Nominations

[Guest Anonymous]

Persons nominating individuals for an office should be members in good standing, correct? Please advise.  Our Bylaws do not specifically address this issue, rather defers to the current Robert's Rules of Order on issues not readily addressed in the Bylaws.

[Rob Elsman]

No, nothing in RONR (12th ed) requires a nominee for office to be a member of the organization.

[Bruce Lages]

DO your bylaws not address whether a member must be in good standing to make a nomination, or do they not define in good standing at all? RONR's definition of 'not in good standing' is a member for whom some or all rights of membership have been suspended as a result of disciplinary proceedings (RONR 1:13; footnote 3). If your bylaws really do not address the issue of good standing, then you would refer to RONR's definition and determine 1) has the member been the subject of disciplinary proceedings, and 2) as a result of those proceedings has the member's right to make a nomination - or to make motions, since a nomination is equivalent to filling a blank in a motion that "___________ be elected" - been suspended.

[Guest Clarification]

Apologies.  For clarification, may an individual not current with membership dues nominate a member for an office?

[Atul Kapur]

Under RONR, a member who is delinquent with membership dues retains all their rights, including the right to make nominations.

RONR (12th ed.) 1:13n3 states

"Members in good standing are those whose rights as members of the assembly are not under suspension as a consequence of disciplinary proceedings or by operation of some specific provision in the bylaws. A member may thus be in good standing even if in arrears in payment of dues (see 45:1, 56:19)."

As Mr. Lages advises, you should also check your organization's governing documents to see if they say anything about "good standing" or the effect of being delinquent in dues.

On 3/23/2024 at 10:34 PM, Rob Elsman said:

nominee

I believe the OP is asking about the nominator, rather than the nominee.

[Rob Elsman]

I am now not sure who is being referred to.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/23/2024 at 10:34 PM, Rob Elsman said:

No, nothing in RONR (12th ed) requires a nominee for office to be a member of the organization.

The question referred to persons making nominations.  Presumably those must be members.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/23/2024 at 11:07 PM, Guest Clarification said:

Apologies.  For clarification, may an individual not current with membership dues nominate a member for an office?

A member may make nominations of any eligible individuals for office.  Eligibility requirements of candidates, possibly requiring membership, are included in your bylaws.

Members in good standing are those whose rights as members of the assembly are not under suspension as a consequence of disciplinary proceedings or by operation of some specific provision in the bylaws. A member may thus be in good standing even if in arrears in payment of dues (see 45:1, 56:19).

So the answer to your question, according to RONR is:  It depends.

[Rob Elsman]

Yes, I think Mr. Novosielski has this just right.  While it seems clear that making suggestions and nominations is limited to members, nothing in RONR (12th ed.) requires that a member making a suggestion or nomination must be "in good standing".  I think it will be necessary to look to the relevant bylaws to see if there is some operation at play in this situation.

[Gary Novosielski]

In fact, although it is quite certain that members in good standing may make nominations, it's not clear from the rules in RONR that members not in good standing cannot.  There is not enough information in the phrase not in good standing to be able to know how and to what extent the members rights have been suspended—in particular, whether the right to make nominations is among them.  What is known is that failure to keep up with dues payments does not automatically do anything without a provision in your bylaws.

[J. J.]

On 3/24/2024 at 11:18 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

In fact, although it is quite certain that members in good standing may make nominations, it's not clear from the rules in RONR that members not in good standing cannot.  There is not enough information in the phrase not in good standing to be able to know how and to what extent the members rights have been suspended—in particular, whether the right to make nominations is among them.  What is known is that failure to keep up with dues payments does not automatically do anything without a provision in your bylaws.

The rule requiring that only members can make motion, even suggestions, could be suspended.  If a nomination was made by someone not entitled to vote, and there was no timely point of order, the nomination itself could not be challenged at a later point on that ground. 

[Guest Bylaws Referenced]

On 3/24/2024 at 11:54 AM, J. J. said:

The rule requiring that only members can make motion, even suggestions, could be suspended.  If a nomination was made by someone not entitled to vote, and there was no timely point of order, the nomination itself could not be challenged at a later point on that ground. 

The Bylaws specifically state under Delinquency:

A. When a member fails to meet a financial obligation, he/she will be placed in delinquent status and remain in such status for a period of thirty (30) days. After this time if financial obligations have not been met, the individual automatically loses all privileges, including the right to participate in activities and club trips.

This has been interpreted to mean the individual referenced by the writer, who is not current with membership dues, cannot nominate a member for an office from the floor. Is this interpretation correct?

