Floor Nominations

[JohnR3]

We currently have the below set of pertinent bylaws. Can nominations be taken from the floor at the November election meeting?

Despite my "the more open the better" leanings my interpretation is that the bylaws are specific enough ( "Nominations shall be closed as of the end of the October ... Meeting")  that nominations would not be taken from the floor or any other method at the November meeting. What do you think  - Can nominations be taken from the floor at the November election meeting?

-------

10.1.a At the October general membership meeting, the Nominating Committee shall submit one (1)
name for President, and one or more names for each of the other offices. Nominations will also
be accepted from the floor at this meeting, after the presentation of the Nominating
Committee’s report. Nominations shall be closed as of the end of the October general
membership meeting .

 

b. The election shall be held at the November general membership meeting. 

 

 

12. The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the
organization in all cases in which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these
By-Laws and any other rules the organization may adopt.

 

  

Edited October 9, 2018 at 04:43 PM by JohnR3

[Josh Martin]

38 minutes ago, JohnR3 said:

We currently have the below set of pertinent bylaws. Can nominations be taken from the floor at the November election meeting?

Despite my "the more open the better" leanings my interpretation is that the bylaws are specific enough ( "Nominations shall be closed as of the end of the October ... Meeting")  that nominations would not be taken from the floor or any other method at the November meeting. What do you think  - Can nominations be taken from the floor at the November election meeting?

-------

10.1.a At the October general membership meeting, the Nominating Committee shall submit one (1)
name for President, and one or more names for each of the other offices. Nominations will also
be accepted from the floor at this meeting, after the presentation of the Nominating
Committee’s report. Nominations shall be closed as of the end of the October general
membership meeting .

 

b. The election shall be held at the November general membership meeting. 

 

 

12. The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the
organization in all cases in which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these
By-Laws and any other rules the organization may adopt.

 

  

First, I must note that it is ultimately up to the organization to interpret its own bylaws. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation.

With that said, my personal interpretation would be that nominations are closed at the end of the October meeting, and therefore a member may not simply make a nomination at the November meeting. I do not think, however, that anything in the rule prohibits the society from choosing to reopen nominations at the November meeting, by majority vote. Even if the rule were interpreted in such a way that nominations may not be reopened, rules regarding nominations are in the nature of rules of order, which may be suspended by a 2/3 vote. Finally, even if the organization refuses to reopen nominations, members have the right to vote for any eligible candidate unless the bylaws provide otherwise. In other words, “write-in” votes are in order.

[JohnR3]

Thanks. I appreciate your detailed answer.

[Weldon Merritt]

Just to add another nuance, a member could make a Parliamentary Inquiry to ask, "Is it in order to nominate [name] for [office] at this time?" Even if the chair responds that it is not, the member has, if effect, nominated that person. As long as write-ins are not prohibited, that might encourage some members to vote for that person.

I saw something very much like this done at an NAP convention a few years ago. After a nominee had been defeated for one office, a member asked if it would be possible to nomnate the same person for another office. The chair answered that it was not, but at least the idea of a write-in had been planted. (It didn't work, as the "nominated" member did not get enough votes to win the other office, either.)

[Richard Brown]

I agree in part and disagree in part with Josh  Martin's comment above. I will comment below each quote.

3 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

First, I must note that it is ultimately up to the organization to interpret its own bylaws. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation. 

I agree completely with this statement.

3 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

With that said, my personal interpretation would be that nominations are closed at the end of the October meeting, and therefore a member may not simply make a nomination at the November meeting. I do not think, however, that anything in the rule prohibits the society from choosing to reopen nominations at the November meeting, by majority vote.

I have somewhat of a problem with this statement.  First, I'm not sure the statement in the bylaws that no more nominations shall  be taken after the October meeting is in the nature of a rule of order.  It strikes me that the  society might well consider it to be in the nature of a qualification for office: In order to be elected, a member must have been nominated by the October meeting.  If that provision is construed as being in the nature of a pre-requisite or qualification for office, then nominating someone after the October meeting would not be in order.

However, if the provision at issue is indeed in the nature of a rule of order, then I believe it would require a two thirds vote to suspend it and to nominate someone at the November meeting.  This  is something that I think it is ultimately up to the organization itself to interpret.

I do agree that a third possible interpretation of the provision is that it is no different from the adoption of an ordinary  motion to close nominations and that nominations can be re-opened by a majority vote.  However, I do not believe that is the intent of the provision.  I believe it is either in the nature of a pre-requisite for holding office or that it is in the nature of a special rule of order and would require a two thirds vote to suspend it and reopen nominations.

I do understand Mr. Martin's reasoning, but I think it is ultimately up to this society itself to interpret that bylaw provision.  I'm not willing to say that nominations can be re-opened at the November meeting with a majority vote. I think the provision in question is designed to prevent that.... or at least to prevent it without a two thirds vote.

I also agree with Mr. Martin that, regardless of whether nominations may be reopened, write in candidates are permitted unless there is a rule we don't know about which prohibits it.

1 hour ago, Weldon Merritt said:

ust to add another nuance, a member could make a Parliamentary Inquiry to ask, "Is it in order to nominate [name] for [office] at this time?" Even if the chair responds that it is not, the member has, if effect, nominated that person. As long as write-ins are not prohibited, that might encourage some members to vote for that person.

