Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums
Guest jhonora

Accept Letter for Absent Nominee

Recommended Posts

Guest jhonora

Recently, in a meeting where biennial elections were held a member presented a letter from another member who was willing to be nominated but could not be present. The letter was not accepted on the premise that a member has to be present to be nominated. Upon being challenged, the chairman flipped through the local chapter's bylaws, the national bylaws, and then Robert's Rules, but could not find anything to support his decision not to accept it. The chairman refused to accept the letter. Keep in mind, the letter was just intended to document the nominee's consent and willingness to be nominated. At least three members stood ready to actually make the nomination. - The question is: Must a member be present in order to be nominated? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Guest jhonora said:

The letter was not accepted, on the premise that a member has to be present to be nominated.

Your chair erred.

In fact, it is quite the opposite, as Robert's Rules says that all you need is the candidate's consent. His presence is not required. See page 444.

Quote

TIME AT WHICH AN ELECTION TAKES EFFECT.
An election to an office becomes final immediately if the can-
didate is present and does not decline, or if he is absent but
has consented to his candidacy. If he is absent and has not
consented to his candidacy, the election becomes final when
he is notified of his election, provided that he does not im-
mediately decline.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Guest jhonora said:

Recently, in a meeting where biennial elections were held a member presented a letter from another member who was willing to be nominated but could not be present. The letter was not accepted on the premise that a member has to be present to be nominated. Upon being challenged, the chairman flipped through the local chapter's bylaws, the national bylaws, and then Robert's Rules, but could not find anything to support his decision not to accept it. The chairman refused to accept the letter. Keep in mind, the letter was just intended to document the nominee's consent and willingness to be nominated. At least three members stood ready to actually make the nomination. - The question is: Must a member be present in order to be nominated? 

No, a member need not be present.  The member who was willing to be nominated acted quite properly by supplying the letter.

I'm mildly shocked by the fact that after the chair was completely unable to support his claim after referring to the founding documents, and RONR, nobody apparently thought to Appeal [§24] from the decision of the chair, and put the matter to a vote.  

The chair does not have the powers of a dictator.  Rulings are ultimately decided by the assembly.  

 

"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them."
--Frederick Douglass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

... I'm mildly shocked by the fact that after the chair was completely unable to support his claim after referring to the founding documents, and RONR, nobody apparently thought to Appeal [§24] from the decision of the chair, and put the matter to a vote.  ...

 

Was this [pure speculation on my part] perhaps in answer to a Parliamentary inquiry? "Q: Mr Chairman, if I have a letter from Mr Smith indicating his willingness to be nominated and serve if elected, may I therefore nominate him, even if he is absent from this meeting?" "A: No, it sufficeth not."

So... at that point, someone should have nominated him anyway? And his supporters shouldn't have folded like a bunch of wet-noodle folding things? Or...?

How does one properly respond to a Baloney-Special answer to an inquiry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If in fact it was a Parliamentary Inquiry, then yes, the member should have made the nomination anyway.  There is no way to Appeal an inquiry, becsuse an inquiry is not a ruling.  

If the nomination, when actually made, was ruled improper, that would have been the time to lodge an Appeal.  

And if I were a member, and the chair consulted source after source, including the founding documents and The Work itself, and found no evidence of the existence of this magic rule he had made up, yet nevertheless went right ahead and enforced it anyway, I think I'd be drafting a resolution of censure, at a minimum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...