Debate the slate

[Guest Lisa]

The organization I’m in fills board positions through an application process and presents a slate to the general membership , at the next meeting the slate is voted on by the membership . The questions is can Members debate the slate ( ps I should mention that we do not present  candidates from the floor.  we present additional candidates through a petition with in 14 days of the slate  being presented to the membership. ) 

[Josh Martin]

2 minutes ago, Guest Lisa said:

The organization I’m in fills board positions through an application process and presents a slate to the general membership , at the next meeting the slate is voted on by the membership . The questions is can Members debate the slate ( ps I should mention that we do not present  candidates from the floor.  we present additional candidates through a petition with in 14 days of the slate  being presented to the membership. ) 

For starters, it is not proper to vote yes/no on a slate of candidates unless your bylaws so provide. Members are free to vote for any eligible person for the positions up for election, whether or not they have been nominated.

As to your original question, RONR provides that nominations are debatable. My understanding from previous threads on this subject is that this means that such debate is only in order when nominations are in order (which raises complications if nominations from the floor are prohibited), but the rules could be suspended to permit debate even although nominations are closed.

[Richard Brown]

Guest Lisa, does your organization (the nominating  committee??) present a "slate" to be voted on as a whole, or does it present a list of "nominees", usually one name for each position?  I suspect that what is being presented is a list of nominees, not a true "slate".   I'm not at all sure, though, who or what body is deciding on and presenting this "slate" or list of nominees.  Is it a nominating committee?  The board as a whole?  What exactly do your bylaws say about  this "slate" or the nominating process?

[Guest Guest Lisa]

So our Nominating Committee after an application process  presents the slate ( one name for each open postion and per our bylaws the slate is voted in as a whole ex: president= Jane Doe ,  secretary =Jill You ,  treasure = Helen Herald etc etc ) than we vote on it? 

[Guest Guest Lisa]

Here are the bylaws :
Section 2. Election and Eligibility.
Directors shall be elected by the membership from a slate prepared by the Nominating Committee. All candidates for directorships must be members of the League in good standing, as defined by these By-Laws, at the time of their application for consideration and must maintain this status throughout their directorship if elected.

 Nominating:
Section 3. Duties
The duties of the Nominating Committee are: (a) To ensure that the Board of
Directors possesses the competencies necessary for effective governance and management of the League; (b) To prepare a slate of Officers, Directors and Nominating Committee members to be elected by the membership eligible to vote. Such slate shall consist of League members identified through an objective process that ensures transparency and accessibility to all who are eligible and qualified to serve on the Board of Directors, as Officer or on the Nominating Committee. Details of the nominating process are set forth in the [Operational Policies of the League]; and (c) To transmit the slate to the membership at least thirty (30) calendar days before the date on which the membership will be required to vote on the slate.
Section 4. Additional Candidates.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Independent nominations for additional candidates may be made by any Active member in good standing for vacancies in the positions of Officer or on the Board of Directors or Nominating Committee. Such nominations shall be in writing, bear the signatures of at least (10) members entitled to vote and be accompanied by the written consent of the nominee.
Independent nominations must be received by the Nominating Chair within fifteen (15) calendar days after the slate in Section 3(c) of this Article has been sent to the membership. The Nominating Chair must notify the membership of the content of such independent nominations no later than 7 days after the independent nomination has been received. Ifthereismorethanonecandidateforaposition,thatpositionisremoved from the slate and is voted on by separate ballot.

[Josh Martin]

9 hours ago, Guest Guest Lisa said:

So our Nominating Committee after an application process  presents the slate ( one name for each open postion and per our bylaws the slate is voted in as a whole ex: president= Jane Doe ,  secretary =Jill You ,  treasure = Helen Herald etc etc ) than we vote on it? 

Based on the additional facts presented, this appears to be the case unless other nominations are received, in which event the contested positions are voted on separately, and the remaining positions on the slate are voted in as a whole.

I strongly advise amending the bylaws to change this. In the interim, however, I stand by my original answer that the slate may not be debated unless the rules are suspended to permit it.

[Guest Lisa]

Thank you !! 

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

When the only choices are "yes" and "no," does an election exist? Is it nor more in keeping with a motion to confirm and thus debatable?

[Richard Brown]

I'm still not totally convinced that these  elections, if there is only the "slate" of nominees,  is really a "yes/no" election as to the "slate".  The word slate might be being used incorrectly to mean simply a list of nominees.  So, I'm not convinced that the slate is being proposed as a true "slate" as opposed to just being a list of nominees. I think a lot depends on the exact wording of the bylaws and other rules and I don't think we have enough information.

[Josh Martin]

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

When the only choices are "yes" and "no," does an election exist? Is it nor more in keeping with a motion to confirm and thus debatable?

