election campaigning

[Guest Tim]

We have an organization with 125 members that hold elections at our annual meeting each year for the four officers and 1/3 of the directors, whose terms are staggered.

My questions is, is there any proper way to allow nominees to campaign for themselves after all nominations are closed, we have no language in our bylaws, and i do not see anything in RR?

Example 6 directors are up for re-election, if a seventh is nominated from the floor, there will be an election where only 6 of the 7 can be elected, I would like there to be a way where each nominee could give a short dissertation of there history with the organization and why they should be elected.

Thanks

[Rob Elsman]

Nominations are debatable, so nominees who are members of the assembly can rise for the purpose of making speeches. Other members may also rise for the purpose of making speeches to endorse their favorite candidates.

Once nominations have closed, however, RONR (11th ed.) leaves the strong impression that members can rise for the purpose of making motions, but not for the purpose of making speeches.

[George Mervosh]

I agree with Mr. Elsman.  Nominations are debatable but only when it's in order to make them, so don't close nominations until these speeches are concluded.

[Guest Tim]

11 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

I agree with Mr. Elsman.  Nominations are debatable but only when it's in order to make them, so don't close nominations until these speeches are concluded.

So i believe the proper order would be

report of nominating comitee

President asks " are there any nominations from floor?"

"If there are no further nominations, is there any discussion before closing nominations?"  ( at which time nominees could speak to their qualifications)

Or someone could make a motion "to allow nominees to speak for x minutes about their qualifications" 

Then after this speach period if no further nominations, the president can declare nominations closed, then start the voting process.

Am i correct in this order of procedure?

Thanks

 

 

[Rob Elsman]

No, I did not intend to leave the impression that there need be any separation between the nominations and the debate.

[Alex Meed]

11 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

Nominations are debatable, so nominees who are members of the assembly can rise for the purpose of making speeches. Other members may also rise for the purpose of making speeches to endorse their favorite candidates.

Once nominations have closed, however, RONR (11th ed.) leaves the strong impression that members can rise for the purpose of making motions, but not for the purpose of making speeches.

 

11 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

I agree with Mr. Elsman.  Nominations are debatable but only when it's in order to make them, so don't close nominations until these speeches are concluded.

Messrs. Elsman and Mervosh, this seems logical and I don't doubt it, but I'm curious about where I could find this in the book.

[Rob Elsman]

RONR (11th ed.), pp. 430-438.

[George Mervosh]

On 3/6/2020 at 9:12 PM, Alex M. said:

Messrs. Elsman and Mervosh, this seems logical and I don't doubt it, but I'm curious about where I could find this in the book.

The pages cited don't directly address debate, but the process of making nominations is a motion (tinted pages 18-19, motion 49) and I'm certain you are aware that you can't debate a motion in an assembly unless it's actually pending.

[Rob Elsman]

Making nominations in an election is a particular application of the rules for making suggestions to fill one or more blanks. As noted in RONR (11th ed.), p. 164, suggestions to fill one or more blanks in a debatable motion are debatable, each suggestion being treated as a separate, original proposal.

[Richard Brown]

As Mr. Mervosh pointed out, RONR is not as clear as it could be regarding nominations being debatable and providing an opportunity for the members to discuss nominations and for nominees to speak to the assembly.  It is actually rather confusing.  However, it is perfectly permissible and quite commonfor organizations to provide for an opportunity for such discussion and/or speeches after nominations are closed and prior to voting.  This can be accomplished via a motion, a special rule of order, or, as I suspect is more common, simply by custom.  It has been my own experience that many organizations do provice for such a period of discussion and/or speeches after nominations are closed and prior to voting. Doing so is perfectly permissible when RONR is the parliamentary authority.

[Alex Meed]

5 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

Making nominations in an election is a particular application of the rules for making suggestions to fill one or more blanks. As noted in RONR (11th ed.), p. 164, suggestions to fill one or more blanks in a debatable motion are debatable, each suggestion being treated as a separate, original proposal.

Thanks, I find this persuasive—but wouldn't the discussion take place after nominations have closed?

4 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

As Mr. Mervosh pointed out, RONR is not as clear as it could be regarding nominations being debatable and providing an opportunity for the members to discuss nominations and for nominees to speak to the assembly.  It is actually rather confusing.  However, it is perfectly permissible and quite commonfor organizations to provide for an opportunity for such discussion and/or speeches after nominations are closed and prior to voting.  This can be accomplished via a motion, a special rule of order, or, as I suspect is more common, simply by custom.  It has been my own experience that many organizations do provice for such a period of discussion and/or speeches after nominations are closed and prior to voting. Doing so is perfectly permissible when RONR is the parliamentary authority.

