Nominating Committee woes

[JCee]

Background:  1.  Our bylaws stipulate that the nominating committee meet two times to interview candidates who have announced their interest in being slated for a board position.  The two days--one on each of two subsequent weeks--allow the candidates to choose the best date for their personal schedules.  2.  The first round of interviews took place last week; the 2nd was to take place this coming Friday.  3.  3 members of the nominating committee find themselves now unavailable to attend the 2nd round of interviews for various reasons.

Questions:  1.  Do the remaining 6 members conduct the 2nd round of interviews and handle all of the deliberations scheduled for that same day?  2. If so, what about the candidates who went through the process with 9 committee members?  Are their rights preserved by this method knowing that the 3 non-attendees will have zero say in the outcome now?

                     2.  As our general membership actually votes on the slate that is presented by the nominating committee, do we simply skip the entire slating process now since the nominating committee that began the process cannot finish it, allow all candidates to appear on a ballot and have the general membership vote on the candidates for each office at our November general meeting?

                     3.  Is there another valid way to resolve this matter?

[Richard Brown]

There is nothing improper about the remaining members of the nominating committee conducting the second meeting as long as a quorum is present. It is not necessary that all members be present at every meeting.

Edited October 3, 2018 at 03:05 PM by Richard Brown
Added last sentence

[Bruce Lages]

Answers:

1. Unless your rules require something different, yes, the remaining 6 committee members can certainly conduct the 2nd round of interviews. If your nominating committee consists of 9 members, then a quorum of that committee, according to RONR, would be a majority of the committee members, which is 5. Under RONR as long as a minimum of a quorum is present, a body can legitimately conduct business. Unless you have a quorum requirement for the committee which is greater than 6, these 6 members are empowered to conduct the business of the nominating committee.

2. There is no basis for skipping your 'slating' process since it appears it will be conducted properly. If the second round of interviews is conducted by those 6 nominating committee members then the committee that began the process will finish it, even though the same committee members will not be present at both interviews.

3. There is no need for another way since nothing you have stated indicates that the present procedure is not valid.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

4. Find some new committee members who can meet the rather minimal requirement of assembling twice per year.

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, JCee said:

1.  Do the remaining 6 members conduct the 2nd round of interviews and handle all of the deliberations scheduled for that same day?

If they wish. The committee could also set an adjourned meeting for Saturday or Sunday and postpone the interviews to that meeting, if it prefers to do so. It appears that the interviews may not be delayed further, since you say that your rules require the interviews to be scheduled on two days, “one on each of two subsequent weeks.”

I would also note that the rules cited so far appear to refer only to when the interviews are conducted, so it may be that the committee is permitted to conduct the interviews this week, and postpone the deliberations to a meeting scheduled for a later week, so long as this would still permit the committee to complete its task in a timely manner. It’s all up to the committee’s discretion and your assembly’s rules. There is nothing in RONR which requires all members of the committee to be present.

2 hours ago, JCee said:

2. If so, what about the candidates who went through the process with 9 committee members?  Are their rights preserved by this method knowing that the 3 non-attendees will have zero say in the outcome now?

The candidates have no “right” for their nomination to be considered by all members of the committee.

2 hours ago, JCee said:

2.  As our general membership actually votes on the slate that is presented by the nominating committee, do we simply skip the entire slating process now since the nominating committee that began the process cannot finish it, allow all candidates to appear on a ballot and have the general membership vote on the candidates for each office at our November general meeting?

I see nothing in the facts provided which suggests that the committee cannot finish its work, so I see no reason to “simply skip the entire slating process.” It should also be noted, however, that members are free to make nominations from the floor, unless your rules provide otherwise.

2 hours ago, JCee said:

3.  Is there another valid way to resolve this matter?

As noted above, the committee should complete its work in a manner consistent with your rules and, beyond that, within the discretion of the committee. The committee should then make its report and nominations from the floor are then in order. The assembly is then free to elect any eligible person.

1 hour ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

4. Find some new committee members who can meet the rather minimal requirement of assembling twice per year.

It may be impossible at this time to replace the members of the committee. Members of the nominating committee are often elected by the general membership, and the general membership may not meet between now and the report of the committee.

Additionally, it appears that the problem for these members (at this time) is with this particular Friday, which is not necessarily an indication that the committee members are, generally speaking, unable to meet twice a year.

