Guest Cathy Posted June 17, 2017 at 03:35 AM Report Share Posted June 17, 2017 at 03:35 AM Should a person who has been appointed as a scrutineer be dismissed if their spouse puts a motion on the floor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted June 17, 2017 at 05:16 AM Report Share Posted June 17, 2017 at 05:16 AM The scrutineers would only help count votes in the event of a ballot vote, so unless a ballot vote is ordered by the assembly, or is required by the by-laws, then this would not be an issue. Can you provide more information as to why you are asking the question, please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted June 19, 2017 at 12:40 AM Report Share Posted June 19, 2017 at 12:40 AM The appointing party is free to appoint and unappoint whomever he/she/it wishes. (I assume there are no "terms of office" involved.) *** There is no "should" in Robert's Rules of Order regarding your specific scenario. So, no rule is violated (so far) if the spouse sits on a given committee despite a motion being moved by the corresponding spouse. And no rule is violated when the appointing party un-appoints the spouse, even if there is no conflict of interest, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted June 19, 2017 at 01:19 PM Report Share Posted June 19, 2017 at 01:19 PM On 6/17/2017 at 0:16 AM, Rev Ed said: The scrutineers would only help count votes in the event of a ballot vote, so unless a ballot vote is ordered by the assembly, or is required by the by-laws, then this would not be an issue. Can you provide more information as to why you are asking the question, please. I'm not sure there is an issue even if there is a ballot vote. The fact that a motion is made by the member's spouse, in and of itself, does not constitute a "personal or pecuniary interest not in common with other members." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted June 21, 2017 at 04:13 PM Report Share Posted June 21, 2017 at 04:13 PM On 6/19/2017 at 9:19 AM, Josh Martin said: I'm not sure there is an issue even if there is a ballot vote. The fact that a motion is made by the member's spouse, in and of itself, does not constitute a "personal or pecuniary interest not in common with other members." Josh, we don't know the details. That's the problem. Is the OP using the term motion properly for example? And if so, what is the motion about? Normally, I'd agree with you 100%, but we don't have any details and I do not want to say that there is absolutely no issue when there may be - even if you or I would dismiss it, I would want to at least mention it. P.S. What I am trying to get at is if the spouse puts down a motion to do something that would benefit the couple or one of their relatives - or if what the OP means is that the spouse wants to run for office. In the former, the issue may be something where the assembly may wish to object to (i.e. why wouldn't the member want the vote to come out in favour of his/her relatives), and in the latter may constitute the same thing - the member may appear to be helping the spouse to get elected. While neither may be the case, the assembly may want to have someone else act as a scrutineer if for no other reason than for appearance - if there ends up being an issue with the final count that someone objects to (I have seen this occur) then the assembly may want to keep up the appearance of neutrality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted June 22, 2017 at 07:07 PM Report Share Posted June 22, 2017 at 07:07 PM Well, heck. I haven't been here much lately because of other pressing business, but as I scanned the list of posts, the word "scrutineer" in the title of this thread caught my attention. I don't recall having heard the term and thought I might learn something new and interesting. Perhaps it's uniquely Canadian. But, alas, not one response even mentioned the word! (Edited to add: Oops. Rev Ed mentioned the word. Twice.). OK, Google, I hope you're doing fine today. I'm about to pay you a visit. I figure it's a fancy or old fashioned term for "watcher", but one just has to be sure he's right about these terms! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts