Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Nominations and Election of Chair


r7s

Recommended Posts

On 1/26/2018 at 10:14 PM, Chip said:

Regarding the debate during nominations ... perhaps I'm looking at this the wrong way, but I see the issue differently ... 

I think that the debate during nominations is not supposed to be about the merits of candidates at all. I think it is supposed to be about any specific qualifications that candidates must meet in order to be nominated. In short, debate is only appropriate during nominations on the eligibility of a particular person to be nominated to be a candidate.

Essentially, if Bylaws or Rules specify that a person elected to a particular office must meet specific requirements (e.g. having been a member for a certain length of time), then there could be debate during the nominations about whether or not a person that someone has nominated is actually qualified (per the requirements in the bylaws or rules) to hold the office.

I'd think that debate on the relative merits of the candidates could be handled by a separate motion that provides a structure for a debate or discussion. I think that ideally, an organization would create a Bylaw or Special Rule of Order that would specifically address that issue.

But I think that during nominations, the appropriate issue for debate is whether or not a person can "legally" be nominated, not whether or not a person is a good or bad choice.

I disagree entirely. Debate is, indeed, about the merits of the candidates. If a member wishes to question whether a nominee is eligible to hold the office, he should raise a Point of Order to that effect. If an Appeal is raised, then debate on that subject would be in order.

Although one would hope that the organization’s rules for eligibility are sufficiently clear that there is no need to debate whether a particular individual is eligible.

On 1/27/2018 at 12:05 AM, Benjamin Geiger said:

Also, wouldn't the election itself be a motion with a blank (of the form "that [blank] be chosen as Dogcatcher"), and the ballot is for filling of the blank?

Technically, yes, but the key difference is that in an ordinary case of filling a blank, a further vote is needed on the main motion itself (after the blank is filled). In an election, this is not the case, because the bylaws require the society to elect individuals to the positions in question.

On 1/27/2018 at 12:08 AM, jstackpo said:

Yeah, ... but how do you debate facts?  If there are objective qualifications spelled out for election (membership for N years, dues all paid up, residency, citizenship, &c.) there isn't really any room for "debate". The qualifications are matters of public record, within the organization anyway.

Yes, but you’re assuming that all of the qualifications are clear and objective. They may not be.

On 1/27/2018 at 7:27 AM, Chip said:

For a potential example ... let's say that an organization has a judicial committee to resolve disputes in the organization. One of the criteria to be on the judicial committee could be that a member must have previously been a committee chair, and must have "demonstrated impartiality in his conduct while chairing the committee."

Whether or not the person has demonstrated impartiality during their committee chairmanship could be debated.

The appropriate time to debate such things is during debate on an Appeal from the chair’s ruling on a Point of Order regarding whether the member in question is eligible.

Additionally, I would suggest that adopting eligibility rules as subjective as this example would be extremely ill-advised.

On 1/27/2018 at 7:40 AM, Chip said:

I think that the rules for an organization should spell out procedures for nominations and elections, including procedures regarding nominations, qualifications, nomination speeches, members speaking for or against candidates, time limits, a debate format, election method, etc.

I agree with this - if, of course, the elections in a particular organization are of a nature to require such rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Chip said:

I suppose that makes sense. I wish RONR was more explicitly clear on this topic, or set up some specific procedure that assemblies could default to (or ignore by writing their own rules on the topic).

Yes, I've seen many variations on the "nominating speech", "seconding speeches", "acceptance (campaign) speech, and sometimes general debate.  It's important to note that the rules of decorum still apply, so "negative campaigning" is skating on thin ice. 

RONR has very little to say on the matter, except (in the tinted pages, I believe) that nominations are debatable.  That's not a lot to go on, so it's a subject that's a good candidate for customized rules.

Edited by Gary Novosielski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

 . . . RONR has very little to say on the matter, except (in the tinted pages, I believe) that nominations are debatable.  That's not a lot to go on, so it's a subject that's a good candidate for customized rules.

It's also a good subject for clarification and elaboration in the 12th edition of RONR !! :)

Link to comment
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...