Nomination for an office in the middle of their term

[Saxywolf]

I'm advising a nomination committee (I shouldn't be as I'm the president whose term is 1 year, but our leader resigned so I took up the advisory role instead, but that's another story) and one of the members of the committee made it known that they wish to replace an officer of the board whose term is NOT up.  The officer has only served 1 year of a 3 year term. The nomination committee member isn't planning to have the nomination committee make the nomination, but instead make it from the floor (we do allow "open nominations").  

At first blush it seemed obvious that you cannot make a nomination for an office that is not vacant.  The committee member claims that this is allowed because we hold "open elections" (their term).  I asked for clarification and their understanding is that it is allowed because we allow nominations from the floor.  The members are not used to someone running things "by the book" and I'm concerned that they may accept this reasoning.

The only phrase I can find that would not allow this is "In no event may a member nominate more persons than there are places to fill." (RONV 11thEd p432 ll13-14)  Which is usually taken to mean that you cannot nominate more than one person for a single office or more than n where n is the number of positions open and being voted on (e.g. members at large or board members if not elected to a particular office).  But, in my view, the number of positions open for this office is 0.  While this is sufficient to me, it just doesn't sound convincing.  Can I get some help making it more convincing?  I will be talking to the committee member before the election to try to convince them.

Just in case, if they go ahead and make the nomination at the membership meeting anyway, what would my response be as chair?  "You're nomination is improper and therefore invalid as you may not nominate more persons than there are places to fill for that office."? 

[Gary Novosielski]

The chair should accept nominations for each office separately, in the order that the offices appear in the bylaws.  Any office that is not at the end of its term would not be open for nominations, so it will be skipped by the chair.  Also, there should be no balloting for such offices, so even if nominated, there would be nowhere to vote for that nominee.

In certain circumstances an officer can be removed prior to the end of his or her term, but that would have to be done first, before an election for that office would be held.

[Josh Martin]

10 hours ago, Saxywolf said:

At first blush it seemed obvious that you cannot make a nomination for an office that is not vacant.

Your instinct was correct.

10 hours ago, Saxywolf said:

The committee member claims that this is allowed because we hold "open elections" (their term).  I asked for clarification and their understanding is that it is allowed because we allow nominations from the floor.  The members are not used to someone running things "by the book" and I'm concerned that they may accept this reasoning.

The fact that nominations are allowed from the floor does not mean nominations (or elections) can be held for offices which are not, in fact, up for election.

If it is desired to elect someone different to this position, it would be necessary for the society to first remove the person who is currently in the position. Your bylaws might specify the rules for that procedure. If not, it depends on what your bylaws say regarding the term of office.

10 hours ago, Saxywolf said:

The only phrase I can find that would not allow this is "In no event may a member nominate more persons than there are places to fill." (RONV 11thEd p432 ll13-14)  Which is usually taken to mean that you cannot nominate more than one person for a single office or more than n where n is the number of positions open and being voted on (e.g. members at large or board members if not elected to a particular office).  But, in my view, the number of positions open for this office is 0.  While this is sufficient to me, it just doesn't sound convincing.  Can I get some help making it more convincing?  I will be talking to the committee member before the election to try to convince them.

I think the most important thing to remember is that it is not in order to elect someone else to this position. Based upon that, it would seem blatantly obvious that no one can be nominated for the position, as there is no election to have nominations for.

Electing someone to a position when the term of the current officer has not, in fact, expired would be a main motion which conflicts with a main motion previously adopted and still in force (the election of the current officer). This is therefore not in order. Indeed, such an election would be a continuing breach. This is explicitly stated in RONR.

"Otherwise, an election may be contested only by raising a point of order. The general rule is that such a point of order must be timely, as described in 23:5. If an election is disputed on the ground that a quorum was not present, the provisions in the last sentence of 40:12 apply. Other exceptions to the general timeliness requirement are those that come within the five categories listed in 23:6, in which cases a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance in office of the individual declared elected. For example:

...

b) If there was a previously valid election for the same term, the subsequent election of another is the adoption of a main motion conflicting with one still in force." RONR (12th ed.) 46:49

"Likewise, apart from motions to Rescind or to Amend Something Previously Adopted (35), motions are not in order if they conflict with one or more motions previously adopted at any time and still in force." RONR (12th ed.) 39:5

It should also be noted that an election cannot be rescinded. Rather, there are specific procedures to remove an officer.

10 hours ago, Saxywolf said:

Just in case, if they go ahead and make the nomination at the membership meeting anyway, what would my response be as chair?  "You're nomination is improper and therefore invalid as you may not nominate more persons than there are places to fill for that office."? 

If I were in the chair, I would rule "The nomination is not in order because there is no election at this time for that office."

Edited January 15, 2021 at 02:19 PM by Josh Martin

[Richard Brown]

12 hours ago, Saxywolf said:

. . .one of the members of the committee made it known that they wish to replace an officer of the board whose term is NOT up. The officer has only served 1 year of a 3 year term. The nomination committee member isn't planning to have the nomination committee make the nomination, but instead make it from the floor (we do allow "open nominations").  

