Nominations

Nominations, based on RONR, are very simple -- they take one person to make the nomination and no second. However, in real life it is not that simple. The habits and customs of an organization can change all that. In addition, the bylaws may add special conditions.

One of the changes that is common (often seen) is the need for a second. Yes, some organizations demand that nominations be seconded. What is fun is to look in the bylaws and see if a second is actually needed. Often, there is nothing in the bylaws that require a second or even recommend it. The need for a second is a myth that has become a fact for the members of the organization. Even if somebody informs them about the lack of a need for a second, they will claim that they need a second for any nomination.

Another is that there needs to be more than one candidate for an office. Now, some organizations do have that qualification in their bylaws but most do not. It came about because early in the history of the organization, two or more candidates was the norm. History has become imbedded and no matter how much people show it to not be a requirement, the majority of the organization (or a vocal minority) will insist that it is.

Is it worth fighting the organization about these? No, in my opinion. It is a lot of work that accomplishes nothing positive in the short run and none of us are really going to be around for the long run.

Who's on First

When there is a power struggle at a meeting, there is often the problem of who is on first -- who has the ultimate power. If you take a simple look at RONR, this problem is solved easily as it is the chair of the meeting to whom all voices must yield. Does this yield to abuse? Yes, but in most cases it is not abuse of power but an abuse of understanding what is the proper procedure. I have seen people trying to browbeat the chair by claiming a right. Sometimes they have been right but the way they have gone about it is totally wrong. There are times when the chair is perfectly correct in getting away from normal procedure -- when the assembly is happy with what is going on. The debate has swayed over to what the assembly is really worried about and this is off topic of what the motion before the assembly is about. I have seen a chair insist that it be allowed despite the one member raising points of order. To me, this is a case where the assembly is correct, not the individual insisting to go back to exactly the motion that does not solve the need of the minute. Yep, I am a heretic -- here tics what is needed and that is the purpose of meeting.

Procedure is not everything. It is a tool to get to what the assembly wants and sometimes that tool just cannot carry the day. It is up to the assembly to either vocally or subtly express the need it has. That is more important than any point of order.