Selection Board Process

[Guest Jules Shabazz]

We just had an members in take committee, to select new members.  The issue that I had was that members of the board had submit applicants to become members.   From my experience  it was a conflict of interest, and the members that submit applicants should have recuse themselves  from the board.   What is the Robert Rules of Order that address this issue?

 

[Richard Brown]

This is what RONR says about it on pages 407-408:

"ABSTAINING FROM VOTING ON A QUESTION OF DIRECT PERSONAL INTEREST. No member should vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization. For example, if a motion proposes that the organization enter into a contract with a commercial firm of which a member of the organization is an officer and from which contract he would derive personal pecuniary profit, the member should abstain from voting on the motion. However, no member can be compelled to refrain from voting in such circumstances.

VOTING ON QUESTIONS AFFECTING ONESELF. The rule on abstaining from voting on a question of direct personal interest does not mean that a member should not vote for himself for an office or other position to which [page 408] members generally are eligible, or should not vote when other members are included with him in a motion. If a member never voted on a question affecting himself, it would be impossible for a society to vote to hold a banquet, or for the majority to prevent a small minority from preferring charges against them and suspending or expelling them (61, 63)."

Edited to add:  Even per RONR, a member with a conflict MAY vote if he so chooses.  He cannot be prevented from voting because of any real or perceived conflict.

Edited April 3, 2018 at 07:15 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[Guest Jules Shabazz]

I think we have a disconnect. This is dealing with selection board process.  It just happen to be for new members in the organization.  If all the members was able to submit an applicant, and the committee members doing the selection was able to sit the board for which they submit applicants; in my opinion it gave the board members an unfair advantage or non-board members of the organization.

 

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

There is nothing in the rules of order which says that committee members must recuse themselves from such a vote. If you think it's unfair, then propose an amendment to your rules.

[Guest Jules Shabazz]

The members intake committee had selected new members that they also sponsored.  Conflict of interest and unfair advantage to other members that submit new members.  Can you sponsor a new member if you are on the membership committee?  What does Robert Rules of Order guidelines for this issue?

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

27 minutes ago, Guest Jules Shabazz said:

Can you sponsor a new member if you are on the membership committee?  What does Robert Rules of Order guidelines for this issue?

According to Robert's Rules, yes. There is no prohibition. "Conflict of interest" was exhaustively quoted to you above.

[Richard Brown]

Agreeing with GWCTD and with my previous answer above, nothing in RONR prohibits these members from voting to approve new members who they themselves proposed for membership.  They can abstain from voting if they so choose, but they have every right to vote on the new members if they want to.

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Guest Jules Shabazz said:

The members intake committee had selected new members that they also sponsored.  Conflict of interest and unfair advantage to other members that submit new members.  Can you sponsor a new member if you are on the membership committee?  What does Robert Rules of Order guidelines for this issue?

Unless your rules provide otherwise, the members of the membership committee are free to sponsor new members, and are also free to vote on those members. This will continue to be the case no matter how many times you ask us.

I do not agree that sponsoring someone for membership, in and of itself, constitutes a personal or pecuniary interest not in common with other members, but even if it did, members with such an interest retain the right to vote, as Mr. Brown has previously explained.

If you feel that this constitutes an “unfair advantage” for the members of the committee, you are free to try to amend your society’s rules.

[Guest Jules Shabazz]

You oppose your answer as if all members had an opportunity to vote; this was decided among a committee  that all  other members was not involved.  

[Josh Martin]

19 minutes ago, Guest Jules Shabazz said:

You oppose your answer as if all members had an opportunity to vote; this was decided among a committee  that all  other members was not involved.  

I stand by everything I said in my previous post.

If you don’t like the degree of authority your rules grant to your membership committee, then make a motion to change your rules.

[Richard Brown]

Mr. Shabazz, as Mr. Martin told you in an earlier post, the answer to your question is going to remain the same no matter how many times you ask it.

Unless your own bylaws specify otherwise, every member of an organization has certain basic rights, including the right to attend meetings, to make motions, to speak in debate and to vote.  A member cannot be deprived of his basic right to vote except through disciplinary proceedings as set out in chapter XX of RONR on Disciplinary Proceedings.  A member MAY abstain from voting, but he cannot be compelled to abstain, even if he has a conflict or a personal interest in the matter.  Those of us who have responded don't think he even has a conflict as contemplated by RONR, but, even if he does, he still has the right to vote. 

RONR emphasizes that basic right throughout the book.  Perhaps this state on page 3 of the 716 page book will be helpful:

"A member of an assembly, in the parliamentary sense, as mentioned above, is a person entitled to full participation in its proceedings, that is, as explained in 3 and 4, the right to attend meetings, to make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote. No member can be individually deprived of these basic rights of membership—or of any basic rights concomitant to them, such as the right to make nominations or to give previous notice of a motion—except through disciplinary proceedings. "

In an earlier post, i quoted another provision which makes clear that even if a member has a conflict, he still has the right to vote if he so desires.

If you don't like the rule, your option is to try to get your society to amend its bylaws to provide for restricting the right of a member to vote in certain circumstances.  I think it would require an amendment to your bylaws to permit any such restriction on the absolute right to vote.  Perhaps it could be done with only a special rule of order, which would require previous notice and a two thirds vote or the vote of a majority of the entire membership, but I believe the right to vote is such a fundamental right of membership that any restriction of that right must be provided for in the bylaws.