Non voting member--can a nonvoting member make a motion?

[Guest Tony]

As a non voting member of our board, our commissioner made a motion, which was seconded and ultimately approved. The problem,however, is that our commissioner does not have a vote for matters decided by our board. Was the motion made by a non voting member proper or out of order? If out of order can it be rescinded or simply vacated by the chair as being procedurally improper?

[Dan Honemann]

As a non voting member of our board, our commissioner made a motion, which was seconded and ultimately approved. The problem,however, is that our commissioner does not have a vote for matters decided by our board. Was the motion made by a non voting member proper or out of order? If out of order can it be rescinded or simply vacated by the chair as being procedurally improper?

 

What rights your members have and don't have must be found in your own rules, but the answer to your question is that, at this point, the situation is the same as if there was never any doubt but that the member had the right to make the motion.

[Josh Martin]

Was the motion made by a non voting member proper or out of order?

 

RONR doesn't have non-voting members, so you're on your own there. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation.

 

If out of order can it be rescinded or simply vacated by the chair as being procedurally improper?

 

It cannot be "vacated by the chair as being procedurally improper" based upon the facts provided. Even if non-voting members cannot make motions under your rules, a Point of Order would have had to be raised at the time. It's too late now.

 

The motion may be rescinded whether or not it was proper for a non-member to make the motion. The motion to Rescind requires a 2/3 vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership, or a majority vote with previous notice.

[Timothy]

As a non voting member of our board, our commissioner made a motion, which was seconded and ultimately approved. The problem,however, is that our commissioner does not have a vote for matters decided by our board. Was the motion made by a non voting member proper or out of order? If out of order can it be rescinded or simply vacated by the chair as being procedurally improper?

 

If your rules don't say one way or the other, I guess the question I would have is, does it really matter? If the motion was seconded, the person who did so could have just as easily made the motion. And if the motion carried, there was someone else who could have seconded the motion. At worst, it isn't that much different from a president saying, "I would entertain a motion to..." In that case, it helps to move things along when everyone else isn't sure what should be done next. I suppose the non-voting member could've written his motion on a piece of paper and passed it to someone else. But the rules of order should make things easier, not over complicate them.

[Guest e]

If your rules don't say one way or the other, I guess the question I would have is, does it really matter?

 

I suspect a few here think it does. Or at least could.

 

Not really, of course. But in the context of the rules of order, yes.

[Rev Ed]

As a non voting member of our board, our commissioner made a motion, which was seconded and ultimately approved. The problem,however, is that our commissioner does not have a vote for matters decided by our board. Was the motion made by a non voting member proper or out of order? If out of order can it be rescinded or simply vacated by the chair as being procedurally improper?

 

By default, members of a group have all the rights of membership (page 3 lines 1-3.)  Limitations would have to be found in the By-laws, per pages 571-572 of RONR.  As such, unless the By-laws say that non-voting members cannot make a motion, then the member can make a motion.

[Gary c Tesser]

By default, members of a group have all the rights of membership (page 3 lines 1-3.)  Limitations would have to be found in the By-laws, per pages 571-572 of RONR.  As such, unless the By-laws say that non-voting members cannot make a motion, then the member can make a motion.

 

O Ed. Our first quarrel again.

[Guest Edgar]

O Ed. Our first quarrel again.

 

This motif is getting tiresome.

[Josh Martin]

By default, members of a group have all the rights of membership (page 3 lines 1-3.)  Limitations would have to be found in the By-laws, per pages 571-572 of RONR.  As such, unless the By-laws say that non-voting members cannot make a motion, then the member can make a motion.

 

This is making assumptions about how these "non-voting members" are defined in the group's bylaws. This is one possibility, but not the only possibility. See RONR, 11th ed., pg. 591, lines 11-30 for more information on this subject.

[Rev Ed]

This is making assumptions about how these "non-voting members" are defined in the group's bylaws. This is one possibility, but not the only possibility. See RONR, 11th ed., pg. 591, lines 11-30 for more information on this subject.

