Nomination from Floor

[Mark Apodaca, PRP]

I am working with the nominations committee and we came across the highlighted.  I told the members that this means if there are no candidates or just one candidate running for office, then there can be nominations from the floor.  They think otherwise.  Am I correct?  Do you see the same interpretation? 

Mark

Section 4.5. Candidacy Requirements.

The Election Committee shall receive completed candidacy forms, requisite background information, and proof of membership of a State Association and/or member-based Organizational Affiliate from prospective candidates for Officer and Regional Board Member positions no later than thirty (30) days prior to the biennial national conference to verify candidacy requirements. Names of official candidates shall be posted prior to the conference. If there are no prospects for a particular position, the Election Committee shall receive candidacy documents prior to the start of the Council of Representatives meeting. There shall be no nominations from the floor except in cases where there are not more than one (1) candidate running for the Elected Offices at the time of deadline in which nominations from the floor shall then be accepted.

[Weldon Merritt]

8 minutes ago, Mark Apodaca said:

There shall be no nominations from the floor except in cases where there are not more than one (1) candidate running for the Elected Offices at the time of deadline in which nominations from the floor shall then be accepted.

As we often say here, it is up to each society to interpret its own bylaws, so my opinion is worth only as much weight as the society may wish to give it. But assuming there are no other provisions that could affect the quoted language, it certainly looks to me like you are correct.

[Josh Martin]

11 minutes ago, Mark Apodaca said:

I am working with the nominations committee and we came across the highlighted.  I told the members that this means if there are no candidates or just one candidate running for office, then there can be nominations from the floor.  They think otherwise.  Am I correct?  Do you see the same interpretation? 

It is ultimately up to the organization to interpret its own bylaws, but that interpretation appears to be correct to me based on the plain language of the rule.

What is the alternate interpretation which is being suggested?

[Mark Apodaca, PRP]

Their interpretation is that if there is one candidate, then nominations from the floor are not allowed.

 

[Richard Brown]

24 minutes ago, Mark Apodaca said:

I am working with the nominations committee and we came across the highlighted.  I told the members that this means if there are no candidates or just one candidate running for office, then there can be nominations from the floor.  They think otherwise.  Am I correct?  Do you see the same interpretation? 

I don't know that more opinions are necessary, but since you asked for them and at least one person somewhere apparently disagrees, I'll offer mine, too.  I interpret the provision the same way you, Mr. Merritt and Mr. Martin do, namely, that if there are either no nominees or only one nominee for an office, nominations from the floor must be permitted.

[Joshua Katz]

I will join the consensus. I'd like to ask, though - what is the argument being made otherwise? I fail to see how those words can be interpreted that way. (Well, okay, I see how the words allow that interpretation, but not in this context.)

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Mark Apodaca said:

Their interpretation is that if there is one candidate, then nominations from the floor are not allowed.

I do not think this is a reasonable interpretation unless there is some other rule in the bylaws that I am not aware of. The last time I checked, one is not "more than one."

[Mark Apodaca, PRP]

This is in regard to the recent discussion about nominating from the floor.  I met with the three members of the nominating committee this morning. Their argument is that NAD has guidelines which candidates must follow.  If someone is nominated from the floor and does not meet any of the qualifications or guidelines, then the candidate is disqualified.  Such nomination becomes null and void.

Below is part 1.  I will add part 2 in the next section.

 

 

[Josh Martin]

5 minutes ago, Mark Apodaca said:

This is in regard to the recent discussion about nominating from the floor.  I met with the three members of the nominating committee this morning. Their argument is that NAD has guidelines which candidates must follow.  If someone is nominated from the floor and does not meet any of the qualifications or guidelines, then the candidate is disqualified.  Such nomination becomes null and void.

Below is part 1.  I will add part 2 in the next section.

It is of course correct that if a person is not eligible for office, then that person is not eligible for office, regardless of the manner in which the person is nominated.

What eligibility requirements, specifically, is it alleged that some or all of the anticipated nominees do not meet?

