Attajb Posted January 11, 2017 at 04:27 AM Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 at 04:27 AM Our nominating committee proposed a slate of seven members of the Board of Directors who's terms were ending this year, Out of a potential 8 open seats, to be re-elected at the annual meeting in July. A motion was made to the whole Board that this slate be approved. There was not another qualified member to fill the 8 th seat that met the attendance requirements. The motion passed and we moved on the problem occurred now 2 days later someone decided we might have made a mistake. They have been reading Robert's rules and think that the members should have recused themselves from voting on the motion to put forth the slate because their names were in it. Is this so and if so what would be the procedure. p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 11, 2017 at 08:05 AM Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 at 08:05 AM No, that's nonsense. People have the right to vote for themselves. Why would I vote for a candidate when the candidate did not bother to do so? It indicates doubt about the candidate's enthusiasm for the job. Whoever was reading RONR should read RONR more thoroughly. If they had only continued on to the very next paragraph, for example, they might have found this: Quote VOTING ON QUESTIONS AFFECTING ONESELF. The rule on abstaining from voting on a question of direct personal interest does not mean that a member should not vote for himself for an office or other position to which members generally are eligible, or should not vote when other members are included with him in a motion. If a member never voted on a question affecting himself, it would be impossible for a society to vote to hold a banquet, or for the majority to prevent a small minority from preferring charges against them and suspending or expelling them. But what does concern me is that you are apparently approving an entire "slate''. I would have hoped that whoever it was that was reading RONR would have noticed that the word "slate" appears nowhere in the Work. An election is a vote, or series of individual votes to decide who shall fill an office or a number of offices. The report of the nominating committee is a list of nominees for each position to be voted on. Calling it a "slate" obscures its true nature, which is why RONR does not use the word. What also concerns me is that a nominating committee reports (or should) to the general membership, not to the Board. What business does the Board have approving or disapproving of the work of such a committee? Its report should go to the membership at the general meeting, after which the chair must call for additional nominations from the floor. If your bylaws require a ballot vote, with no exception provided in the case of unopposed nominees, then a ballot vote must be held, due to the possibility that write-in votes might alter the outcome. Of course if you have specific rules related to elections that supersede those in RONR then you must follow them, but in that case this forum on RONR will be of less value to you on this particular question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted January 11, 2017 at 03:10 PM Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 at 03:10 PM Wasn't this same question asked in another thread just a day or two ago? If I recall correctly that thread had quite a few responses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Not that I know of Posted January 11, 2017 at 08:28 PM Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 at 08:28 PM This was just for approval to put this slate of members up for election. It was not for officers or the election itself. We have 24 members and every every year 8 seats are up for re- election as per our Bylaws the nominating committee purposes the best 8 people,filling the Boards requirements, to be a slate, supported by the Board to be presented to run. For the 8 seats against any independents Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Attajb Posted January 11, 2017 at 08:35 PM Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 at 08:35 PM Sorry if there is another post like this I would like to see the responses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Attajb Posted January 11, 2017 at 08:59 PM Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 at 08:59 PM Thank You, Richard Brown you are correct there was a similar post I found by Dutchman I appreciate the information. It has brought some clarity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted January 11, 2017 at 10:20 PM Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 at 10:20 PM The thread being referred to is here. Attajb, Are you and Dutchman in the same organization? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Attajb Posted January 12, 2017 at 02:58 PM Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2017 at 02:58 PM 16 hours ago, Hieu H. Huynh said: The thread being referred to is here. Attajb, Are you and Dutchman in the same organization? No I am not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Attajb Posted January 12, 2017 at 03:08 PM Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2017 at 03:08 PM Just now, Attajb said: It actually looks that way. Very interesting, l am happy to see others at trying find the correct information the questions just need to be correct also. This is a slate of candidates who meet the criteria to be on the Board as per the nominating committees policies and procedures. As of the time of the slate being put up there were only 7 there will be independent nominees who are given time to submit their name and bio prior to election in July. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutchman Posted January 15, 2017 at 01:32 PM Report Share Posted January 15, 2017 at 01:32 PM On 1/12/2017 at 10:08 AM, Attajb said: Yes we are in the same organization! Lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts