nominating committee

[Leo]

A bylaw lists the nominating committee as a standing committee and states that members are ineligible to run for office at that year's meeting.

RONR states, "When a standing committee submits such a report at the conclusion of its members' term, the committee is not discharged from further consideration of referred matters on which it reports partially at that time, unless the assembly so votes..."

Does RONR imply that delivering the complete report, the list of nominees, discharges the members and makes them eligible to run for office if nominated after the opening of nominations at the meeting?

[hmtcastle]

Does RONR imply that delivering the complete report, the list of nominees, discharges the members and makes them eligible to run for office if nominated after the opening of nominations at the meeting?

Well, the nominating committee is a unique kind of standing committee in that it is discharged upon the submission of its report, though it can be "revived" should one of its selections (i.e. nominees) withdraw prior to the election.

Further, RONR specifically states that members of the nominating committee should not be prohibited from being nominated, even by the nominating committee itself. How your bylaws affect that is up to your organization to determine. Note that "run for office" is not defined in RONR.

[Dan Honemann]

A bylaw lists the nominating committee as a standing committee and states that members are ineligible to run for office at that year's meeting.

RONR states, "When a standing committee submits such a report at the conclusion of its members' term, the committee is not discharged from further consideration of referred matters on which it reports partially at that time, unless the assembly so votes..."

Does RONR imply that delivering the complete report, the list of nominees, discharges the members and makes them eligible to run for office if nominated after the opening of nominations at the meeting?

No.

[Josh Martin]

Does RONR imply that delivering the complete report, the list of nominees, discharges the members and makes them eligible to run for office if nominated after the opening of nominations at the meeting?

RONR implies nothing of the sort. Under RONR, members of the nominating committee are not prohibited from becoming nominees (and RONR recommends against the adoption of such a rule). Since you have adopted such a rule, however, it will be up to your organization to interpret it. See RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 570-573 for some Principles of Interpretation.

[Leo]

No.

Are the nominating committee members discharged after they report?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Are the nominating committee members discharged after they report?

Leo, you have a customized rule.

• Under Leo's bylaws, the Nom. Comm. is a STANDING COMMITTEE.

As such, nobody's going nowheres after its final report.

• Under RONR, the Nom. Comm. is NOT a STANDING COMMITTEE.

As such, whenever ANY committee which is not a standing committee gives its final report, the committee is automatically discharged.

So, are you asking a question about Leo's bylaws, or asking a question about Robert's Rules of Order?

[Leo]

Leo, you have a customized rule.

• Under Leo's bylaws, the Nom. Comm. is a STANDING COMMITTEE.

As such, nobody's going nowheres after its final report.

• Under RONR, the Nom. Comm. is NOT a STANDING COMMITTEE.

As such, whenever ANY committee which is not a standing committee gives its final report, the committee is automatically discharged.

So, are you asking a question about Leo's bylaws, or asking a question about Robert's Rules of Order?

Under continuity and conclusion of committee assignment RONR on page 484, lines 27-32 states, "When a standing committee submits such a report at the conclusion of its members' term, the committee is not discharged from further consideration of referred matters on which it reports partially at that time, unless the assembly so votes (36); thus such matters normally go over to the new committee." If a standing committee reports finally, in lieu of partially, why aren't the members discharged?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Under continuity and conclusion of committee assignment RONR on page 484, lines 27-32 states, "When a standing committee submits such a report at the conclusion of its members' term, the committee is not discharged from further consideration of referred matters on which it reports partially at that time, unless the assembly so votes (36); thus such matters normally go over to the new committee." If a standing committee reports finally, in lieu of partially, why aren't the members discharged?

"If a standing committee reports finally, in lieu of partially, why aren't the members discharged?"

Because a standing committee, by definition, has LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of business to attend to, and NEVER has a "final" report.

Once a standing committee gives its final report on issue X, then the standing committee goes on and continues with issues X2, X3, X4, X5, ..., Xn.

The work never stops. Its agenda is always full. It's got a countless number of "final reports" to give, on all its topics.

THAT is WHY the members of a standing committee are NOT discharged after (one of) its final report(s).

[Trina]

A bylaw lists the nominating committee as a standing committee and states that members are ineligible to run for office at that year's meeting.

....