I can see a reasonable argument for that. We are indeed well outside the bounds of how elections work in RONR, so perhaps the rules for a motion would be more applicable.

31 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

I'm still not totally convinced that these  elections, if there is only the "slate" of nominees,  is really a "yes/no" election as to the "slate".  The word slate might be being used incorrectly to mean simply a list of nominees.  So, I'm not convinced that the slate is being proposed as a true "slate" as opposed to just being a list of nominees. I think a lot depends on the exact wording of the bylaws and other rules and I don't think we have enough information.

I disagree. It seems to me that, based upon the facts provided, the bylaws indeed provide that there is a yes/no vote on the slate (except for those positions which have also received nominations by petition). In particular, the following provisions seem to support this position:

“To prepare a slate of Officers, Directors and Nominating Committee members to be elected by the membership eligible to vote.”

“To transmit the slate to the membership at least thirty (30) calendar days before the date on which the membership will be required to vote on the slate.“ The bylaws specifically say that the membership votes on the slate itself.

14 hours ago, Guest Guest Lisa said:

The Nominating Chair must notify the membership of the content of such independent nominations no later than 7 days after the independent nomination has been received. If there is more than one candidate for a position, that position is removed from the slate and is voted on by separate ballot.

This is the kicker for me. This rule seems to be created for the reason that, when a yes/no vote is taken on a slate, some alternative procedure is necessary in the event that a position is contested. If the “slate” were indeed a list of nominees, and the assembly were still to follow the procedures in RONR for elections, this rule would seem to be unnecessary.

While I grant that it is ultimately up to the organization to interpret its own bylaws, the evidence presented seems to weigh heavily in favor of the interpretation that the organization’s bylaws indeed require the membership to vote yes or no on the slate in its entirety (excepting those positions which have received other nominations by petition).

Edited February 14, 2019 at 06:57 PM by Josh Martin

[Richard Brown]

After reading Josh Martin's most recent post, I, too, am convinced that the nominating committee is indeed proposing a "slate" which is apparently subject to a yes/no vote unless there are other nominees. 

[Nathan Zook]

I'm very much with Josh Martin on the need to clean this up.  In particular, what happens if there are no alternates, but the slate fails?  We would need to see more of the bylaws, but it seems entirely possible that under this circumstance, the society might be left without any officers at all!

In fact, the notion of dividing a question was added to the rules of parliament on Dec 2, 1640 (RONR, (11th ed), p xxxiv, ll 18-22) because of the nomination of two for knighhood.  It is with good cause that Roberts provides that motions on unrelated issues by divided on the demand of any individual member (ibid, p 274, l 31 - 275, l 14)

Your bylaws really need to cover what happens if a nomination fails, or a nominee were to, heaven forbid, die after the deadline for nominations had passed.  The simplest solution might be to provide that if, for whatever reason, no nominees qualify, or none are elected to a particular office, that nominations to fill the failed office become in order at the meeting (presumably with the extant other qualifications).

The other question I have has to do with the process of making the nominations themselves.  What happens if a member at the meeting were to raise a point of order that the nomination process was not objective?  If this point were upheld (and I can make an extremely strong case that it is impossible for human beings to be truly objective about anything), then it would seem that the entire slate would be disqualified, even if the objection were only against a single nominee.

 

As always, your bylaws are yours, but...

[Guest Lisa]

I’m taking it all in and will present the thoughts to the organization. Thank you so much for the advise and thoughts. I really appreciate this forum. 

[Josh Martin]

9 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

Your bylaws really need to cover what happens if a nomination fails, or a nominee were to, heaven forbid, die after the deadline for nominations had passed.  The simplest solution might be to provide that if, for whatever reason, no nominees qualify, or none are elected to a particular office, that nominations to fill the failed office become in order at the meeting (presumably with the extant other qualifications).

The simplest solution would be to scrap this process entirely and hold elections in accordance with RONR.

Edited February 15, 2019 at 12:52 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

12 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

The simplest solution would be to scrap this process entirely and hold elections in accordance with RONR.

Could this "slate" rule be suspended, do you think?

[Josh Martin]

On 2/15/2019 at 7:30 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Could this "slate" rule be suspended, do you think?

In this particular instance, I think the slate rule taken together with the rules which require any other nominations to be submitted 15 days in advance and notice given to the membership 7 days in advance suggests that these rules may not be suspended. The purpose of these rules seems to be to prevent votes for any candidates except those on the slate or those nominated by petition at least 15 days in advance. Since there is a requirement for previous notice, I do not think they could be suspended to permit write-in votes or additional candidates.

I suppose the rules could be suspended to permit yes/no votes on each individual candidate on the slate.

Edited February 18, 2019 at 02:26 PM by Josh Martin