Slate of Officers

[Guest Jane SEiboldt]

The nominating committee has a slate of officers ready for board approval. Nominee decides to withdraw from the slate. If a new nominee cannot be found before next Board meeting when slate was to be approved -- can Board approve incomplete slate and wait for Open nominations at membership meeting where slate is voted upon by membership? We are not sure if a viable nominee can be proposed before this meeting. A warm body we don't need as it is for Parliamentarian.

[hmtcastle]

The nominating committee has a slate of officers ready for board approval. Nominee decides to withdraw from the slate. If a new nominee cannot be found before next Board meeting when slate was to be approved -- can Board approve incomplete slate and wait for Open nominations at membership meeting where slate is voted upon by membership? We are not sure if a viable nominee can be proposed before this meeting.

There are no "slates". And, as far as RONR is concerned, no need for the board to approve the selections of the nominating committee. It's no problem if the report of the nominating committee is incomplete. Additional nominations can be made "from the floor" and members are free to cast "write-in" votes for those not nominated.

A warm body we don't need as it is for Parliamentarian.

I'm afraid that statements like that won't help you win any popularity contests on this forum.

[Dan Honemann]

I'm afraid that statements like that won't help you win any popularity contests on this forum.

Oh, I rather liked it.

[hmtcastle]

Oh, I rather liked it.

I did too. But those with letters after their names might take umbrage.

[George Mervosh]

I did too. But those with letters after their names that might take umbrage.

Let them, it was a good line.

[Guest jane seiboldt]

There are no "slates". And, as far as RONR is concerned, no need for the board to approve the selections of the nominating committee. It's no problem if the report of the nominating committee is incomplete. Additional nominations can be made "from the floor" and members are free to cast "write-in" votes for those not nominated.

I'm afraid that statements like that won't help you win any popularity contests on this forum.

I misspoke -- I was referring to a suggestion to fill the position without looking closely at their qualifications.

[Guest Jane Seiboldt]

I misspoke -- I was referring to a suggestion to fill the position without looking closely at their qualifications.

Our Bylaws state the slate must have board approval before presenting for a vote to the membershiip. Which I can do nothing about at this point but follow what is stated.

[Guest Jane Seiboldt]

I misspoke -- I was referring to a suggestion to fill the position without looking closely at their qualifications.

Our Bylaws state the slate must have board approval before presenting for a vote to the membershiip. Which I can do nothing about at this point but follow what is stated.

[hmtcastle]

Our Bylaws state the slate must have board approval before presenting for a vote to the membershiip. Which I can do nothing about at this point but follow what is stated.

So forget the slate, forget the board, and have nominations from the floor and write-in votes.

And then amend your bylaws to remove the board from the election process.

[Gary c Tesser]

Jane SEiboldt, on 01 September 2010 - 05:03 PM, said:

A warm body we don't need as it is for Parliamentarian.

Mr Mt replied:

I'm afraid that statements like that won't help you win any popularity contests on this forum.

I don't understand Mr Mt's point at all. It seems to me that Ms Seiboldt's point is that a warm body won't suffice, since they need an active functioning mind in the office.

[hmtcastle]

I don't understand Mr Mt's point at all. It seems to me that Ms Seiboldt's point is that a warm body won't suffice, since they need an active functioning mind in the office.

Perhaps Mr. Tesser is right (not that that's an unusual occurrence, of course). I may have been misled by the, dare I say, Yiddish-ish construction of, "a warm body we don't need".

[Trina]

Jane SEiboldt, on 01 September 2010 - 05:03 PM, said:

A warm body we don't need as it is for Parliamentarian.

Mr Mt replied:

I'm afraid that statements like that won't help you win any popularity contests on this forum.

I don't understand Mr Mt's point at all. It seems to me that Ms Seiboldt's point is that a warm body won't suffice, since they need an active functioning mind in the office.

I interpreted it the way Gary did, but I can see Mr. Mountcastle's reading too. That's what makes it such an entertaining line (apparently not intended that way by Ms. Seiboldt, however)

[Dan Honemann]

I interpreted it the way Gary did, but I can see Mr. Mountcastle's reading too. That's what makes it such an entertaining line (apparently not intended that way by Ms. Seiboldt, however)

I think she would probably prefer a body that has assumed room temperature.