Accepting or Declining Nominations

[Eli Zupke]

For my organization's elections, our bylaws require nominations to be from the floor. It is customary during nominations for each nomination to be immediately accepted or declined by the nominee, and nominees who accept have the option to decline in the time immediately after the meeting.

Our bylaws and other relevant governing documents are silent on this issue, and I couldn't find anything in Robert's Rules on this.

• Does this custom conflict with Robert's Rules?
• If not, are there any reasons why we might want to move away from this custom?

[RSW]

Are the elections being held at the same meeting?

People can't be elected to an office against their will, reference RONR 46:46:

Quote

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.

so I don't see that there's nothing wrong with allowing people to decline a nomination - it's effectively a "if you elect me, I'm not going to serve" notification. It feels efficient to me. But if they're nominated, are elected, and voice no objection at the time, after the meeting would be too late to change their mind.

Requiring nominees to accept a nomination is unnecessary. Not immediately objecting implies consent, provided they're present.

Reasons to *not* do nominations from the floor include a more robust vetting process. If there's a nominating committee they can seek out people that are both interested *and* have the qualifications. It also makes the process a bit more streamlined to have a nominating committee, since you're not scrambling at the meeting to figure out who is going to run.

[Richard Brown]

4 hours ago, Eli Zupke said:

For my organization's elections, our bylaws require nominations to be from the floor. It is customary during nominations for each nomination to be immediately accepted or declined by the nominee, and nominees who accept have the option to decline in the time immediately after the meeting.

Our bylaws and other relevant governing documents are silent on this issue, and I couldn't find anything in Robert's Rules on this.

• Does this custom conflict with Robert's Rules?
• If not, are there any reasons why we might want to move away from this custom?

No, your custom does not conflict with RONR.  Even though your organization does not use a nominating committee (and RONR does not require one), this is what RONR says in Section 46:13 about a nominating committee getting the consent of nominees.  Perhaps it is illustrative of a good practice:  "It is desirable policy for the nominating committee, before making its report, to contact each person whom it wishes to nominate, in order to obtain his acceptance of nomination— that is, his assurance that he will serve in the specified office if elected. The bylaws can make such a practice mandatory."

As to when an election takes effect, RONR says this in section 46:46:  "Time at Which an Election Takes Effect. 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."

In conclusion, it is always a good idea to try to determine prior to nominating someone if he will serve if elected, but it is not actually required by RONR.   However, some organizations have their own rules requiring that the consent of nominees be obtained prior to or at the time of being nominated.  

The only troublesome aspect of your custom is that RONR provides that if a nominee has given his consent prior to the election, his election is final at the time he is elected.  Only those who have not yet agreed to serve or are absent at the time of the election have the option of declining to serve once elected.  If someone who has consented to serve is elected and then changes his mind, his only option per RONR is to submit a resignation if he does not want to serve.

 

Edited April 12, 2021 at 02:39 AM by Richard Brown
Edited last paragraph to conform to the original post

[Josh Martin]

4 hours ago, Eli Zupke said:

• Does this custom conflict with Robert's Rules?

No. RONR does not require this practice, but it also does not prohibit it.

I would point out that persons who are absent at the time of nominations may still be nominated. Organizations with a custom such as this one are sometimes under the mistaken impression that this is not the case.

4 hours ago, Eli Zupke said:

• If not, are there any reasons why we might want to move away from this custom?

It seems to me that knowing whether a person wishes to serve is a valuable service to the assembly. The only potential downside to this practice I can see is that it could take up some time. If that is becoming an issue, an alternative might be to instruct nominees to speak out if they wish to decline, and to assume that nominees who remain silent accept their nomination.

Edited April 12, 2021 at 02:50 AM by Josh Martin

[Eli Zupke]

17 hours ago, RSW said:

Are the elections being held at the same meeting?

14 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

The only troublesome aspect of your custom is that RONR provides that if a nominee has given his consent prior to the election, his election is final at the time he is elected. 

There is a week's delay between nomination and election, and this is when people are changing their mind.

14 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

an alternative might be to instruct nominees to speak out if they wish to decline, and to assume that nominees who remain silent accept their nomination.

I think this is an excellent idea, and I'll suggest it to the organization.

 

Thank you everyone for the answers!

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Eli Zupke said:

There is a week's delay between nomination and election, and this is when people are changing their mind.

A nominee is free to change their mind prior to the election.

Edited April 12, 2021 at 06:53 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

On 4/11/2021 at 7:15 PM, RSW said:

Requiring nominees to accept a nomination is unnecessary. Not immediately objecting implies consent, provided they're present.

Per RONR, however, a person who is elected, if present at the meeting, may decline if it is done immediately.

[Guest Robert]

If an individual is nominated inNovember for a positon and then in Dec decides he wants to run for a different postion (night of Elections ) does he have to withdraw from his first nomination that he already accepted ? 

[Richard Brown]

Guest Robert, please ask your question by starting a new thread -- as a new post.  That is the way we prefer it on this forum.  This thread is over two years old.