[Richard Brown]

I concur with the comments by Josh Martin. I wanted to say much of the same thing in my post, but it was far too much typing to attempt on this cell phone!

Edited to add: I also agree with the comments by the others.

Edited October 3, 2018 at 07:32 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[Josh Martin]

8 hours ago, JCee said:

As our general membership actually votes on the slate that is presented by the nominating committee,

Following up on this, there appears to be an implication that the assembly votes “yes” or “no” on the slate in its entirety. This is completely improper, unless your bylaws provide for conducting elections by this method. Instead, members should be permitted to make nominations from the floor and vote for any eligible person of their choice for each office.

Edited October 3, 2018 at 11:01 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

16 hours ago, JCee said:

Are their rights preserved by this method knowing that the 3 non-attendees will have zero say in the outcome now?

Are votes on the candidates conducted at that same meeting where interviews are held?  Or are deliberations on the final slate list of nominees held at a later committee meeting? 

If the latter, and the three are then present, they would certainly have a vote, even if they missed the earlier meeting.  Have you considered recording the meeting so that the three absentees could hear the questions and answers of those candidates to inform their decision?  Even if you don't, those three might learn enough from other members during deliberations that they would not feel uncomfortable voting.

RONR does not deal nearly as extensively with the rights of candidates as it does with the rights of voters.  If a conflict occurs, the smart money in on the voters prevailing.

[Josh Martin]

9 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

RONR does not deal nearly as extensively with the rights of candidates as it does with the rights of voters.  If a conflict occurs, the smart money in on the voters prevailing.

If anything, I think this is an understatement. So far as I am aware, RONR has nothing whatsoever to say about the rights of candidates and is solely concerned with the rights of members. To put it another way, candidates have no rights beyond their rights as members (assuming the candidates are members), unless the organization’s rules provide otherwise.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 10/4/2018 at 1:42 PM, Josh Martin said:

If anything, I think this is an understatement. So far as I am aware, RONR has nothing whatsoever to say about the rights of candidates and is solely concerned with the rights of members. To put it another way, candidates have no rights beyond their rights as members (assuming the candidates are members), unless the organization’s rules provide otherwise.

I was thinking of some bylaws that list, among the enumerated rights of membership, the right to seek and hold office. But you're right, these are no different than the rights of any other member.  By running for or being nominated for an office, one does not get any additional rights.

And in some organizations, this would not even be considered a right of membership, because non-members are eligible to be elected to the board or other offices.

[Guest Rosa]

On 10/3/2018 at 7:00 PM, Josh Martin said:

the assembly votes “yes” or “no” on the slate in its entirety. This is completely improper, unless your bylaws provide for conducting elections by this method. Instead, members should be permitted to make nominations from the floor and vote for any eligible person of their choice for each office.

Could you please cite the rule about voting for each office individually?

During a meeting, can it moved/voted to nullify a rule of order, such as that of voting on individual officers? (e.g., they often vote to dispense with calling the roll.)

Recently, we felt democracy was overpowered when our county committee chair recognized someone who nominated a slate of 5 officers all  in one breath. When the chair asked for other nominations, I rose and mentioned two people for different offices, assuming we'd get to present them with 2 nominating speeches (as she herself had been just previously). Instead, without further ado, she asked for a yea or nay vote on voting as a slate, and then held a vote between the two "slates" (ours was not a slate, per se, and didn't even fill all 5 positions). I saw it as a way of preventing participation, and I wonder if RONR allows this. 

Thank you all for this helpful site.

[Richard Brown]

13 minutes ago, Guest Rosa said:

Could you please cite the rule about voting for each office individually?

Do you have a copy of the 11th edition of RONR?

[Guest Rosa]

On 10/3/2018 at 7:00 PM, Josh Martin said:

the assembly votes “yes” or “no” on the slate in its entirety. This is completely improper, unless your bylaws provide for conducting elections by this method. Instead, members should be permitted to make nominations from the floor and vote for any eligible person of their choice for each office.

Could you please cite the rule about voting for each office individually?

During a meeting, can it moved/voted to nullify a rule of order, such as that of voting on individual officers? (e.g., they often vote to dispense with calling the roll.)

