Is the process for voting on a nominated position different then the process for voting on a motion?

[Guest RDC]

I  will be the Moderator at our upcoming meeting. We are going to vote to accept the new President that was recommended by the Presidential selection committee. There is a member that expects there to be a motion, second and discussion before the vote. From my understanding, this is not the case. The Body appointed the Presidential Selection Committee, who then submitted their recommendation in writing. Our bylaws say we may only consider one candidate at a time. So by what I've read, we should state the nominated person and position he will be filling, ask if there are any objections to that person filling that position, then have a vote by ballot (as per our bylaws).

My questing is, if I am correct. What are the allowed "objections" for one who is nominated? If the objections have merit do we then move to typical back and forth debate/discussion rules in article XII or do I allow a motion to disqualify the candidate? I do expect some pushback for this nomination. There have also been complaints that Parliamentary Procedure has not been used correctly in the past, which is correct. This is my first time as Moderator and I would like to not only change that but help these meetings regain some order.

thanks,

[Rob Elsman]

This group should been studying the section on nominations and elections, RONR (12th ed.) §46, for the whole past year.  The people in their various roles should have been studying and rehearsing the procedures until they could walk through them in their sleep.  With nothing having been done before the upcoming meeting, my guess is that this year's election is a procedural loss for everyone.  It is just too late to worry about how to handle an ineligible candidate at this point.

My suggestion is that the group just get past the election the best it can, more or less as if it has no rules at all, which is just about the case, anyway.

Immediately after the election is over, then start spending time and effort to study and practice for next year's election.  Don't wait to start until next year's election is a "hot topic".  Start early and leave plenty of time to work out all the kinks before the topic becomes contentious.  Keep practicing right up to the time for next year's election.

I do not know how big a group "we" is, but it might be worthwhile to establish a standing committee on rules immediately after the election has been completed, provided the group is large enough to make doing so advisable.  Part of the care of such a committee would be to devise and implement a year-long program of education and rehearsal on nominations and elections.  Particular training would be given to officers in their various roles, especially to the Moderator.

 

[Atul Kapur]

I wrote this before reading Mr. Elsman's reply above. I obviously do not agree that your situation is a lost cause and that you might as well give up.

Your bylaws differ from the procedure in RONR so you will need to review them and quote them exactly for us to be able to provide specific advice. For example, you tell us that they only allow one nominee to be considered, while RONR (12th ed.) 46:18 says, "After the nominating committee has presented its report and before voting for the different offices takes place, the chair must call for further nominations from the floor."

RONR also says, at 46:1 "Hence, a form of ballot on which provision is made for voting “for” or “against” a candidate or candidates, as distinguished from a motion, is not proper. Since such a ballot is improper, in order to defeat a candidate for an office it is necessary to vote for an opposing candidate, thus avoiding the anomaly of an assembly refusing to elect anyone to an office."

Generally, nominations are debatable in RONR while nominations are open (46:27-29). You, apparently, have been operating under a different system. We need to know if that system is written in your governing documents or is just a custom.

Edited January 25, 2023 at 09:01 PM by Atul Kapur
Added introductory remarks

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

On 1/25/2023 at 1:57 PM, Atul Kapur said:

 

Generally, nominations are debatable in RONR while nominations are open (46:27-29). You, apparently, have been operating under a different system. We need to know if that system is written in your governing documents or is just a custom.

If you can't speak against a candidate, only speak in favour of a rival, is that really debate?  

[Atul Kapur]

On 1/25/2023 at 4:01 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

If you can't speak against a candidate, only speak in favour of a rival, is that really debate?  

46:28, "If candidates are members of the organization, speakers must exercise caution to avoid making any personal criticisms of them in debate."

I believe that is not quite as severe as you have painted it ("can't speak against a candidate") and, even if it is, that is real debate — even if it means that speakers have to be creative and careful in their choice of words expressing their preference.

[Josh Martin]

On 1/25/2023 at 2:07 PM, Guest RDC said:

We are going to vote to accept the new President that was recommended by the Presidential selection committee. There is a member that expects there to be a motion, second and discussion before the vote. From my understanding, this is not the case. The Body appointed the Presidential Selection Committee, who then submitted their recommendation in writing.

I think it is correct that there does not need to be a motion and second, since an election is a motion which is "assumed" by the chair.

But I see no reason why there would not be a discussion.

On 1/25/2023 at 2:07 PM, Guest RDC said:

Our bylaws say we may only consider one candidate at a time.

I recommend getting rid of this rule as soon as possible. This is not consistent with how elections are conducted in RONR and also seems like a bad idea generally. Notwithstanding this, I suppose the society is stuck with following this rule for now.

On 1/25/2023 at 2:07 PM, Guest RDC said:

So by what I've read, we should state the nominated person and position he will be filling, ask if there are any objections to that person filling that position, then have a vote by ballot (as per our bylaws).

I think this is generally correct, but if there are objections, the nomination is then subject to debate.

In the ordinary case, this matter is handled by persons nominating other candidates, and persons then debate who is the best candidate for the job. But if your bylaws in fact provide that "we may only consider one candidate at a time," then I suppose the debate will be focused on that candidate.

Under your bylaws, what happens in the event that the society rejects the candidate recommended by the Presidential Selection Committee?

On 1/25/2023 at 2:07 PM, Guest RDC said:

What are the allowed "objections" for one who is nominated?

I think you may be conflating two different things. There is a "Point of Order," which would allege that the member is ineligible to hold the office due to some provision in the organization's bylaws. That would be limited to the qualifications in the organization's rules.

A separate matter is an "objection" to the request to elect this person by unanimous consent. Members may object to that for any reason they want.

In the following debate, comments should be germane (related to the question of this person's fitness for office) and should remain within the bounds of decorum.