My organization essentially does it by custom.

Perhaps I've hijacked this thread a little too much...

[Guest Zev]

1 hour ago, Alex M. said:

Perhaps I've hijacked this thread a little too much...

Absolutely not. If you have doubts then keep asking questions. Some threads have gone for miles, and you are not even close.

[Dan Honemann]

15 hours ago, Alex M. said:

Thanks, I find this persuasive—but wouldn't the discussion take place after nominations have closed?

No. Nominations are debatable only while the floor is open for nominations.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/9/2020 at 4:13 PM, Alex M. said:

Thanks, I find this persuasive—but wouldn't the discussion take place after nominations have closed?

My organization essentially does it by custom.

Once nominations are closed, the question of nominations is no longer pending, and is therefore no longer debatable.

[Richard Brown]

14 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Once nominations are closed, the question of nominations is no longer pending, and is therefore no longer debatable.

That is true, but the assembly may still adopt a motion or a special rule of order to permit speeches and/or discussion after nominations are closed and prior  to voting.  Many organizations do this as a matter of custom.

[George Mervosh]

39 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

That is true, but the assembly may still adopt a motion or a special rule of order to permit speeches and/or discussion after nominations are closed and prior  to voting.  Many organizations do this as a matter of custom.

What's so hard about simply not closing them until debate is completed?

Edited March 13, 2020 at 08:26 PM by George Mervosh

[Gary Novosielski]

4 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

What's so hard about simply not closing them until debate is completed?

I agree.  The chair, rather than saying "If there are no further nominations <pause> nominations are closed," may instead say "If there are no further nominations, is there any discussion on nominations?" 

And when debate has ended, close nominations at that point.

[AFS1970]

What would the end result be of debating a nomination? Since a nomination does not require a second, isn't it permanent the minute it is made?

Member A nominates Member B for office. Member C rises in debate to oppose the nomination. Member A speaks in favor of the nomination. No matter how persuasive Member C is, it seems to me that the nomination of Member B is still in place at the end of the debate.

Am I missing something else here?

[Joshua Katz]

Just now, AFS1970 said:

What would the end result be of debating a nomination? Since a nomination does not require a second, isn't it permanent the minute it is made?

 

As I understand it, an election is a motion with a blank. A nomination is a proposal to fill that blank (although voting doesn't proceed like that for filling a blank, so maybe I'm wrong). So debate on the nomination is debate on the proposal to fill the blank with that individual, i.e. just speaking for or against the candidate being elected.

[Atul Kapur]

1 hour ago, AFS1970 said:

Member C rises in debate to oppose the nomination.

 

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

just speaking for or against the candidate being elected.

It is difficult to oppose a nomination without breaching the rule that the speaker "must never attack ... members" (RONR 11th ed., p. 43, lines 19-20).

So it is safer when debating nominations to simply speak to the merits of your preferred nominee and why that person should be elected, rather than speaking against any nominee.

 

[Joshua Katz]

Oh, I think I can speak about one candidate's proposals or past actions without attacking them.

[Rob Elsman]

In my opinion, factual statements that go to the heart of the question about a candidate's suitability do not breach the rule prohibiting the dealing in personalities.

For example, it would be perfectly acceptable to speak about your opponent's prior convictions for embezzlement during nominations for treasurer, especially if the information were not widely known; however, it would go too far to call him a thief, since such a statement would be a derived characterization (however true it may be!) and a personal attack, not a factual statement.

[Atul Kapur]

4 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

Oh, I think I can speak about one candidate's proposals or past actions without attacking them.

I said it would be difficult, not impossible, and gave advice on what would be "safer," that is less liable to being challenged as an attack.

[Gary Novosielski]

The subject of debate would not be whether or not the person should be nominated.  The person has been nominated.

The debate centers around who should be elected.

[Richard Brown]

On 4/3/2020 at 6:52 PM, Rob Elsman said:

In my opinion, factual statements that go to the heart of the question about a candidate's suitability do not breach the rule prohibiting the dealing in personalities.

For example, it would be perfectly acceptable to speak about your opponent's prior convictions for embezzlement during nominations for treasurer, especially if the information were not widely known; however, it would go too far to call him a thief, since such a statement would be a derived characterization (however true it may be!) and a personal attack, not a factual statement.

I  agree with Mr. Elsman's post.