nomination and action item?

[Guest Mike]

Currently, I work on a board that uses Robert's Rules and where(according to by laws) I'm in charge of nominating new members for up to 35 working days after a vacancy. AFter the 35 working days, any board member can bring up a person for nomination. AFter nomination, the same person comes back and is then placed (on second meeting) as an action item where the board would vote to approve of the nomination.

Here is the problem. I nominated an individual within my 35 working days and when I saw the new agenda for the new meeting, it had my nomination as an action item to be voted on (which I expected) but then it had another person up for nomination for the same position...thus, one up for a vote to fill the vacancy on the board and one up for nomination for the same position. Can you have both at the same time?

Also, our by-laws say that I have up to 35 working days to fill and then anyone can do it...however, the constitution says that I'm the only one that can bring up people for new position nominations. Is there a conflict here that I can look into?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Currently, I work on a board that uses Robert's Rules and where (according to by laws) I'm in charge of nominating new members for up to 35 working days after a vacancy.

After the 35 working days, any board member can bring up a person for nomination.

After nomination, the same person comes back and is then placed (on second meeting) as an action item where the board would vote to approve of the nomination.

I nominated an individual within my 35 working days and when I saw the new agenda for the new meeting, it had my nomination as an action item to be voted on (which I expected) but then it had another person up for nomination for the same position.

Thus, one up for a vote to fill the vacancy on the board and one up for nomination for the same position.

Can you have both at the same time?

Also, our by-laws say that I have up to 35 working days to fill and then anyone can do it.

However, the constitution says that I'm the only one that can bring up people for new position nominations.

Is there a conflict here that I can look into?

Are you asking a question about Mike's unique bylaws' nomination process?

Are you asking a question about Robert's Rules of Order?

Your nomination process is NOT taken from RONR Tenth Edition 2000. So there is a question about how much of RONR shall apply, where a customized process is in place.

Q. If 35 days will have passed by the time the board meets, then what difference does it make, since your unique '35 day rule' will have been complied with?

***

"Can you have both at the same time?"

If nothing else, having TWO NOMINEES FOR THE SAME OFFICE violates no rule in Robert's Rules of Order.

And that is what you asked.

***

"However, the constitution says that I'm the only one that can bring up people for new position nominations."

Impossible, it seems, since you cited a rule:

"... any board member can bring up a person for nomination."

Q. How do you reconcile your two contradictory statements?

***

[Josh Martin]

Here is the problem. I nominated an individual within my 35 working days and when I saw the new agenda for the new meeting, it had my nomination as an action item to be voted on (which I expected) but then it had another person up for nomination for the same position...thus, one up for a vote to fill the vacancy on the board and one up for nomination for the same position. Can you have both at the same time?

You're making this more complicated than it is. Ignoring your special rules for a moment (we'll get to that next), you have two nominations and one vacancy to fill. The board can elect either one. You can handle this as an election or a regular motion. Either way, majority rules.

Also, our by-laws say that I have up to 35 working days to fill and then anyone can do it...however, the constitution says that I'm the only one that can bring up people for new position nominations. Is there a conflict here that I can look into?

Sounds like it. It's up to your organization to interpret its own Bylaws. See RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 570-573 for some Principles of Interpretation. Your assembly will need to reconcile this ambiguity - and in the long run, amend the Bylaws to remove the ambiguity.

[hmtcastle]

Also, our by-laws say that I have up to 35 working days to fill and then anyone can do it...however, the constitution says that I'm the only one that can bring up people for new position nominations. Is there a conflict here that I can look into?

The constitution supersedes the bylaws.

[Trina]

Currently, I work on a board that uses Robert's Rules and where(according to by laws) I'm in charge of nominating new members for up to 35 working days after a vacancy. AFter the 35 working days, any board member can bring up a person for nomination. AFter nomination, the same person comes back and is then placed (on second meeting) as an action item where the board would vote to approve of the nomination.

Here is the problem. I nominated an individual within my 35 working days and when I saw the new agenda for the new meeting, it had my nomination as an action item to be voted on (which I expected) but then it had another person up for nomination for the same position...thus, one up for a vote to fill the vacancy on the board and one up for nomination for the same position. Can you have both at the same time?....

....you have two nominations and one vacancy to fill. The board can elect either one. You can handle this as an election or a regular motion. Either way, majority rules.

....

If Mike's organization has this second meeting rule before acting on a nomination, presumably the board should follow the rule. It sounds as though they are allowed to vote on Mike's preferred candidate (assuming it's already the second meeting for that nominee), but are not yet allowed to vote on the other nominee. Presumably, if Mike's candidate is elected, the other nomination is moot anyway (whether or not that second nomination is proper under the 35-day rule in the organization). Since the second-meeting-before-action rule is specific to the organization, if there is any ambiguity about its meaning or application, Mike and others in the organization should take a look at RONR pp. 570-573 (principles of bylaws interpretation).

[Josh Martin]

If Mike's organization has this second meeting rule before acting on a nomination, presumably the board should follow the rule. It sounds as though they are allowed to vote on Mike's preferred candidate (assuming it's already the second meeting for that nominee), but are not yet allowed to vote on the other nominee. Presumably, if Mike's candidate is elected, the other nomination is moot anyway (whether or not that second nomination is proper under the 35-day rule in the organization). Since the second-meeting-before-action rule is specific to the organization, if there is any ambiguity about its meaning or application, Mike and others in the organization should take a look at RONR pp. 570-573 (principles of bylaws interpretation).

Thanks, Trina. In the long run, they could still elect either one, but it appears they'd need to vote down Mike's candidate first. And then wait a week.