Amendment Proposal - Elections

[Guest Richard]

Here is a proposal that will be up for consideration. I am asking if some of the wording unnecessary? (e.g. refer to acclamation and collecting and counting of votes) I know why the person has the provisions in the proposal, but just wondering if necessary.

Thanks

Proposed Amendment: Election of Officers

"A nominating committee shall consist of the immediate past-president/chair as chairperson and two other persons as appointed by the Board. This committee shall prepare a list of nominees with at least two nominees for each office which shall be presented to the membership for action. Additional nominations may be made by any active member from the floor. There shall be no votes by acclamation. If a current officer is nominated to continue in their position or in a different position they may not participate in the ballot collection/counting process."

Duties of the nomination committee:

1) The committee will be announced at the Fall meeting.

2) The committee will remind the membership of the offices that will have elections via the website and yahoo group.

3) The reminder will ask the membership for names to be considered for the elections.

4) The Chair of the Nominations Committee will prepare the ballot and have blank spaces for any nominations from the floor or write in names.

[Rob Elsman]

Here is a proposal that will be up for consideration. I am asking if some of the wording unnecessary? (e.g. refer to acclamation and collecting and counting of votes) I know why the person has the provisions in the proposal, but just wondering if necessary.

Thanks

Proposed Amendment: Election of Officers

"A nominating committee shall consist of the immediate past-president/chair as chairperson and two other persons as appointed by the Board. This committee shall prepare a list of nominees with at least two nominees for each office which shall be presented to the membership for action. Additional nominations may be made by any active member from the floor. There shall be no votes by acclamation. If a current officer is nominated to continue in their position or in a different position they may not participate in the ballot collection/counting process."

Duties of the nomination committee:

1) The committee will be announced at the Fall meeting.

2) The committee will remind the membership of the offices that will have elections via the website and yahoo group.

3) The reminder will ask the membership for names to be considered for the elections.

4) The Chair of the Nominations Committee will prepare the ballot and have blank spaces for any nominations from the floor or write in names.

If you think there is wording that is unncessary or objectionable, you can make a subsidiary motion to Amend by striking out words, while the main motion is pending. See RONR (10th ed.), §12, pp. 125ff.

[hmtcastle]

I am asking if some of the wording unnecessary? (e.g. refer to acclamation and collecting and counting of votes) I know why the person has the provisions in the proposal, but just wondering if necessary.

Less if often more and, if you've adopted RONR as your parliamentary authority, you already have, in effect, an additional 700+ pages in your bylaws that will cover much of what's been proposed.

Further, some of the proposals (such as requiring two nominees for each office) go against RONR's recommendations. Of course you're free to ignore decades of parliamentary advice but do you really want to?

Finally, you'll find few (i.e. no one) on this forum who thinks giving any office to the immediate past president is a good idea. What if he resigned in shame? What if he was kicked out of office for embezzlement? He'd still be the immediate past president so he'd still be the chair of your nominating committee.

When it comes to amending bylaws, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

A nominating committee shall consist of the immediate past-president/chair as chairperson and two other persons as appointed by the Board.

Why should you force the duty of chairing this committee on an unwilling person (the I.P.P.)?

Shouldn't all committee chairs FIRST be consulted to ensure that the job is welcomed by the person who shall chair the committee?

What if the I.P.P. was suspended or expelled? - Or voted out of office for unpopular behavior? - Why give an important job to a person who was hounded out office?

This committee shall prepare a list of nominees with at least two nominees for each office which shall be presented to the membership for action.

The Book says, this is a Bad Idea.

I would not put Bad Ideas into my bylaws.

Additional nominations may be made by any active member from the floor.

Technically, this is unnecessary.

But since we know this issue generates questions on this Q&A Forum, the belt-and-suspenders kind of repetition is probably a prudent prophylactic measure.

There shall be no votes by acclamation.

Apples and oranges. - Why are you putting a VOTING PROCESS into your NOMINATION process?

You should write bylaws so that the nomination rules are all together, and the voting rules are altogether, ideally.

If a current officer is nominated to continue in their position or in a different position they may not participate in the ballot collection/counting process.

Okay. - I heartily agree that foxes ought not guard the chicken coop.

Duties of the nomination committee:

1) The committee will be announced at the Fall meeting.

2) The committee will remind the membership of the offices that will have elections via the website and yahoo group.

3) The reminder will ask the membership for names to be considered for the elections.

4) The Chair of the Nominations Committee will prepare the ballot and have blank spaces for any nominations from the floor or write in names.

Okay.

[Josh Martin]

This committee shall prepare a list of nominees with at least two nominees for each office which shall be presented to the membership for action.

Such a requirement is generally unwise. While I'm sure the intentions behind it are admirable (competition for each position, etc.), savvy nominating committees will easily subvert such a provision by nominating someone who has no chance of winning as the second nominee. It is generally best to stick to the tried and true method of having the nominating committee nominate their first choice for each office, and for any further nominations to come from the floor.

I am asking if some of the wording unnecessary? (e.g. refer to acclamation and collecting and counting of votes)

The wording regarding acclamation seems unnecessary, and as Mr. Goldsworthy suggests, misplaced. It would be better to specify in the appropriate section that the voting shall be by ballot.

As for the language regarding the collecting and counting of votes, one would hope that such wording is unnecessary, and that the President would use sound judgment in appointing the tellers' committee, but considering some of the posts I've seen on here, this language might not be a bad idea.

[Guest Richard]

Thanks for your thoughts. They are really helpful.

[David A Foulkes]

Such a requirement is generally unwise. While I'm sure the intentions behind it are admirable (competition for each position, etc.), savvy nominating committees will easily subvert such a provision by nominating someone who has no chance of winning as the second nominee. It is generally best to stick to the tried and true method of having the nominating committee nominate their first choice for each office, and for any further nominations to come from the floor.

The wording regarding acclamation seems unnecessary, and as Mr. Goldsworthy suggests, misplaced. It would be better to specify in the appropriate section that the voting shall be by ballot.

As for the language regarding the collecting and counting of votes, one would hope that such wording is unnecessary, and that the President would use sound judgment in appointing the tellers' committee, but considering some of the posts I've seen on here, this language might not be a bad idea.

Are the tellers chosen typically after nominations are closed then? I ask because at our State convention the tellers committee was selected in advance, and one of the tellers was subsequently nominated for a position, leaving me just a tad uncertain of the appropriateness of having her count votes while being up for office.

[Josh Martin]

Are the tellers chosen typically after nominations are closed then? I ask because at our State convention the tellers committee was selected in advance, and one of the tellers was subsequently nominated for a position, leaving me just a tad uncertain of the appropriateness of having her count votes while being up for office.

Not necessarily. In many conventions, the tellers are appointed at the beginning of the convention. Certainly if circumstances change, it may well be appropriate to change the makeup of the tellers' committee. It is not, strictly speaking, improper for someone to be on the tellers' committee for her own election, although it certainly seems unwise.