Yes, indeed. According to the Latin-based grammatical rules that
many English grammarians have accepted for years (as if English were
Latin!),
any tense of BE used as a linking verb produces a
situation in which both the subject and the complement, i.e., the
elements on both sides of the linking verb, are marked with the
nominative case. The idea was that if it was good enough for
Latin, it's good enough for English. According to the "Latin-English" theory, the addition of modifying
phrases or clauses does not override the basic fact of nominative case
marking.
[The person (who is selected)] = [I / he / she]
[The ones (whom you select as the very best and most knowledgeable authority on how to play tiddly-winks)] = [ we / they].
where = can be replaced by
any tense of BE, including such complex ones as
might have been, had been, will not have been, will be, ...
The folly of the original Latin-based rule is easily seen in such monstrosities* as
-- I wonder who the scapegoats will be when the company goes broke?
-- I hope it won't be we. / I hope the scapegoats won't be we. / I hope and pray it will be they.
-- Who stole the tarts?
-- It wasn't we. / If it was we, we didn't do it on purpose.
/ It might well have been we or they; I don't know. / The people
involved in stealing tarts could not possibly have been we, but it
certainly could have been they.
-- There's someone at the door. Could it be Elena and Jim?
-- Yes. That'll be they. It has always been she and he at this hour of the day.
*Well, they're monstrosities to my ear, anyway!
![Smile [:)]](/emoticons/emotion-1.gif)
CJ