 

Josh, thanks for that - we need to know what the By-laws specifically state then.  I just read it the other way.

 

 

This motif is getting tiresome.

 

So are the putdowns.  As Josh pointed out, I am not necessarily wrong - my response is based on an assumption that we are yet to confirm.  Instead of putting me down, you could simply have politely pointed out the other possibility as Josh did.

[Josh Martin]

So are the putdowns.  As Josh pointed out, I am not necessarily wrong - my response is based on an assumption that we are yet to confirm.  Instead of putting me down, you could simply have politely pointed out the other possibility as Josh did.

 

I think Edgar's problem was with Mr. Tesser's post, not yours.

[Gary c Tesser]

I think Edgar's problem was with Mr. Tesser's post, not yours.

 

Yeah, me too.

[Robert B Fish]

I believe it's reasonable to conclude that the rights of members include attending meetings, making motions, speaking in debate, and voting.  [page 3]

 

Removal of any of these rights requires requires a statement in your bylaws.  Removal of any right (such as declaring that a particular member does not have the right to vote - as is frequently found in the bylaw wording e.g. "the executive director is an ex officio board member without vote" - means that person still enjoys the remaining rights.

 

This could be important, since it would probably be assumed the organization, in adopting the bylaws, knew of this rule and, therefore intended such member to have the remaining rights.  Otherwise, they would have written, e.g. "the executive director is an ex officio board member without vote or the right to make motions".

 

Note that the XD would retain the rights to participate in board meetings even when his/her performance was being discussed or his termination was being considered.

 

-Bob

[Timothy]

I believe it's reasonable to conclude that the rights of members include attending meetings, making motions, speaking in debate, and voting.  [page 3]

 

Removal of any of these rights requires requires a statement in your bylaws.  Removal of any right (such as declaring that a particular member does not have the right to vote - as is frequently found in the bylaw wording e.g. "the executive director is an ex officio board member without vote" - means that person still enjoys the remaining rights.

 

While this logic makes sense, it doesn't fit with the wording in RONR. The wording deals with "other classes" of membership. There are "members" which have all the expected rights of members and then there are other classes. We can't assume that all classes of members have the right of members unless rights are removed. If a section of the bylaws say, "the president may designate any individual as an honorary member," we can't assume that the person has all the rights and priviledges of membership just because it doesn't specify what the rights and priviledges of honorary membership are.

[Gary Novosielski]

While this logic makes sense, it doesn't fit with the wording in RONR. The wording deals with "other classes" of membership. There are "members" which have all the expected rights of members and then there are other classes. We can't assume that all classes of members have the right of members unless rights are removed. If a section of the bylaws say, "the president may designate any individual as an honorary member," we can't assume that the person has all the rights and priviledges of membership just because it doesn't specify what the rights and priviledges of honorary membership are.

 

Why not?

[Josh Martin]

Why not?

 

See RONR, 11th ed., pg. 591, lines 11-30.

[J. J.]

If I were chairing and had to rule, absent any intent as what rights a "non-voting member" would have, I would rule thusly:

 

"There are a 'package' of rights incidental to membership, one of which is the right to offer a motion (in appropriate circumstances), and one of which is the right to vote.  While the right to vote has been removed, the other rights in that 'package' have not.  The motion made by the non-voting made by the member is in order.

 

This decision of the chair is subject to appeal."

[Guest Nancy N.]

If I were chairing and had to rule, absent any intent as what rights a "non-voting member" would have, I would rule thusly:

 

"There are a 'package' of rights incidental to membership, one of which is the right to offer a motion (in appropriate circumstances), and one of which is the right to vote.  While the right to vote has been removed, the other rights in that 'package' have not.  The motion made by the non-voting made by the member is in order.

 

This decision of the chair is subject to appeal."

 

And you don't expect that half of the regular participants to the world's premier Internet parliamentary forum who have been through this dispute over and over, wouldn't appeal?