Recently, we felt democracy was overpowered when our county committee chair recognized someone who nominated a slate of 5 officers all  in one breath. When the chair asked for other nominations, I rose and mentioned two people for different offices, assuming we'd get to present them with 2 nominating speeches (as she herself had been just previously). Instead, without further ado, she asked for a yea or nay vote on voting as a slate, and then held a vote between the two "slates" (ours was not a slate, per se, and didn't even fill all 5 positions). I saw it as a way of preventing participation, and I wonder if RONR allows this. 

Thank you all for this helpful site.

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Guest Rosa said:

Could you please cite the rule about voting for each office individually?

“Votes can be cast for any person who is eligible for election, even if he has not been nominated.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 439)

“In elections, "for" and "against" spaces or boxes should not be used. They are applicable only with respect to votes on motions. In an election, a voter can vote against one candidate only by voting for another who has been nominated or by writing in the name of another candidate.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 414)

1 hour ago, Guest Rosa said:

During a meeting, can it moved/voted to nullify a rule of order, such as that of voting on individual officers? (e.g., they often vote to dispense with calling the roll.)

Rules of order may generally be suspended (not “nullified”), however, the rules may not be suspended for the purpose described except by unanimous consent (and perhaps not even then, if the bylaws require a ballot vote - the description of a ballot vote for an election in RONR specifically provides that members may vote for any eligible candidate, as noted above).

“Sometimes a series of independent resolutions or main motions dealing with different subjects is offered in one motion. In such a case, one or more of the several resolutions must receive separate consideration and vote at the request of a single member, and the motion for Division of a Question is not used.” (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 274-275)

“In any case, no rule protecting a minority of a particular size can be suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as
the minority protected by the rule.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 261)

A rule which permits a single member to demand something protects a minority of one, and the rule therefore cannot be suspended if even a single member objects.

“A rule in the bylaws requiring that a vote—such as, for example, on the election of officers—be taken by (secret) ballot cannot be suspended, however, unless the bylaws so provide (see also Voting by Ballot, pp. 412–13).” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 263)

2 hours ago, Guest Rosa said:

Recently, we felt democracy was overpowered when our county committee chair recognized someone who nominated a slate of 5 officers all  in one breath. When the chair asked for other nominations, I rose and mentioned two people for different offices, assuming we'd get to present them with 2 nominating speeches (as she herself had been just previously). Instead, without further ado, she asked for a yea or nay vote on voting as a slate, and then held a vote between the two "slates" (ours was not a slate, per se, and didn't even fill all 5 positions). I saw it as a way of preventing participation, and I wonder if RONR allows this. 

RONR does not allow this. Members should have been permitted to make nominations and to make nominating speeches. Additionally, members are permitted to vote for any eligible candidate for each office. It is not proper to take a yes or no vote in an election, or to take a vote on competing “slates,” unless your bylaws so provide.

[Guest Rosa]

Actually, I didn't find a 12th edition in my library system...but Josh, thank you very much for your responses.  Could you help me find a citation for:

Members should have been permitted to make nominations and to make nominating speeches. Additionally, members are permitted to vote for any eligible candidate for each office. It is not proper to take a yes or no vote in an election, or to take a vote on competing “slates,” unless your bylaws so provide.

Much thanks.

Rosa

 

 

•  
• Quote

[Richard Brown]

27 minutes ago, Guest Rosa said:

Actually, I didn't find a 12th edition in my library system..

I'm not sure where this came from.  The 12th edition of RONR has not yet been published.  The current edition is the 11th edition.   (Note:  There are mentions on Amazon of a 12th edition, but I assure you there is no 12th edition yet.  Its expected publication date, I believe, is some time in 2020.

[Josh Martin]

44 minutes ago, Guest Rosa said:

Actually, I didn't find a 12th edition in my library system

This is not surprising, as the 12th edition is not out yet. The current edition is the 11th.

44 minutes ago, Guest Rosa said:

Could you help me find a citation for:

 Members should have been permitted to make nominations and to make nominating speeches. Additionally, members are permitted to vote for any eligible candidate for each office. It is not proper to take a yes or no vote in an election, or to take a vote on competing “slates,” unless your bylaws so provide.

Make nominations: “After the nominating committee has presented its report and before voting for the different offices takes place, the chair must call for further nominations from the floor.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 435)

Speeches: See #49 in RONR, 11th ed., tinted pages 18-19

I covered the other citations in my previous post.

Edited October 9, 2018 at 10:48 PM by Josh Martin