I'm afraid i disagree with the statement above by my friend Weldon Merritt.  I do not believe that making a parliamentary inquiry as to whether  it is in order to nominate Rudolph Reindeer for president at this time amounts to actually making the nomination. It was an inquiry only.  I think that if the chair responded with ,"No, it is not in order at this time", the member must nonetheless proceed to actually make the nomination if it is to be considered made.  The chair can then rule it our of order... or not.

[Weldon Merritt]

16 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

I'm afraid i disagree with the statement above by my friend Weldon Merritt.  I do not believe that making a parliamentary inquiry as to whether  it is in order to nominate Rudolph Reindeer for president at this time amounts to actually making the nomination. It was an inquiry only.  I think that if the chair responded with ,"No, it is not in order at this time", the member must nonetheless proceed to actually make the nomination if it is to be considered made.  The chair can then rule it our of order... or not.

I agree that it is not an actual nomination, and I didn't say it was. I said that "the member has, if effect, nominated that person." (Emphasis added.) The root of "nomination" is "nomen," meaning "name." Inlcluding the persons name in the inquiry at least puts it into the members' minds as a potential write-in, for whom they might not othertwise have thought of voting. And unless the bylaws require that someone be formally nominated to be elected, that's really all that any nomination does. (Well, except for having the nominee's name included on the printed ballot, if one is used. But that may or may not be a big advantage. I know of one political election where the only candidate actually listed on the ballot came in third in the election!)

[Josh Martin]

48 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

I do agree that a third possible interpretation of the provision is that it is no different from the adoption of an ordinary  motion to close nominations and that nominations can be re-opened by a majority vote.  However, I do not believe that is the intent of the provision.  I believe it is either in the nature of a pre-requisite for holding office or that it is in the nature of a special rule of order and would require a two thirds vote to suspend it and reopen nominations.

I do understand Mr. Martin's reasoning, but I think it is ultimately up to this society itself to interpret that bylaw provision.  I'm not willing to say that nominations can be re-opened at the November meeting with a majority vote. I think the provision in question is designed to prevent that.... or at least to prevent it without a two thirds vote.

I also agree with Mr. Martin that, regardless of whether nominations may be reopened, write in candidates are permitted unless there is a rule we don't know about which prohibits it.

Mr. Brown, if it is indeed correct that this in the nature of a prerequisite for holding office (and I do not think that it is), then wouldn’t write-in votes also be prohibited?

[Guest Zev]

Informing someone that nomination restrictions written in their organization's bylaws is either one of three things does not sound very definitive. Perhaps we should take a page out of the Inuit language, they have some thirty-odd words for "snow," and call the three things by three different names and define which ones are in fact qualification for office, a rule of order, or something akin to a main motion. Having thousands of organizations with such bylaw language and everyone with a different interpretation of the exact same words does not sound very good. What happens when a member joins another organization whose bylaws include the same language but a different interpretation? Was not the purpose of the original Robert's Rules of Order to get rid of the multiplicity of rules and methods and bring some consistency in these things? Perhaps I am just imagining things and it does not really matter. You tell me.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

I believe it is either in the nature of a pre-requisite for holding office or that it is in the nature of a special rule of order and would require a two thirds vote to suspend it and reopen nominations.

I agree with the latter. RONR tells us that, when interpreting bylaws, when one thing is specifically provided for, other things of that class are thereby prohibited. Section 10.1.a of the quoted bylaws appears to provide a complete nominating process.

[Richard Brown]

17 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

Mr. Brown, if it is indeed correct that this in the nature of a prerequisite for holding office (and I do not think that it is), then wouldn’t write-in votes also be prohibited?

Yes, I suppose that if the rule prohibiting nominations after the October meeting (or requiring them by the October meeting) is construed as a qualification or prerequisite for holding office, it would have the effect of prohibiting write-in votes. 

However, I believe that a bylaw provision could be drafted which requires that in order for a candidate to be listed on the ballot or to be considered as having been nominated, he must be nominated by the end of the October meeting and to also provide that such a rule cannot be suspended.  Such a rule, if properly drafted, would prohibit nominations after the October meeting, but would not prohibit write-in votes.  Whether that is the effect of the quoted bylaw provision is a matter of bylaws interpretation in my opinion.  We don't know what the folks who  drafted that provision intended.   I think it is ultimately up to this society to decide exactly what the quoted provision means.    For whatever it is worth, my own opinion is that it is probably in the nature of a special rule of order that can be suspended with a two thirds vote. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 10/10/2018 at 12:39 PM, Richard Brown said:

Yes, I suppose that if the rule prohibiting nominations after the October meeting (or requiring them by the October meeting) is construed as a qualification or prerequisite for holding office, it would have the effect of prohibiting write-in votes. 

I disagree with both of these assertions.  I don't think there is any rule prohibiting nominations after the October meeting.  The rule merely says that nominations are closed at the end of that meeting.  But RONR provides that nominations, once closed, may be reopened by a majority vote.  No suspension of the rules is required.  

Also, the quoted rules appear to deal only with nominations.  I don't see anything that would suggest construing nomination as a prerequisite for election.