Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Limiting the Right to "Partially Abstain"


Josh Martin

Recommended Posts

As background, this is a continuation of a tangent started in this thread. Now, to rephrase it in a way to guide the new discussion...

Suppose that a member proposes to adopt the following special rule of order (or something like it): "In an election of members of a board or committee in which votes are cast for multiple positions on the board or committee, a ballot which is marked for fewer candidates than the number of available positions shall be considered an illegal vote and not credited to any candidate."

Is the proposed rule in order? Why or why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

It is in order and may be adopted. RONR does not require that to limit the right to abstain, that limitation must be placed in the bylaws (same citations as before).

Hm. Well, let's set "partial abstentions" aside for a moment and look at a larger question regarding abstention. Suppose a member proposes a special rule of order that "A member shall not abstain from a vote unless that member has a conflict of interest as defined in the society's rules."

For the purposes of this discussion, let's ignore the obvious enforcement problems and focus on the question: Is this rule in order? Why or why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm. Well, let's set "partial abstentions" aside for a moment and look at a larger question regarding abstention. Suppose a member proposes a special rule of order that "A member shall not abstain from a vote unless that member has a conflict of interest as defined in the society's rules."

For the purposes of this discussion, let's ignore the obvious enforcement problems and focus on the question: Is this rule in order? Why or why not?

It might be difficult to enforce, but it would be in order to adopt. If the member were to abstain, the assembly could begin disciplinary action. Such a rule is not unknown in legislative bodies. You might want to look at PJ, April 2001, p. 67 for an example of such a rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My feeling on this - and I think it is shared by Josh even though he has not said so directly - is that a special rule of order is not sufficient to curtail the right of a member to partially abstain.

My reasoning is as follows: RONR states that "Special rules of order supersede any rules in the parliamentary authority with which they may conflict" (p.16, l.1-2). I think this is entirely equivalent to saying that a special rule of order suspends the conflicting rule in the parliamentary authority and replaces it. But RONR also states that "Rules protecting the basic right of the individual member cannot be suspended" (p.264, ll.6-7), and there should be no question that voting is such a basic right (which RONR references further down in that same paragraph). Based on my reading of the many references to voting rights and the right to abstain in RONR - and i will admit that this reading may well be open to debate - I believe that the right to vote and the right to not vote are inseparable as basic rights of members, and therefore not subject to suspension by a special rule of order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that the right to vote and the right to not vote are inseparable as basic rights of members

I would tend to agree though, in the example which prompted this discussion, if the rule required voting for all open board positions, one could simply write in the names of those with absolutely no chance of being elected (e.g. Mitt Romney).

By way of rough analogy, the right to attend meetings is a basic right of membership and I would assume that extended to the right not to attend meetings. Yet I would think a society could establish an attendance requirement without enshrining it in the bylaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/3/2013 at 0:49 PM, Bruce Lages said:

My feeling on this - and I think it is shared by Josh even though he has not said so directly - is that a special rule of order is not sufficient to curtail the right of a member to partially abstain.

Well. I haven't said it yet in this thread. I did say it in the other thread, which is what started the debate.

On 2/3/2013 at 0:49 PM, Bruce Lages said:

My reasoning is as follows: RONR states that "Special rules of order supersede any rules in the parliamentary authority with which they may conflict" (p.16, l.1-2). I think this is entirely equivalent to saying that a special rule of order suspends the conflicting rule in the parliamentary authority and replaces it. But RONR also states that "Rules protecting the basic right of the individual member cannot be suspended" (p.264, ll.6-7), and there should be no question that voting is such a basic right (which RONR references further down in that same paragraph). Based on my reading of the many references to voting rights and the right to abstain in RONR - and i will admit that this reading may well be open to debate - I believe that the right to vote and the right to not vote are inseparable as basic rights of members, and therefore not subject to suspension by a special rule of order.

I don't agree that there is a general principle that something which cannot be accomplished by a suspension of the rules cannot be accomplished by a special rule of order. It would be in order, for instance, to adopt a special rule of order which permitted the assembly to postpone motions beyond the usual time limits.

I agree with your central point, though - "that the right to vote and the right to not vote are inseparable as basic rights of members."

On 2/3/2013 at 0:58 PM, Edgar said:

By way of rough analogy, the right to attend meetings is a basic right of membership and I would assume that extended to the right not to attend meetings. Yet I would think a society could establish an attendance requirement without enshrining it in the bylaws.

I think it depends on the effects of failing to follow the attendance requirement. If the assembly would need to go through formal disciplinary procedures to deal with a member who had missed meetings, that sounds acceptable. Providing that a member would be automatically removed or that a member would not be in good standing for failing to comply with the attendance policy, however, would require a rule in the Bylaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By way of rough analogy, the right to attend meetings is a basic right of membership and I would assume that extended to the right not to attend meetings. Yet I would think a society could establish an attendance requirement without enshrining it in the bylaws.