Agreeing with Mr. Novosielski and Mr. Martin, what this member is telling you is pure nonsense. You cannot nominate or elect people to positions or terms that have not expired and are not open for election. If it is desired to replace an officer or board member whose term has not  expired, RONR contains provisions for how to remove officers if your bylaws are silent  

If anyone, whether it be the nominating committee or someone from the floor, tries to nominate someone to a position for which the term has not expired and the position is not open for nominations, you should declare that nomination out of order because the position is not open for Election at this time.

Edited January 15, 2021 at 03:41 PM by Richard Brown
Added to the quote by saxywolf

[Joshua Katz]

What do the bylaws say about the term of office?

[Saxywolf]

Thank you for all your responses.  I can usually find my answers by searching the book and then the web (often finding them here), and while I did find the statement limiting nominations to openings, I needed a bit more for this one to help the other members understand.  The devil's advocate argument for what I found was that you could then not accept a nomination for any office until the current person had left.

 

Quote

The chair should accept nominations for each office separately

-Gary Novosielski

We usually call for any nominations, of which there are almost never any nominations for positions that already have a nominee and never (that I know of) for a position that is not up for election, and then we normally accept the slate by acclimation.  In the rare event that there is a runoff we hold elections by blank paper ballot and then accept the rest by acclimation.  I don't believe there has been more than a handful of paper ballot votes for officers in the last few decades.
 

Quote

In certain circumstances an officer can be removed prior to the end of his or her term, but that would have to be done first, before an election for that office would be held.

-Gary Novosielski

 

Quote

If it is desired to elect someone different to this position, it would be necessary for the society to first remove the person who is currently in the position. Your bylaws might specify the rules for that procedure. If not, it depends on what your bylaws say regarding the term of office.
- Josh Martin

We do have specific procedures and circumstances for this, but this hasn't been done in this case.  At least, not yet.
 

Quote

I think the most important thing to remember is that it is not in order to elect someone else to this position. Based upon that, it would seem blatantly obvious that no one can be nominated for the position, as there is no election to have nominations for.
- Josh Martin

We traditionally just "open nominations", but not for specific positions.  In fact, year after year our guide is just a table of all the positions, when they started, the number of terms allowed, term length, etc. and we just update the table each year.  I think I'll mark that office in question as "Still Serving Current Term".
 

Quote

Electing someone to a position when the term of the current officer has not, in fact, expired would be a main motion which conflicts with a main motion previously adopted and still in force (the election of the current officer). This is therefore not in order. Indeed, such an election would be a continuing breach. This is explicitly stated in RONR. ... b) If there was a previously valid election for the same term, the subsequent election of another is the adoption of a main motion conflicting with one still in force." RONR (12th ed.) 46:49
- Josh Martin

This sounds like the real reason to back up my case for not accepting the nomination.
 

Quote

If I were in the chair, I would rule "The nomination is not in order because there is no election at this time for that office."
- Josh Martin

 

Quote

declare that nomination out of order because the position is not open for Election at this time.
- Richard Brown

I like the way these sound better then what I suggested.

 

Quote

Agreeing with Mr. Novosielski and Mr. Martin, what this member is telling you is pure nonsense.
- Richard Brown

It may be pure nonsense to RONR, but it sounds like an argument.  The group is not used to doing things by-the-book, but rather only by tradition.

 

Quote

What do the bylaws say about the term of office?
-Joshua Katz

For some officers:
Their term of office shall be one (1) year; with a maximum of two (2) years continuous elected service in that office for the president and the vice-president and a maximum of three (3) years continuous elected service in that office for the secretary, treasurer and financial secretary.

For some other officers:
Each of these individuals will be elected for a term of two (2) years with a maximum of four (4) years (two terms) of continuous elected service in that office.

I have a gripe about our bylaws not being specific about when the term ends, but that is yet another issue.  Nor do our bylaws specify how to handle considering appointments as a term (or not) of office.

Thanks!

[Josh Martin]

34 minutes ago, Saxywolf said:

Their term of office shall be one (1) year; with a maximum of two (2) years continuous elected service in that office for the president and the vice-president and a maximum of three (3) years continuous elected service in that office for the secretary, treasurer and financial secretary.

For some other officers:
Each of these individuals will be elected for a term of two (2) years with a maximum of four (4) years (two terms) of continuous elected service in that office.

I am a little confused now because you originally said "The officer has only served 1 year of a 3 year term," but there don't actually seem to be any officers which serve three year terms. The text provided states that some officers serve one year terms and some serve two year terms.

Could you clear up this inconsistency?

34 minutes ago, Saxywolf said:

I have a gripe about our bylaws not being specific about when the term ends, but that is yet another issue.

"An election to an office becomes final immediately if the candidate is present and does not decline, or if he is absent but has consented to his candidacy. If he is absent and has not consented to his candidacy, the election becomes final when he is notified of his election, provided that he does not immediately decline. If he does decline, the election is incomplete, and another vote can be taken immediately or at the next meeting without further notice. After an election has become final as stated in this paragraph, it is too late to reconsider (37) the vote on the election.