On 1/25/2023 at 3:01 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

If you can't speak against a candidate, only speak in favour of a rival, is that really debate?  

I don't think it's quite that strict.

We had a lengthy discussion of how debate works in an election in this thread. (It started on a slightly different subject, but veered in the direction of what comments are in order in an election.)

Edited January 25, 2023 at 09:37 PM by Josh Martin

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

On 1/25/2023 at 2:36 PM, Josh Martin said:

In the following debate, comments should be germane (related to the question of this person's fitness for office) and should remain within the bounds of decorum.

I don't think it's quite that strict.

We had a lengthy discussion of how debate works in an election in this thread. (It started on a slightly different subject, but veered in the direction of what comments are in order in an election.)

I read that thread, and I saw one of the examples that was allegedly acceptable that said something to the effect of "Candidate's C's campaign raise questions of integrity" - considering what a firebrand I am outside of meetings, some may find this surprising, but I would find such a comment completely outside of decorum.  Questioning personal integrity is a big deal to do in a meeting.

Edited January 25, 2023 at 10:13 PM by Caryn Ann Harlos

[Josh Martin]

On 1/25/2023 at 4:13 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

I read that thread, and I saw one of the examples that was allegedly acceptable that said something to the effect of "Candidate's C's campaign raise questions of integrity" - considering what a firebrand I am outside of meetings, some may find this surprising, but I would find such a comment completely outside of decorum.  Questioning personal integrity is a big deal to do in a meeting.

Actually, I used that specifically as an example of a comment that was unacceptable.

On 4/16/2014 at 3:11 PM, Josh Martin said:

Conversely, the example I was thinking of for debate which was clearly not in order: "I am concerned about the integrity of our candidates. Certain statements in the materials distributed by Candidate C raise questions regarding his integrity, and..."

Edited January 25, 2023 at 10:33 PM by Josh Martin

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

On 1/25/2023 at 3:32 PM, Josh Martin said:

Actually, I used that specifically as an example of a comment that was unacceptable.

Oh okay I read it too fast then.  My reputation remains intact.  People tend to chortle when I call decorum.

[RDC]

I appreciate all the comments! It is like drinking from a fire hydrant though.  I will need to read RONR more and less commentaries on RONR, I defiantly have the wrong idea in several areas.

To answer your question Josh,

"Under your bylaws, what happens in the event that the society rejects the candidate recommended by the Presidential Selection Committee?"

They would move on to their second choice candidate that submitted a resume. 

Edited January 25, 2023 at 11:34 PM by RDC

[Josh Martin]

On 1/25/2023 at 5:26 PM, RDC said:

"Under your bylaws, what happens in the event that the society rejects the candidate recommended by the Presidential Selection Committee?"

They would move on to their second choice candidate that submitted a resume. 

This seems like a very odd way of doing things, but if that is what the organization's rules provide, then I suppose that is what must occur unless and until the rules are amended. Notwithstanding this, it seems to me that debate is in order unless the organization's rules provide otherwise.

If you are curious, the manner in which nominations and elections are conducted in RONR is discussed in RONR (12th ed.) Section 46.

On 1/25/2023 at 2:07 PM, Guest RDC said:

do we then move to typical back and forth debate/discussion rules in article XII

I just noticed this - what is this "Article XII" referring to?

Edited January 27, 2023 at 09:02 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/25/2023 at 3:07 PM, Guest RDC said:

article XII

If your version of Robert's has Article XII in it, it is very likely that it is over 100 years out of date.

The current version of RONR is the 12th edition.

See: https://robertsrules.com/our-history/Other Media

Edited January 28, 2023 at 04:29 AM by Gary Novosielski

[Josh Martin]

On 1/27/2023 at 10:28 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

If your version of Robert's has Article XII in it, it is very likely that it is over 100 years out of date.

The current version of RONR is the 12th edition.

See: https://robertsrules.com/our-history/Other Media

That was my first guess, but Article XII in the 4th edition is about mass meetings, forming a society, and conventions, which doesn't seem to relate to "typical back and forth debate/discussion rules."

Perhaps the OP has the right book after all and was referring to Chapter XII: Assignment of the Floor, Debate.

[Rob Elsman]

Insofar as the bylaws are the controlling rules that give rise to the original poster's question, I would suggest that: it's your rule, so you tell us. 🙂

[J. J.]

On 1/25/2023 at 3:07 PM, Guest RDC said:

I  will be the Moderator at our upcoming meeting. We are going to vote to accept the new President that was recommended by the Presidential selection committee. There is a member that expects there to be a motion, second and discussion before the vote. From my understanding, this is not the case. The Body appointed the Presidential Selection Committee, who then submitted their recommendation in writing. Our bylaws say we may only consider one candidate at a time. So by what I've read, we should state the nominated person and position he will be filling, ask if there are any objections to that person filling that position, then have a vote by ballot (as per our bylaws).

My questing is, if I am correct. What are the allowed "objections" for one who is nominated? If the objections have merit do we then move to typical back and forth debate/discussion rules in article XII or do I allow a motion to disqualify the candidate? I do expect some pushback for this nomination. There have also been complaints that Parliamentary Procedure has not been used correctly in the past, which is correct. This is my first time as Moderator and I would like to not only change that but help these meetings regain some order.

thanks,

Since your bylaws require a vote on one candidate at a time, and it would be helpful to see that bylaw, I would suggest you use the formula found in 46.1, and state the normally assumed motion, "That ______ be elected president."  Though I cannot say for certain without looking at your bylaw, it sounds like it would prohibit amendment to that motion.

You would then open the motion up, pro and con, to debate, with the committee chair speaking first. 

 

Would this be a religious organization, e.g. a church?