Under continuity and conclusion of committee assignment RONR on page 484, lines 27-32 states, "When a standing committee submits such a report at the conclusion of its members' term, the committee is not discharged from further consideration of referred matters on which it reports partially at that time, unless the assembly so votes (36); thus such matters normally go over to the new committee." If a standing committee reports finally, in lieu of partially, why aren't the members discharged?

If the bylaws requirement is troublesome, and you have a situation where it is desired to allow some of the nominating committee members to run for office, consider amending the bylaws.

Otherwise, as other posters have mentioned, it is up to the organization to interpret its bylaws. That would include the meaning of 'run for office'; it is certainly possible for someone to be elected without doing much 'running'...

[Leo]

"If a standing committee reports finally, in lieu of partially, why aren't the members discharged?"

Because a standing committee, by definition, has LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of business to attend to, and NEVER has a "final" report.

Once a standing committee gives its final report on issue X, then the standing committee goes on and continues with issues X2, X3, X4, X5, ..., Xn.

The work never stops. Its agenda is always full. It's got a countless number of "final reports" to give, on all its topics.

THAT is WHY the members of a standing committee are NOT discharged after (one of) its final report(s).

What if it is a nominating committee and it has given the list of nominees? It has given its final report and under the incoming administration about to be elected another nominating committee will be formed of different members to prepare another list for next year's election. As a standing committee a nominating committee gives its final report, the list of nominees, for this year's election and it's done.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

What if it is a nominating committee and it has given the list of nominees?

Then, it is a standing committee - with nothing to do.

It has given its final report and under the incoming administration about to be elected another nominating committee will be formed of different members to prepare another list for next year's election.

Yep. You got that right.

As a standing committee a nominating committee gives its final report, the list of nominees, for this year's election and it's done.

Yes. It is done. It is dead, virtually, even if not dead parliamentarily.

THAT is why it is so CRAZY that your bylaws define your Nom. Comm. to be a STANDING COMMITTEE.

That is why I suspect that whoever drafted your bylaws (and whoever adopted those bylaws) had no experience with parliamentary procedure, and no experience with committees. It doesn't make sense to define a one-shot committee, like a Nom. Comm., as a STANDING COMMITTEE, when it has NOTHING TO DO for the rest of the year.

But that is your problem (really, your bylaws' problem), and your logic (really, illogic). - It isn't a problem with Robert's Rules of Order.

(Caveat: It is possible to have a Nom. Comm. with more things to do than a one-shot slate. But that is the organization's decision, to load up duties for its Nom. Comm. You don't have that kind of organization, apparently. You don't load up your Nom. Comm. with anything.)

[Gary c Tesser]

What if it is a nominating committee and it has given the list of nominees? It has given its final report and under the incoming administration about to be elected another nominating committee will be formed of different members to prepare another list for next year's election. As a standing committee a nominating committee gives its final report, the list of nominees, for this year's election and it's done.

From my reading of this discussion thread all day, I reluct to hypothesize that some of the seasoned grizzled veterinarian parliamentarians who have weighed in (as well as a few aspiring parliamentarians, like me) have gone off-tread.

1. (a) To start with, I think Mr Mt (7:20 AM) would have done better to say, "Well, the nominating committee is a unique kind of *special* committee ... "

1. ( b ) What particularly "run for office" means in the context of Leo's bylaws (no, the bylaws don't belong to Leo) -- nominated? campaigning? being written in? -- whatever -- is not material to what he is concerned with. He wants to know whether the nominating committee members are eligible to run, *regardless* of whatever "run" means.

2. Josh Martin uncharacteristically buys into the red herring (possibly misled by Leo's asking what RONR implies), taking it that Leo's rule (no, the rule doesn't ... &c.) needs interpreting in order to get to the bottom of the real issue. Which is almost, "Are the nominating committee members discharged after they report?" (Leo, 10:49 AM) It's almost the issue because I don't think anyone knows what "discharged" means in this context.

3. KG (10:58 AM) is misled as was Mr Martin, but with more excitement; and then (112:18 PM), to my dismay, introduces what seems to me an irrelevant side issue with his astonishing assertion that "a standing committee, by definition, has LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of business to attend to, and that "The work never stops. Its agenda is always full. It's got a countless number of "final reports"." Of course I don't have nearly the real-world experience that Mr Goldsworthy does, but I've looked, and I haven't been able to find the LOTS AND LOTS in the definition of standing committees, and further, that of the few organizations I have seen, most of their standing committees have literally nothing to do, for months to years.

