Member speaking on behalf of a board member nominee

[Guest Mike C]

Is there any reason a member of an organization cannot speak (in favor) on behalf of a nominee who is running for a board seat or currently a board member up for election?  

[Gary Novosielski]

It depends entirely on the situation.  You'll need to be much more descriptive of what you have in mind. Is this speech to be made during the nomination process, on a milk crate at the corner of Walk and Don't Walk, or somewhere in between?

[Rob Elsman]

An election is, in effect, a main motion, which is debatable as to the advisability of electing one person out of (possibly) several persons.  Debate must be confined to what has a direct bearing on the presumed motion, and it must not deal in personalities any more than is necessary to establish the suitability of candidates for the office.

[Richard Brown]

On 11/9/2023 at 9:14 AM, Guest Mike C said:

Is there any reason a member of an organization cannot speak (in favor) on behalf of a nominee who is running for a board seat or currently a board member up for election?  

Agreeing with my colleagues, this also depends in part on your own bylaws and any applicable rules of order governing the way your elections are conducted. Any such rules would supersede the provisions of RONR.

[Guest Mike C,]

Thanks men. Our constitution & Bylaws do not address this situation. The board is currently updating our constitution (upon membership approval) and have included new language that only the nominee can speak on their behalf. If, by chance, the nominee is sick, out of town or at work on election night, it is my belief that a member of the organization should have right to speak in favor of their candidate of choice.  Background - The nomination committee picked another candidate to run against a board seat incumbent. I asked to speak in favor of the current board member and highlight her accomplishments. The president didn't allow me to speak. The president only let the board member speak for herself. I felt I should have been allowed to talk. I'm sure I was shut down because I probably would have been able sway some memberships votes and have her re-elected. (Incumbent lost 44-49 votes) The president and a few board members, along with the nomination committee, had the fix on 😎and wanted to get the incumbent out due to personality conflict, not job performance and that's not a reason to boot somebody. AND, the president chose the nomination committee, hence my first question. Thanks for listening & your input. Trying to bring in fairness to the constitutional updating process. 

Take care

Mike

[Richard Brown]

Pursuant to the rules in RONR, you should have been permitted to speak on the nomination.  However, it is too late now to do anything about that.  A timely point of order by a member would have been required at the time of the breach or the breach of the rules is deemed waived.  there are only a few breaches of the rules that constitute a "continuing breach" such that an immediate point of order is not required and can instead be made after the fact.  This is not one of those exceptions.

[Rob Elsman]

It is just my own opinion, but limiting debate in the way that is proposed would be an unwise attrack on a fundamental principle of the deliberative assembly. 

[Gary Novosielski]

I'm a little confused by the fact that this rule is seemingly still being considered, and yet is already being enforced.  Your organization is free to adopt whatever bylaws it deems appropriate, but in the usual case, the board cannot impose rules upon the membership, especially rules concerning the conduct of nominations and elections, without the approval of the membership. Boards cannot typically change bylaws.  So I leave the interpretation of this rule to your organization to sort out.

The rules in RONR which would apply, should you wisely choose to eliminate this provision in your bylaws, are:

Nominations are debatable.  Ordinarily, simply making a nomination does not require being recognized, but if the nominator wishes to make remarks about their nominee, recognition should be sought.  Then it is in order to explain the reasons to support this candidate.  Similarly, seconds to nominations are not required, but if additional members wish to speak on this nominee they may seek recognition for the purpose of seconding the nomination, and may make remarks at that time.  The rules of decorum apply during all these speeches, so bad-mouthing other candidates is not what they're for.