 

Chris H. rather brilliantly summarizes the dispute, characterizing the opposing opinions as "schools," and I would be surprised if he doesn't simply have  it as a "macro" by now, to plug into a discussion thread at any moment.  (I have the feeling I've read it within the past week!)  What bothers me is, in contrast, when anyone answers a question of this nature by presenting only one of the "schools," as if the opposing point if view is so contemptibly dispensable that it, and its proponents for that matter, aren't worth the bother of mentioning.

[Dan Honemann]

And you don't expect that half of the regular participants to the world's premier Internet parliamentary forum who have been through this dispute over and over, wouldn't appeal?

 

Chris H. rather brilliantly summarizes the dispute, characterizing the opposing opinions as "schools," and I would be surprised if he doesn't simply have  it as a "macro" by now, to plug into a discussion thread at any moment.  (I have the feeling I've read it within the past week!)  What bothers me is, in contrast, when anyone answers a question of this nature by presenting only one of the "schools," as if the opposing point if view is so contemptibly dispensable that it, and its proponents for that matter, aren't worth the bother of mentioning.

 

Any thought about what bylaws mean won't be worth much if you don't know what they say.

[Josh Martin]

If I were chairing and had to rule, absent any intent as what rights a "non-voting member" would have, I would rule thusly:

 

If I were chairing and had to rule absent any language from the bylaws, I'd ask for a copy and read the relevant passages before making a ruling.

 

Chris H. rather brilliantly summarizes the dispute, characterizing the opposing opinions as "schools," and I would be surprised if he doesn't simply have  it as a "macro" by now, to plug into a discussion thread at any moment.  (I have the feeling I've read it within the past week!)  What bothers me is, in contrast, when anyone answers a question of this nature by presenting only one of the "schools," as if the opposing point if view is so contemptibly dispensable that it, and its proponents for that matter, aren't worth the bother of mentioning.

 

The issue is that both schools of thought are correct, but which one is correct in a particular instance depends entirely on the wording in an organization's bylaws.

[Gary c Tesser]

Mr Harrison's brilliant and brilliantly succinct summary is here:  http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/20818-clarifying-roberts-rules-of-order-regarding-who-can-make-motions/

 

I will add, however, that there are those of us (I'm in this group, so I'm about to sound partisan) who hold that the question is indeterminate:  when someone asks the question, and assuming he has read his bylaws, the reply must be that no one knows, because there is no answer, and the organization must decide for itself on the spot; and, if heaven smiles on them, they will have the brains to follow through and insert those specifics into their bylaws forthwith, because that's the only way they will have a definitive answer.

 

If I were chairing and had to rule absent any language from the bylaws, I'd ask for a copy and read the relevant passages before making a ruling.

 

The issue is that both schools of thought are correct, but which one is correct in a particular instance depends entirely on the wording in an organization's bylaws.

 

Josh, square business.  Do you really find the answer in the wording in their bylaws more often than not?  More often than rarely?

[Josh Martin]

Josh, square business.  Do you really find the answer in the wording in their bylaws more often than not?  More often than rarely?

 

In and of themselves, no, but taken in conjunction with the Principles of Interpretation, an answer can often be determined.

 

Certainly, however, the best solution is to amend the bylaws for greater clarity.

[J. J.]

If I were chairing and had to rule absent any language from the bylaws, I'd ask for a copy and read the relevant passages before making a ruling.

 

 

The issue is that both schools of thought are correct, but which one is correct in a particular instance depends entirely on the wording in an organization's bylaws.

 

If the bylaws specificed the answer, we wouldn't be having a discussion of bylaw interpretation. 

[Josh Martin]

If the bylaws specificed the answer, we wouldn't be having a discussion of bylaw interpretation. 

 

Certainly, but it's also puzzling why we're discussing bylaws interpretation when we don't know what it says in the bylaws we're interpreting.

[J. J.]

Certainly, but it's also puzzling why we're discussing bylaws interpretation when we don't know what it says in the bylaws we're interpreting.

 

 

I think that is because of the absence of a definition in the bylaws.  If the bylaws said, "Non-voting members shall retain all right of membership, except the right to vote," we'd have an answer.