[Josh Martin]

On 3/24/2024 at 12:33 PM, Guest Bylaws Referenced said:

The Bylaws specifically state under Delinquency:

A. When a member fails to meet a financial obligation, he/she will be placed in delinquent status and remain in such status for a period of thirty (30) days. After this time if financial obligations have not been met, the individual automatically loses all privileges, including the right to participate in activities and club trips.

This has been interpreted to mean the individual referenced by the writer, who is not current with membership dues, cannot nominate a member for an office from the floor. Is this interpretation correct?

I think it's a bit ambiguous. On the one hand, the rule says the individual automatically loses "all privileges." On the other hand, the examples provided are "the right to participate in activities and club trips," so that makes it less clear whether "all privileges" is intended to include parliamentary rights like speaking in debate, making motions and nominations, and voting,

Ultimately, it will be up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws.

[J. J.]

On 3/24/2024 at 1:33 PM, Guest Bylaws Referenced said:

The Bylaws specifically state under Delinquency:

A. When a member fails to meet a financial obligation, he/she will be placed in delinquent status and remain in such status for a period of thirty (30) days. After this time if financial obligations have not been met, the individual automatically loses all privileges, including the right to participate in activities and club trips.

This has been interpreted to mean the individual referenced by the writer, who is not current with membership dues, cannot nominate a member for an office from the floor. Is this interpretation correct?

Yes, and no. 

A nomination could be ruled out of order because the mover is no a member, but only at the time of the nomination.  If the point of order was not make at the time, it is too late to raise it (23:6). 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/24/2024 at 1:33 PM, Guest Bylaws Referenced said:

The Bylaws specifically state under Delinquency:

A. When a member fails to meet a financial obligation, he/she will be placed in delinquent status and remain in such status for a period of thirty (30) days. After this time if financial obligations have not been met, the individual automatically loses all privileges, including the right to participate in activities and club trips.

This has been interpreted to mean the individual referenced by the writer, who is not current with membership dues, cannot nominate a member for an office from the floor. Is this interpretation correct?

They're your bylaws which means your assembly will have to interpret them.  I don't see anything in that quote to support the notion that a person could not nominate a candidate for office, at least prior to the thirty-day automatic loss of privileges.  After that it depends on whether you consider the right to nominate a candidate to actually be a privilege.  Apparently the authors use the words right and privilege as synonyms.

The way you interpret this is to have that allegedly not-in-good-standing member make a nomination from the floor at the membership meeting.  If the chair rules that he may not nominate anyone (or rules that he may, perhaps after a Point of Order [RONR (12th ed.) §23]), have someone who disagrees move to Appeal from the Decision of the Chair [RONR (12th ed.) §24].  And have someone else second it. This places the matter before the assembly.  Limited debate will follow, at which the different interpretations will be argued.  A majority vote is required to override the decision of the chair.  Whatever the result, that becomes the interpretation of that bylaw, and the rationale is entered in the minutes and becomes precedent.

[Joshua Katz]

On 3/24/2024 at 10:33 AM, Guest Bylaws Referenced said:

A. When a member fails to meet a financial obligation, he/she will be placed in delinquent status and remain in such status for a period of thirty (30) days. After this time if financial obligations have not been met, the individual automatically loses all privileges, including the right to participate in activities and club trips.

 

I agree there's some ambiguity here for your organization to iron out. In my personal opinion, this is not enough to take away parliamentary rights. If it ended with "privileges," I'd think it a harder case, but the list following the general term tells us the general term is not a catch-all, but rather is catching things like the list. Parliamentary rights are not like activities are trips.

[Josh Martin]

On 3/24/2024 at 12:54 PM, Josh Martin said:

I think it's a bit ambiguous. On the one hand, the rule says the individual automatically loses "all privileges." On the other hand, the examples provided are "the right to participate in activities and club trips," so that makes it less clear whether "all privileges" is intended to include parliamentary rights like speaking in debate, making motions and nominations, and voting,

Ultimately, it will be up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws.

I will also add that some additional context about what scenario gives rise to this question would be helpful.

If this is about some nomination (let alone election) which has already happened, it's too late to raise a Point of Order concerning this matter, even assuming for the sake of argument that the bylaws prohibit members delinquent in dues from making nominations.

I suppose if this is concerning a nomination which has not yet occurred, a Point of Order could be raised concerning this matter when the nomination is made. In the event the point is ruled well taken, presumably some other member who is in good standing will make the nomination.