. About 85 to 90% of our current membership is permanently excluded from participating on the nominations committee which appears to be a violation of a general principle of parliamentary law stating that all members have a right to fully participate in its proceeding (except those under disciplinary action) [RONR (11^th edition) p. 3, ll. 1-3]
2. This constitutional statement was not placed in our constitution nor voted on by the current members of the assembly (i.e., the current officers were installed in June 2014 and their term of office will expire in June 2016) . This constitutional statement was placed in our constitution by members that were in the assembly approximately 67 years ago (all of which are now deceased). Does this not violate the “free agent” requirement placed on any deliberate assemblies [RONR (11^th edition) p. 1ii, first paragraph]. Shouldn’t the current assembly be able to elect/or appoint who will serve on the nomination committee and not an assembly from the ghost of our past
3. When I think about the consequences of 12.1 it really makes no sense to me because
   1. If an immediate president was in incapacitated and could not participate on the nomination committee the current assembly could not even assign a replacement  [RONR (11^th edition) p. 467, ll. 25-28]
   2. If the immediate past president was not available to serve as chairman  (i.e., if he became incapacitated or deceased) there could then be no chairman [RONR (11^th edition) p. 467, ll. 25-28]

 

Could someone that is more knowledgeable than me please comment on why the above constitutional statement (section 12.1 above) is not out of order.

[Edgar Guest]

Shouldn’t the current assembly be able to elect/or appoint who will serve on the nomination committee and not an assembly from the ghost of our past

 

The solution is to amend (i.e. change) your constitution. Until then you must obey the rules as they are.

 

By the way, your constitution supersedes ("overrules") RONR.

[Josh Martin]

• About 85 to 90% of our current membership is permanently excluded from participating on the nominations committee which appears to be a violation of a general principle of parliamentary law stating that all members have a right to fully participate in its proceeding (except those under disciplinary action) [RONR (11^th edition) p. 3, ll. 1-3]
• This constitutional statement was not placed in our constitution nor voted on by the current members of the assembly (i.e., the current officers were installed in June 2014 and their term of office will expire in June 2016) . This constitutional statement was placed in our constitution by members that were in the assembly approximately 67 years ago (all of which are now deceased). Does this not violate the “free agent” requirement placed on any deliberate assemblies [RONR (11^th edition) p. 1ii, first paragraph]. Shouldn’t the current assembly be able to elect/or appoint who will serve on the nomination committee and not an assembly from the ghost of our past
• When I think about the consequences of 12.1 it really makes no sense to me because
• If an immediate president was in incapacitated and could not participate on the nomination committee the current assembly could not even assign a replacement [RONR (11^th edition) p. 467, ll. 25-28]
• If the immediate past president was not available to serve as chairman (i.e., if he became incapacitated or deceased) there could then be no chairman [RONR (11^th edition) p. 467, ll. 25-28]

Could someone that is more knowledgeable than me please comment on why the above constitutional statement (section 12.1 above) is not out of order.

1.) This is not a violation of any member's rights. A committee necessarily consists of a smaller subset of the association's members. The organization is free to provide that the nominating committee shall consist of past presidents if it wishes to do so.

2.) No, it does not violate that principle. The principle is that the assembly may not bind the hands of a future session except by adopting a rule at least on the level of a special rule of order. A rule in the Constitution is more than sufficient to bind the hands of future sessions.

3.) If the Immediate Past President is unable to serve, the committee will be short one member, and it will have no permanent chairman. This is not a huge problem, as the committee can elect a Chairman Pro Tempore.

The simplest answer to your question, however, is that the statement in your constitution is not out of order because an assembly is free to adopt whatever rules it pleases in its constitution, so long as they do not conflict with an even higher-level rule (such as the articles of incorporation, clearly requisite points in the rules of a parent organization, or procedural rules in applicable law). The constitution of an organization takes precedence over all rules in RONR, including those identified as fundamental principles of parliamentary law.

If you don't care for this rule (and I sympathize with you), the proper course of action is to amend the constitution.

[Dan Honemann]

Could someone that is more knowledgeable than me please comment on why the above constitutional statement (section 12.1 above) is not out of order.

 

Provisions in your constitution can be "out of order" only if they conflict with some higher authority, such as an applicable law. No one here on this forum is apt to be more knowledgeable than you as to whether or not this is the case.