[Mark Apodaca, PRP]

Below are the requirements for submission:

2.  Requirements for submission

Candidates must submit:

a.  a letter of intent

b.  complete candidate filing form

c.  proof of state association membership.  Official letter from state association officer and member for two years

d.  biographical statement including information about the candidates present employment, national and state association activities

e. platform statement stating the candidate's commitment to the association.

f.  must be a member of NAD for two years

If a candidate nominated from the floor did not meet the above then I think he or she becomes disqualified and the nomination is null and void.

Your thoughts?

Mark

 

[Richard Brown]

Mark,  in which set of rules are those requirements found? In the bylaws? In standing rules? In a policies and procedures document? In some other document? If so, what document?

[Josh Martin]

3 minutes ago, Mark Apodaca said:

If a candidate nominated from the floor did not meet the above then I think he or she becomes disqualified and the nomination is null and void.

I think there is no doubt that, based on what is provided here, a person must be an active member of the national association and a state association and must have been a member of the national association for at least two years. This would apply regardless of how (or if) the person is nominated.

I think it is less clear whether the other requirements, which relate to various documents which must be submitted, are intended to apply to all persons or are only intended to apply to persons who apply in advance. I can see reasonable arguments for both sides, and it will ultimately be up to the organization to interpret these rules.

In the long run, it would seem prudent to amend the bylaws to clarify this matter.

I also concur with Mr. Brown that it would be important to know whether the rules on this matter are found in the bylaws or in a lower-level document.

[Mark Apodaca, PRP]

It is a part of the Delegate Manual.  Delegates are expected to follow all guidelines and rules within the manual.  I am wondering if they can be interpreted to be rules of order.  The manual contains everything from resolutions, priorities, minutes from the previous conference, number of delegates per state based on membership, proposed standing rules, and proposed bylaws amendments as well as what I just shared about the nominating process.

Personally, I do not think that anyone will be nominated from the floor.  Most delegates do not read the bylaws.  The manual comes in 85 pages.

[Mark Apodaca, PRP]

An individual could provide what is required but not yet declare his or her candidacy until the time comes for nominations.  That is when he or she would decide and ask someone to nominate him or her.  By that time the nominating committee will already have checked in case he or she decides to run.

[Mark Apodaca, PRP]

NAD's bylaws can be found in www.nad.org.

[Joshua Katz]

5 minutes ago, Mark Apodaca said:

It is a part of the Delegate Manual.  Delegates are expected to follow all guidelines and rules within the manual.  I am wondering if they can be interpreted to be rules of order. 

How did they get in there? They must have come from somewhere. Who adopted them? If not, what is the basis for this expectation?

[Josh Martin]

10 minutes ago, Mark Apodaca said:

It is a part of the Delegate Manual.  Delegates are expected to follow all guidelines and rules within the manual.  I am wondering if they can be interpreted to be rules of order.  The manual contains everything from resolutions, priorities, minutes from the previous conference, number of delegates per state based on membership, proposed standing rules, and proposed bylaws amendments as well as what I just shared about the nominating process.

Personally, I do not think that anyone will be nominated from the floor.  Most delegates do not read the bylaws.  The manual comes in 85 pages.

Rules for eligibility for office may only be in the bylaws. None of the rules presented here seem to be in the nature of rules of order, although there may well be other rules in the Delegate Manual in the nature of rules of order.

If it is not expected that anyone will be nominated from the floor, then it seems to me the goal should simply be to clarify the bylaws in the future so they say what the organization wants them to say.

Edited September 9, 2020 at 07:06 PM by Josh Martin

[Mark Apodaca, PRP]

Joshua,

A little bit of history.  Prior to the 2014 biennial conference Atlanta, Georgia, the bylaws did not allow nominations from the floor.  During the conference in 2016 at Phoenix, Arizona, there was one candidate who was running for region 4 representative (west) and he backed out during the conference due to protests from delegates from the region.  For that reason, there were no candidates and the board later appointed someone for the position.  The delegates were angry about this.  In 2018, during the conference at Hartford, Connecticut where I was the parliamentarian (just hired one month before the conference) an amendment was made to the section "not more than one".  If there were no candidates then it makes sense to nominate from the floor.  But if there is one candidate then they should allow it as it is, that is run without any opposition.  Why the bylaws committee entered one, beats me especially when there are guidelines and rules to follow.