An officer-elect takes possession of his office immediately upon his election’s becoming final, unless the bylaws or other rules specify a later time (see 56:27). If a formal installation ceremony is prescribed, failure to hold it does not affect the time at which the new officers assume office." RONR (12th ed.) 46:46-47.

34 minutes ago, Saxywolf said:

Nor do our bylaws specify how to handle considering appointments as a term (or not) of office.

Please clarify what exactly this is referring to.

Edited January 16, 2021 at 07:34 PM by Josh Martin

[Atul Kapur]

1 hour ago, Saxywolf said:

The devil's advocate argument for what I found was that you could then not accept a nomination for any office until the current person had left.

Or their term has ended (or is close to the end, depending on the exact timing of the election). The way you describe it here, you make it sound like it's the individual's choice whether to leave when the term ends. Recent events may have caused confusion on that point, but that's not the way terms work.

[Saxywolf]

On 1/16/2021 at 2:34 PM, Josh Martin said:

I am a little confused now because you originally said "The officer has only served 1 year of a 3 year term," but there don't actually seem to be any officers which serve three year terms. The text provided states that some officers serve one year terms and some serve two year terms.

Could you clear up this inconsistency?

I was mixing up the 2 year term with the 3 max term length of other offices.  That's all.  The officer in question has completed 1 of 2 years.

On 1/16/2021 at 2:34 PM, Josh Martin said:

"An election to an office becomes final immediately if the candidate is present and does not decline, or if he is absent but has consented to his candidacy. If he is absent and has not consented to his candidacy, the election becomes final when he is notified of his election, provided that he does not immediately decline. If he does decline, the election is incomplete, and another vote can be taken immediately or at the next meeting without further notice. After an election has become final as stated in this paragraph, it is too late to reconsider (37) the vote on the election.

An officer-elect takes possession of his office immediately upon his election’s becoming final, unless the bylaws or other rules specify a later time (see 56:27). If a formal installation ceremony is prescribed, failure to hold it does not affect the time at which the new officers assume office." RONR (12th ed.) 46:46-47.

Please clarify what exactly this is referring to.

The only sort of "exception" to this is that the chair and secretary of the meeting does not change, correct?  Can the previous officers not give reports if the election was earlier in the meeting?

On 1/16/2021 at 2:34 PM, Josh Martin said:

Please clarify what exactly this is referring to.

For instance: If an officer is appointed by the board to fill an opening (this is how it is specified to be done), how does it interact with the 2 term or 3 term limit?  What happens if they are appointed the meeting after elections vs the meeting before elections?

On 1/16/2021 at 3:27 PM, Atul Kapur said:

Or their term has ended (or is close to the end, depending on the exact timing of the election). The way you describe it here, you make it sound like it's the individual's choice whether to leave when the term ends. Recent events may have caused confusion on that point, but that's not the way terms work.

What I mean is that someone *could* argue that "In no event may a member nominate more persons than there are places to fill" would mean that you cannot even nominate someone for an office until that office id vacant.

[Atul Kapur]

On 1/16/2021 at 2:34 PM, Josh Martin said:

"An election to an office becomes final immediately if the candidate is present and does not decline, or if he is absent but has consented to his candidacy."

 

3 hours ago, Saxywolf said:

The only sort of "exception" to this is that the chair and secretary of the meeting does not change, correct?  Can the previous officers not give reports if the election was earlier in the meeting?

No, that is not correct. If you want the chair and secretary to stay in those positions until the end of the meeting where elections are held -- that is, you want any exceptions -- then your bylaws should state that. Same for the other officers.

Many organizations have such a provision to say that officers' terms end at the adjournment of the meeting where their successors are elected.

 

 

[Josh Martin]

11 hours ago, Saxywolf said:

The only sort of "exception" to this is that the chair and secretary of the meeting does not change, correct?

No. I think the assembly could suspend the rules to permit the previous President and Secretary to continue as Chairman Pro Tempore and Secretary Pro Tempore for the duration of the meeting, but by default, these roles would also change immediately upon the completion of the election.

11 hours ago, Saxywolf said:

Can the previous officers not give reports if the election was earlier in the meeting?

Under the standard order of business, reports of officers occur prior to special orders, which is where the elections would arise.

If for some reason the elections occur prior to reports, however, I am inclined to think the assembly could still receive the reports of the former officers if it wishes to do so. The new officers presumably do not have anything to report yet.

11 hours ago, Saxywolf said:

For instance: If an officer is appointed by the board to fill an opening (this is how it is specified to be done), how does it interact with the 2 term or 3 term limit? What happens if they are appointed the meeting after elections vs the meeting before elections?

"The bylaws may contain a provision that “No person shall be eligible to serve  consecutive terms in the same office.” In filling vacancies for unexpired terms, an officer who has served more than half a term in an office is considered to have served a full term. As stated in 46:46–47, the term of office begins as soon as the officer is elected, unless the bylaws establish a different time (see also 56:27)." RONR (12th ed.) 47:4

In the extreme examples provided, the first scenario would certainly be less than half a term, and would not count as a term for purposes of term limits, while the second would certainly be more than half a term, and would count as a full term for purposes of term limits.

Edited January 19, 2021 at 01:54 PM by Josh Martin