I would disagree. If the society wishes to mandate attendance, under a penalty of severing membership, it may. Until recently, I served on a board that had an automatic removal if a member missed two board meetings. I had no right not to attend the meetings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My feeling on this - and I think it is shared by Josh even though he has not said so directly - is that a special rule of order is not sufficient to curtail the right of a member to partially abstain.

My reasoning is as follows: RONR states that "Special rules of order supersede any rules in the parliamentary authority with which they may conflict" (p.16, l.1-2). I think this is entirely equivalent to saying that a special rule of order suspends the conflicting rule in the parliamentary authority and replaces it. But RONR also states that "Rules protecting the basic right of the individual member cannot be suspended" (p.264, ll.6-7), and there should be no question that voting is such a basic right (which RONR references further down in that same paragraph). Based on my reading of the many references to voting rights and the right to abstain in RONR - and i will admit that this reading may well be open to debate - I believe that the right to vote and the right to not vote are inseparable as basic rights of members, and therefore not subject to suspension by a special rule of order.

Voting rights cannot be curtailed except through the bylaws. The right to abstain, or how ballots are counted is not subject to the same requirement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voting rights cannot be curtailed except through the bylaws. The right to abstain, or how ballots are counted is not subject to the same requirement.

It appears, then, that our point of disagreement is whether the right to vote and the right to not vote are inseparable as basic voting rights of members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, per Mr. Martin's post, must such a mandate and, more to the point, that penalty, be in the bylaws?

h2UEu9

No. The judgment of what does and does not constitute grounds for disciplinary action is not required to be in the bylaws. Even without such a rule, a society could remove a member for nonattendance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. The judgment of what does and does not constitute grounds for disciplinary action is not required to be in the bylaws. Even without such a rule, a society could remove a member for nonattendance.

I'm in complete agreement that a society may remove its members for nonattendance through its usual disciplinary procedures, whether or not there is a rule that mandates attendance.

If the rule provided that a member would be automatically removed for nonattendance, however, I think that would need to be in the Bylaws.

I think that is the logic of your conclusion. A member may vote, within certain parameters. The special rule modifies those parameters.

It's one thing to vote for an ineligible candidate or to vote "Maybe." But doesn't a rule which requires members to vote for a minimum number of candidates limit their right to vote for any eligible candidate? If three positions are available and a member supports Mr. A and Mr. B, but no other candidates, isn't it his right to vote for Mr. A and Mr. B? If his vote for them is not credited because he only voted for those two candidates, isn't that right infringed upon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth. my "conclusion" was that, if one accepts the premise that the right to vote and the right to not vote are inseparable as voting rights, then any limitation on those rights would have to be in the bylaws. I don't see how that conclusion says anything about voting rights including being able to vote for ineligible candidates or voting 'maybe'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in complete agreement that a society may remove its members for nonattendance through its usual disciplinary procedures, whether or not there is a rule that mandates attendance.

If the rule provided that a member would be automatically removed for nonattendance, however, I think that would need to be in the Bylaws.

Possibly not. This was a point I made earlier; the assembly can use a special rule to establish how to conduct disciplinary action.

It's one thing to vote for an ineligible candidate or to vote "Maybe." But doesn't a rule which requires members to vote for a minimum number of candidates limit their right to vote for any eligible candidate?

No, it changes what is considered a valid ballot.

If three positions are available and a member supports Mr. A and Mr. B, but no other candidates, isn't it his right to vote for Mr. A and Mr. B? If his vote for them is not credited because he only voted for those two candidates, isn't that right infringed upon?

Again, no, for the reason stated above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth. my "conclusion" was that, if one accepts the premise that the right to vote and the right to not vote are inseparable as voting rights, then any limitation on those rights would have to be in the bylaws. I don't see how that conclusion says anything about voting rights including being able to vote for ineligible candidates or voting 'maybe'.

Obviously, the right to vote is limited in the general case. A member can't vote "yes and no" (which I have seen) or "maybe" on a yes/no vote and expect it to be counted. A member may not vote for an ineligible candidate, and expect it to be counted.

A partial abstention rule says that a partial abstention shall not be counted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But doesn't a rule which requires members to vote for a minimum number of candidates limit their right to vote for any eligible candidate? If three positions are available and a member supports Mr. A and Mr. B, but no other candidates, isn't it his right to vote for Mr. A and Mr. B? If his vote for them is not credited because he only voted for those two candidates, isn't that right infringed upon?

Josh, don't you see what happens when you ask purely rhetorical questions. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As background, this is a continuation of a tangent started in this thread. Now, to rephrase it in a way to guide the new discussion...

Suppose that a member proposes to adopt the following special rule of order (or something like it): "In an election of members of a board or committee in which votes are cast for multiple positions on the board or committee, a ballot which is marked for fewer candidates than the number of available positions shall be considered an illegal vote and not credited to any candidate."

Is the proposed rule in order? Why or why not?

Suppose that, as “something like it”, the proposed rule says that “… a ballot which is marked for fewer candidates than the number of available positions shall be considered an abstention and neither credited to any candidate nor counted in determining the number of votes cast."

I suspect that the answer to your question is the same in either case, but I wonder if you agree. Don’t want to leave any loose ends lying around, you know. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...