Use of a single nomination from a nominating committee and refusal to open up nominations.

[Guest GoodGNUS]

The Manual of the Church of the Nazarene stipulates that District Assemblies "elect, by two-thirds favorable vote, by ballot, an elder to the office of district superintendent..." Traditionally this has been done by a nominating ballot, but in the last decade the international board has insisted that a district leadership board go through a process and recommend a single candidate. They then highly skew the procedures to discourage/prohibit additional nominees.
The district board acted as a nominating committee. 46:18 clearly states requirements for further nominations from the floor following their report. The presiding officer stated that the assembly could vote "to hear the committee report" or not, and only if that motion was defeated, open up nominations from the floor. I as a delegate objected one on one to the presiding officer and to the assembly. The presiding officer simply said "We've looked into this and have been assured it is legal."
Does RONR require that, following a report of the nominating committee, the chair call for further nominations from the floor?

[Gary Novosielski]

Yes.  The chair must call for additional nominations after hearing the Nominating Committee report.  I think the board erred by appointing itself as a nominating committee but that's another question.

There is no "vote" on hearing the report.  The report must be received, and there is no vote on accepting it.

 

[RONR (12th ed.) 46:6]

Unless the bylaws or a special rule of order provides otherwise, the chair must call for further nominations at the session at which the election is held even if nominations were called for at a previous session. A member need not be recognized by the chair to make a nomination unless he or she wishes to speak in debate on it at the same time (see 46:27–29)

[Rob Elsman]

I agree with Mr. Novosielski. At the point in the order of business when committee reports are presented, the reporting member of the nominating community should present the report without a motion to receive the report.

The refusal to open nominations from the floor is a grave abuse of the chair's authority that is not tolerable. Besides, such a refusal is weighty proof that the presiding officer is completely unprepared or unwilling to preside over the nomination and election procedures.