Nominating Committee Membership

[Al Dunbar]

in RONR edition 11, in the sample bylaws section it states under "Article VII - Committees" that the president "shall be an ex officio member of all committees except the nominating committee and any disciplinary committee.

I had thought that anyone running for office was not allowed to be on the committee, but elsewhere in the forum I found otherwise, as RONR says that the loss of the right to run for office would be a significant deterrent to joining the committee.

Are not these two rules somewhat in conflict?

But more to my point, what is the rationale for the president's ineligibility for membership in a nominating committee, and where is this explained in the rules?

In our organization, we have a "governance" committee (of which the president is an ex officio member), and one of the duties assigned it is to perform the work of a nominating committee. When I explained what I found in our 11th edition, it was suggested that our bylaws could say different, and allow the president to be on the committee. Other than suggesting that the wording on this in RONR seemed quite definite, I was unable to give any explanation as to why this should be the case.

 

[Atul Kapur]

1 hour ago, Al Dunbar said:

it was suggested that our bylaws could say different, and allow the president to be on the committee.

That is correct. Your by-laws are the superior document to RONR and, in the event that they conflict, supersede RONR. 

[Guest Al Dunbar]

26 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

That is correct. Your by-laws are the superior document to RONR and, in the event that they conflict, supersede RONR. 

Thanks. But  even if that is the case  is there a reason that RONR says that the president should not be on the nominating committee? If there is a reason we had not thought of, but that we now agree with, then it would be better for us to look for a way to comply than to just do something we had good reason not to do.

[Josh Martin]

6 minutes ago, Guest Al Dunbar said:

Thanks. But  even if that is the case  is there a reason that RONR says that the president should not be on the nominating committee? If there is a reason we had not thought of, but that we now agree with, then it would be better for us to look for a way to comply than to just do something we had good reason not to do.

My understanding is the concern is that if the President is a member of the nominating committee (and worse yet, if he appoints the other members of the committee), then the committee will perpetuate the same group of leaders - nominating incumbent officers for reelection, or nominating the President's hand-picked successors when the incumbents are ready to retire. Such a committee may be less willing to consider the possibility of a change in officers than a committee which is elected by the society (or failing that, by the board).

Also, you originally raised the idea that this rule is somehow in conflict with the rule which provides that members of the nominating committee may become candidates, and I don't quite see how a rule providing that the incumbent President should not appoint or be a member of the committee is related to a rule pertaining to members of the committee becoming candidates for future office.

Edited May 31, 2021 at 11:18 PM by Josh Martin

[Al Dunbar]

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

My understanding is the concern is that if the President is a member of the nominating committee (and worse yet, if he appoints the other members of the committee), then the committee will perpetuate the same group of leaders - nominating incumbent officers for reelection, or nominating the President's hand-picked successors when the incumbents are ready to retire. Such a committee may be less willing to consider the possibility of a change in officers than a committee which is elected by the society (or failing that, by the board).

Also, you originally raised the idea that this rule is somehow in conflict with the rule which provides that members of the nominating committee may become candidates, and I don't quite see how a rule providing that the incumbent President should not appoint or be a member of the committee is related to a rule pertaining to members of the committee becoming candidates for future office.

Thanks, that makes sense - I expected something along those lines. it still seems to me a bit unfortunate that the rationale is not included in RONR.

I'll share your comments with those in the discussion. Our organization is not very (read: not at all) political in nature. And there is an ongoing expectation of ongoing board turnover. We are an arts based organization wanting to be open to new ideas, so are always on the lookout for "new blood", so to speak.

[Joshua Katz]

2 hours ago, Al Dunbar said:

Our organization is not very (read: not at all) political in nature.

Any elected body that makes decisions for others is, necessarily, political, in that political refers to the exercise and distribution of power. The difference is in how much they actively recognize it.

[Al Dunbar]

15 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

Any elected body that makes decisions for others is, necessarily, political, in that political refers to the exercise and distribution of power. The difference is in how much they actively recognize it.

Quite right. What I meant to say is that our members (elected officials included) tend not to behave in a political manner (for example, by taking extreme measures to acquire a board position), possibly because the effects of decisions made by our board tend to be non contentious.

That said, I will suggest in our discussions on this that our bylaws should withstand cultural changes in our membership.