Approval of Nominees for general election

[Guest JWTiberg]

The Bylaws of our organization state that the Nominating Committee must 'present a slate of officers to the Executive Board, Board of Directors and the Membership at their respective meetings in the month of February for approval'  but it doesn't say what happens if the slate is not approved. Our Bylaws also state 'Roberts Rules or Order Newly Revised shall be used as a guide where applicable and are consistent with these Bylaws'. The slate presented at last week's Executive Board Meeting was not approved by the Executive Board and now the Nominating Committee wants to proceed to the Board of Directors without addressing the Executive Board's concerns. How should this be addressed under Roberts Rules?

[Josh Martin]

4 minutes ago, Guest JWTiberg said:

The Bylaws of our organization state that the Nominating Committee must 'present a slate of officers to the Executive Board, Board of Directors and the Membership at their respective meetings in the month of February for approval'  but it doesn't say what happens if the slate is not approved. Our Bylaws also state 'Roberts Rules or Order Newly Revised shall be used as a guide where applicable and are consistent with these Bylaws'. The slate presented at last week's Executive Board Meeting was not approved by the Executive Board and now the Nominating Committee wants to proceed to the Board of Directors without addressing the Executive Board's concerns. How should this be addressed under Roberts Rules?

RONR does not require that the nominating committee’s report be approved, so it has no answer to this question. Your organization will have to interpret its own rules.

[Guest Zev]

7 hours ago, Guest JWTiberg said:

The Bylaws of our organization state that the Nominating Committee must 'present a slate of officers...

One organization I am familiar had similar bylaws, held a convention and the Nomination Committee presented its report. As the convention had done for approximately one hundred fifty years before, the delegates proposed amending the committee's motion, deleting some names and adding others. However, this time things were different. There was an ideological, some say theological, divide. The presiding officer, desiring to prevent any amendments because his friends had infiltrated the Nominating Committee and did not want to see the committee's work undone, conferred with the parliamentarian and ruled that the amendments were out of order because the bylaws stated that the nominees "must be nominated by the Nominating Committee." If the motion were to be amended then the new names could not have been proposed by the Nominating Committee, therefore the motion to amend is out of order. The convention of approximately thirty-five thousand erupted in protests, the presiding officer simply ignored all calls for Appeal. Eventually, one delegate sued the presiding officer in Federal Court, which the judge dismissed summarily, with I am told laughter, stating that the issue did not present a case based on any federal statute. As a result, this convention split in two.

Perhaps your organization is not ideologically split so drastically and will never experience such an event. Nevertheless, my suggestion is for you to attempt to amend your bylaws so as to remove the requirement that the Nominating Committee report to the Executive Board or the Board Of Directors, and also explicitly that the membership's assembly may amend the Nominating Committee's motion once it is made so as to make impossible the argument that the Nominating Committee is the boss in this matter and that the assembly must sit as a potted plant unable to do anything.

Harsh, someone says? Perhaps. Nevertheless, as I have said on occasion, "Pain is a wonderful teacher."

[Gary Novosielski]

11 hours ago, Guest JWTiberg said:

The Bylaws of our organization state that the Nominating Committee must 'present a slate of officers to the Executive Board, Board of Directors and the Membership at their respective meetings in the month of February for approval'  but it doesn't say what happens if the slate is not approved. Our Bylaws also state 'Roberts Rules or Order Newly Revised shall be used as a guide where applicable and are consistent with these Bylaws'. The slate presented at last week's Executive Board Meeting was not approved by the Executive Board and now the Nominating Committee wants to proceed to the Board of Directors without addressing the Executive Board's concerns. How should this be addressed under Roberts Rules?

Under Robert's Rules, the Nominating committee reports its list (not slate) of nominees to the Membership meeting. The Executive Committee or the Board of Directors would have no role  After the report is received the chair calls for any additional nominees from the floor. Any nominations from the floor are added to the list. No approval or disapproval takes place, except for the members voting for a nominee, or voting for someone else

But you asked how this should be addressed under Robert's Rules, and apparently your bylaws have rules that conflict with and therefore supersede the procedure described above.  So you'll have to interpret and obey your bylaws.

[Gary Novosielski]

3 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

One organization I am familiar had similar bylaws, held a convention and the Nomination Committee presented its report. As the convention had done for approximately one hundred fifty years before, the delegates proposed amending the committee's motion, deleting some names and adding others. However, this time things were different. There was an ideological, some say theological, divide. The presiding officer, desiring to prevent any amendments because his friends had infiltrated the Nominating Committee and did not want to see the committee's work undone, conferred with the parliamentarian and ruled that the amendments were out of order because the bylaws stated that the nominees "must be nominated by the Nominating Committee." If the motion were to be amended then the new names could not have been proposed by the Nominating Committee, therefore the motion to amend is out of order. The convention of approximately thirty-five thousand erupted in protests, the presiding officer simply ignored all calls for Appeal. Eventually, one delegate sued the presiding officer in Federal Court, which the judge dismissed summarily, with I am told laughter, stating that the issue did not present a case based on any federal statute. As a result, this convention split in two.

Perhaps your organization is not ideologically split so drastically and will never experience such an event. Nevertheless, my suggestion is for you to attempt to amend your bylaws so as to remove the requirement that the Nominating Committee report to the Executive Board or the Board Of Directors, and also explicitly that the membership's assembly may amend the Nominating Committee's motion once it is made so as to make impossible the argument that the Nominating Committee is the boss in this matter and that the assembly must sit as a potted plant unable to do anything.

Harsh, someone says? Perhaps. Nevertheless, as I have said on occasion, "Pain is a wonderful teacher."

If the rules in RONR apply, striking names from the nominating committee report would not be effective, since they could simply be added back from the floor, or failing that be written in.

[Josh Martin]

14 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Perhaps your organization is not ideologically split so drastically and will never experience such an event. Nevertheless, my suggestion is for you to attempt to amend your bylaws so as to remove the requirement that the Nominating Committee report to the Executive Board or the Board Of Directors, and also explicitly that the membership's assembly may amend the Nominating Committee's motion once it is made so as to make impossible the argument that the Nominating Committee is the boss in this matter and that the assembly must sit as a potted plant unable to do anything.

I disagree with the last suggestion. Rather than authorizing the membership to amend the nominating committee’s report, the rules should permit other methods to make nominations.

Edited February 11, 2020 at 02:53 PM by Josh Martin

[Richard Brown]

2 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

I disagree with the last suggestion. Rather than authorizing the membership to amend the nominating committee’s report, the rules should permit other methods to make nominations.

I agree with Mr. Martin's comments.   I also agree with Guest Zev that the original poster's organization should consider removing the requirement that the nominating  committee report to any board or committee other than the membership.

[Guest Zev]

5 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

I disagree with the last suggestion. Rather than authorizing the membership to amend the nominating committee’s report, the rules should permit other methods to make nominations.

Well, they did it this way for over one-hundred and fifty years with no problems until that day. Other methods of nominations is a very good suggestion. Anything to make it more difficult for a presiding officer to engage in parliamentary hanky-panky is a good idea.

Incidentally, on one occasion I used similar language and was admonished that technically the report itself cannot be amended, but the motion that flowed from the report can be. I knew that but I just got carried away a little bit. Again, pain is a wonderful teacher.