The question devolves to this: are the people who were members of the (standing) nominating committee when its nominees were determined and then reported, still members of the (standing) nominating committee after the report was given?

I think the answer to that is clearly "yes," which is why, without remotely risking any interpreting of bylaws over the Internet, Mr Honemann's answer to the OP question is "No."

[Kim Goldsworthy]

The question devolves to this: are the people who were members of the (standing) nominating committee when its nominees were determined and then reported, still members of the (standing) nominating committee after the report was given?

Gee. That's not what I got out of the question, or DHH's answer.

"Does RONR imply that delivering the complete report, ... makes them [the members of the nominating committee] eligible to run for office ...?"

The answer is "No." - Delivering a report is IRRELEVANT to the issue, "Are they eligible to run?"

Why? Because they ALL ARE, and ALWAYS WERE, eligible to run.

• "Delivering a report" CHANGES NOTHING.

• "Delivering a report" is a red herring to the issue of "eligibility"/"running".

Thus, no report suddenly makes someone eligible to run.

[Gary c Tesser]

Gee. That's not what I got out of the question, or DHH's answer.

"Does RONR imply that delivering the complete report, ... makes them [the members of the nominating committee] eligible to run for office ...?"

The answer is "No." - Delivering a report is IRRELEVANT to the issue, "Are they eligible to run?"

Why? Because they ALL ARE, and ALWAYS WERE, eligible to run.

• "Delivering a report" CHANGES NOTHING.

• "Delivering a report" is a red herring to the issue of "eligibility"/"running".

Thus, no report suddenly makes someone eligible to run.

Kim, we are completely in agreement, except that you're wrong where you think (possibly erroneously, though that's not the way to bet) you disagree with me.

_____

Remember, bylaws TRUMP Robert's Rules.

SO:

The question ...

""Does RONR imply that delivering the complete report, ... makes them [the members of the nominating committee] eligible to run for office ...?" "

... is a regrettable distraction from what Leo initially asked -- and what I think he wants to knoe.

_______

Here's this about the members of the nominating committee: They are not eligible to run when the bylaws say the aren't. Which is when they are members of the nominating committee.

Agreed?

So the question, plainly, is that, since these nominating committee members are not eligible to run when they are nominating committee members, but that they are eligible to run when they are former nominating committee members, then, how do we determine when they have ceased being nominating committee members?

_______

Yes, since this nominating committee is, for better or for worse (stay calm, Kim) a standing committee (calm down, Kim), the delivery of the report is IRRELEVanT (Great Steaming Cobnuts, Kim, how do you type all-caps so easy without dropping any??)l so its members stay its members until they are replaced.

So since they have not been replaced, they are still its members

So since they are still its members, they are prohibited from running, per the bylaws.

___

kg, why do you think you disagree with this?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

kg, why do you think you disagree with this?

Why?

Because Leo, in his original post, said:

• RONR states, "When [X], the committee is not discharged from further consideration of referred matters on which it reports partially at that time, unless the assembly so votes..."

[... and ...]

• Does RONR imply that delivering the complete report, the list of nominees, discharges the members and makes them eligible to run for office if nominated after the opening of nominations at the meeting?

Since Leo says, "RONR states ...," and since Leo asks "Does RONR imply ...?," then I highly suspect that Leo is asking a question about RONR, and NOT asking a question about Leo's bylaws.

I think if Leo had a question about Leo's bylaws, then Leo might have worded his post like so:

• "Our bylaws say ..."

• Does this bylaw imply ...?"

[Dan Honemann]

The question devolves to this: are the people who were members of the (standing) nominating committee when its nominees were determined and then reported, still members of the (standing) nominating committee after the report was given?

I think the answer to that is clearly "yes," which is why, without remotely risking any interpreting of bylaws over the Internet, Mr Honemann's answer to the OP question is "No."

Well, I'd say this nicely sums things up (summing up "no" can be tricky), so Mr. Tesser now gets to hold this trophy (the one proudly displayed by Trina for the last 24 hours) until the next lucky winner comes along.

[Josh Martin]

Are the nominating committee members discharged after they report?

The nominating committee is discharged after it makes its report. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 421, lines 1-2)

But that has nothing to do with whether the members of the nominating committee are eligible to run under your Bylaws. I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Tesser on that question.