Elected Pending Documentation

[Mark Apodaca, PRP]

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.

This was previously discussed.  This relates to the National Association of the Deaf.

On Thursday, the first of four virtual Council of Representatives session will start.  So far there are only one candidate for each of the positions (Officers and Four Regional Board Members).  The Chair of the Elections Committee called me and informed me that there were rumors that one individual plans to challenge another current candidate for a regional member seat.  

Section 4.5 appears to put in restrictions as follows:

1. The person who may run cannot submit his documents because of the sentence in red above.  There is one candidate already running.
2. If he is nominated by the floor, and won the election, it defeats the purpose of submitting the documents.

My question is - if the individual wins, can it be announced that the person is elected pending on candidacy requirements and documents?  If he did not meet the requirements, then the other individual wins the position.  I don't believe that a new elected officer or rep should serve on the board if the requirements are not met.

The Chair of the Nominating Committee asked if nominations can be accepted anytime during the four sessions.  I told him no because according to the schedule, the Election of Officers and Regional Representatives happens at the beginning of Session III and that is when he can accept nominations from the floor.

Mark

[Rob Elsman]

If the cited rule does not seem to say everything that needed to be said, it is past time to have modified it.

[Mark Apodaca, PRP]

Rob,

In other words, you agree that "elected pending documentation" is valid?

 

[Rob Elsman]

It really does not matter what I think about the rule.  The fact that you have a question about the rule suggests to me that other members also likely have your question or other questions about the rule.  All I am saying is that it is past time to change the rule if it is incomplete, ambiguous, incomprehensible or unworkable.

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Mark Apodaca said:

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.

This was previously discussed.  This relates to the National Association of the Deaf.

On Thursday, the first of four virtual Council of Representatives session will start.  So far there are only one candidate for each of the positions (Officers and Four Regional Board Members).  The Chair of the Elections Committee called me and informed me that there were rumors that one individual plans to challenge another current candidate for a regional member seat.  

Section 4.5 appears to put in restrictions as follows:

1. The person who may run cannot submit his documents because of the sentence in red above.  There is one candidate already running.
2. If he is nominated by the floor, and won the election, it defeats the purpose of submitting the documents.

My question is - if the individual wins, can it be announced that the person is elected pending on candidacy requirements and documents?  If he did not meet the requirements, then the other individual wins the position.  I don't believe that a new elected officer or rep should serve on the board if the requirements are not met.

The Chair of the Nominating Committee asked if nominations can be accepted anytime during the four sessions.  I told him no because according to the schedule, the Election of Officers and Regional Representatives happens at the beginning of Session III and that is when he can accept nominations from the floor.

For reference, Mr. Apodaca's previous question on this subject can be found here.

I don't think it makes any sense whatsoever that the person would be elected "pending candidacy requirements and documents." Whether or not this person is eligible should be confirmed prior to the election. I am also still not certain that submitting the documents should be considered an eligibility requirement, especially for candidates from the floor.

As to the other question regarding what time the nominations can be accepted, generally nominations are taken immediately prior to the election. I don't think the bylaws clearly provide otherwise, although if you squint I guess I can see your argument in regard to timing.

In any event, it will ultimately be up to the organization to interpret its own bylaws. In the long run, your society should amend its bylaws so that they are clear.

[Gary Novosielski]

7 hours ago, Mark Apodaca said:

If he did not meet the requirements, then the other individual wins the position.

Oops, I don't like that.  RONR is pretty clear that no one is elected except by a majority.  And if the floor nominee was elected, then the other individual could not have had a majority.  I think a new round of voting would be needed.

But I don't get from the quoted language that candidacy forms and background information are required of floor nominees.  That paperwork appears to be used by the election committee in its work, but its work is done by the time nominations are accepted from the floor.  Is there some critical need for this information that's not obvious from the section quoted?

[Mark Apodaca, PRP]

Gary,

I am in concur that the Section needs to be rewritten for clarity.  As a matter of fact, I feel that the entire bylaws need to be revised.  I served on the board for the first time back in 1996 and the bylaws are pretty much the same as of today.  There have been amendments to the bylaws during each of the biennial conferences since then.

The NAD bylaws are only 10 pages and a number things are not covered which means that the Parliamentarian has to refer to RONR. During the past several biennial conferences, the parliamentarians were not a part of serving as advisors to the bylaws committee.  I like NAP’s bylaws which is 21 pages and more detailed.

When I read Sections 4.2 (Elected Officers) and 4.3 (Elected Regional Board Members), both sections made it a requirement that to hold office, three things must be met.  First, you must be a member of NAD.  Secondly, you must be a member of a state association or nonprofit organization affiliate.  And lastly, you must be a member of NAD for two or more years.

Now for Section 4.5, because the conference starts tomorrow afternoon, the only alternative available is for someone to be nominated from the floor.  And, unlike the previous sentences under 4.5, requirement of candidacy documents are not stated.  So as long as the candidate meets the three requirements above, he or she is qualified to run for office.

Mark

 

[Josh Martin]

17 minutes ago, Mark Apodaca said:

When I read Sections 4.2 (Elected Officers) and 4.3 (Elected Regional Board Members), both sections made it a requirement that to hold office, three things must be met.  First, you must be a member of NAD.  Secondly, you must be a member of a state association or nonprofit organization affiliate.  And lastly, you must be a member of NAD for two or more years.

These seem like things that are easy enough to verify.

18 minutes ago, Mark Apodaca said:

Now for Section 4.5, because the conference starts tomorrow afternoon, the only alternative available is for someone to be nominated from the floor.  And, unlike the previous sentences under 4.5, requirement of candidacy documents are not stated.  So as long as the candidate meets the three requirements above, he or she is qualified to run for office.

Makes sense to me. So if a person is nominated from the floor, confirm whether that person is eligible and move on with the election.

[Mark Apodaca, PRP]

Josh,

Exactly.  why complicate things when it can be simple.

Mark

[Gary Novosielski]

5 hours ago, Mark Apodaca said:

Gary,

I am in concur that the Section needs to be rewritten for clarity.  As a matter of fact, I feel that the entire bylaws need to be revised.  I served on the board for the first time back in 1996 and the bylaws are pretty much the same as of today.  There have been amendments to the bylaws during each of the biennial conferences since then.

The NAD bylaws are only 10 pages and a number things are not covered which means that the Parliamentarian has to refer to RONR. During the past several biennial conferences, the parliamentarians were not a part of serving as advisors to the bylaws committee.  I like NAP’s bylaws which is 21 pages and more detailed.

When I read Sections 4.2 (Elected Officers) and 4.3 (Elected Regional Board Members), both sections made it a requirement that to hold office, three things must be met.  First, you must be a member of NAD.  Secondly, you must be a member of a state association or nonprofit organization affiliate.  And lastly, you must be a member of NAD for two or more years.

Now for Section 4.5, because the conference starts tomorrow afternoon, the only alternative available is for someone to be nominated from the floor.  And, unlike the previous sentences under 4.5, requirement of candidacy documents are not stated.  So as long as the candidate meets the three requirements above, he or she is qualified to run for office.

Mark

 

That sounds right to me.  The membership information ought to be easily verified on the spot, for example by the nominee having the appropriate membership cards in his wallet.