Timing of the nominating committee report for an annual membership meeting

[John A]

RONR (12 ed.) 46:14 states the following about the report of the nominating committee.

The report should always be formally presented at a regular meeting, even if the names of the committee’s nominees have been transmitted to the members of the society beforehand.

In my large association (several thousand members), we have one annual business meeting (ABM). The governance says that the nominating committee selects nominees for the Board, for Officers, and also for any vacancies on the nominating committee. The nominating committee currently starts their work in January each year, and the governance states that they present their nominations to the Board (in the spring) at least 12 weeks before the ABM (in the summer). In that 12-week interval, there is time allotted to collect nominations from the membership (by petition) and the election is done by electronic ballot starting 6 weeks before the ABM and ending 3 weeks before the ABM. The results of the election are announced at the ABM, although candidates are notified of the result (win or lose) before the ABM.

How strictly should we be interpreting “should always be formally presented at a regular meeting”? I see that RONR (12 ed.) 46:1 implies that a nomination is equivalent to a motion and since motions can only occur at meetings, the nominations should probably be done at the the ABM (whether it is by report of a nominating committee or other means). Is there any way to rationalize how it is currently done with respect to RONR, or is moving the election to after the ABM the only way to be compatible with RONR (which is the adopted parliamentary authority)?

[Nathan Zook]

23 minutes ago, John A said:

How strictly should we be interpreting “should always be formally presented at a regular meeting”? I see that RONR (12 ed.) 46:1 implies that a nomination is equivalent to a motion and since motions can only occur at meetings, the nominations should probably be done at the the ABM (whether it is by report of a nominating committee or other means). Is there any way to rationalize how it is currently done with respect to RONR, or is moving the election to after the ABM the only way to be compatible with RONR (which is the adopted parliamentary authority)?

Keep in mind that the parliamentary authority, such as RONR, is the lowest-ranking authority governing the body's behavior.  I am assuming that by "the governance", you are describing your bylaws, charter, or governmental rule rather than custom.  Your bylaws specify the procedure for election, which occurs entirely outside the AMB.  The results do need to be announced, and this is what you do.

--

As an aside, I am stridently opposed to online elections and votes.  There is no end to the mischief which can occur to subvert the vote.  But if your organization as adopted such a rule, that is the rule.

[John A]

6 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

Keep in mind that the parliamentary authority, such as RONR, is the lowest-ranking authority governing the body's behavior.  I am assuming that by "the governance", you are describing your bylaws, charter, or governmental rule rather than custom.  Your bylaws specify the procedure for election, which occurs entirely outside the AMB.  The results do need to be announced, and this is what you do.

Your assumption about governance is correct, and the elections are carried out in the manner described therein. Thanks.

[Josh Martin]

9 hours ago, John A said:

How strictly should we be interpreting “should always be formally presented at a regular meeting”?

I think not strictly at all in this particular case. The rules in RONR are generally written with the assumption that business is occurring at a meeting, and therefore this particular rule assumes that the election is occurring at a meeting. In a situation where the election is completed entirely outside the context of a meeting, I do not think the rule in question is applicable.

9 hours ago, John A said:

Is there any way to rationalize how it is currently done with respect to RONR, or is moving the election to after the ABM the only way to be compatible with RONR (which is the adopted parliamentary authority)?

Your organization's bylaws take precedence over RONR. So if your bylaws provide for the procedure you describe, then those rules take precedence over RONR.

[Joshua Katz]

15 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

As an aside, I am stridently opposed to online elections and votes.  There is no end to the mischief which can occur to subvert the vote. 

Thankfully, that sort of mischief and subversion does not occur offline.

[Nathan Zook]

9 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

Thankfully, that sort of mischief and subversion does not occur offline.

The offline fun & games don't scale & generally require the artist to be present in the jurisdiction in question, however.