George

I have a quick question. Our bylaws authorize electronic and mail voting. What isn't clear is how to account for non-submissions? Here is the scenario. Let's say I have 14 members on the board. Of those fourteen only eleven send in their votes for a motion. Seven are yeses and four are nos. There are three members with no response and are being unresponsive. In my interruption since only eleven voted these are the only eleven that are in attendance. Quorum is met (our bylaws state 51% attendance). A majority of 51% is needed to pass a motion according to our bylaws and thus seven is a majority of eleven and the motion passes. Am I thinking of this correctly? I thank you all for your assistance.

Thank you to everyone that is posting. The first link I provided has a definition for "Recusal." It even states the case that made this definition. I copied the page information below. ------------------------------------------ "Recusal" or to "recuse" oneself means to remove oneself from participation in a decision where you have a conflict of interest. Recusal normally occurs when a director has a conflict of interest or prejudice concerning a particular matter. A conflict of interest is any situation in which financial or other personal considerations may unduly influence the director's judgment. This includes matters such as a disciplinary action against the director for violating the CC&Rs or voting on a potential contract with a company owned by a close relative of the director. Leave the Room. In each case, the director has a personal interest in the outcome of the vote--an interest not shared by other directors. In such instances, the interested director should leave the meeting room so the remaining directors can freely discuss and vote on the issue. (California's Fair Political Practices Act, Calif. Code of Reg. §18702.5.) Once the vote is taken, the recused director may return to the meeting. If the interested director were to stay in the meeting, his presence could inhibit the board's discussion and influence the vote. To avoid liability, a conflicted director must remove himself from the process of conferring and voting on matters in which he has a personal interest. Refuses to Leave. If the interested director does not leave voluntarily, the board can ask him to leave. If he refuses to leave, the board can adjourn the meeting to another location where they can hold the discussion and vote without interference by the interested director. Under those circumstances, the board might also consider a vote of censure against the director for his refusal to recuse himself. Recommendation. Boards should adopt an Ethics Policy for directors to follow. For more information on the importance of avoiding ethics conflicts, see Ethics v. Carrigan. ------------------------------------------------------- Now what I'm in particularly curious about is the "leave the room" section. If you look at my first post there are three links. One is the definition which I copied here. The second is the actual case that made this definition. The third link is stating that Alabama adopted this practice. Now based on all your responses perhaps this is not the correct forum to ask this information, but I still value and would like to hear your responses to this. Thank you once again.

To whom it may concern: There is a board member in the organization I'm a part of that recently recused themselves from a situation that they were intimately involved with. The situation was the misuse of the bylaws and an attempt to change the bylaws to excuse the actions taken by himself and an employee. While the executive board was discussing the topics, this individual remained in the room. There was no participation in the discussion but the individual was still present. To my knowledge the board did not address this person's involvement as I'm sure it was difficult to talk about this individual with them present. Additionally I need to add that this individual is the president of the board. This really is not sitting well with me as I feel this is wrong. After a some research I understand that recusal is not part of Robert's Rule of Order but it is referenced in the law. I found these links and I'm putting them below. The first link is Recusal defined. The second link is the law case it references. The third link is showing that Alabama (the state this is currently happening in) adopted this. https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Recusal-Defined https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Nevada-Ethics-v-Carrigan#axzz1Q0mQpafl http://www.judicialrecusal.com/alabama-judicial-disqualification-recusal/ I would be really curious to get everyone's take on this both Robert's Rule of Order side and the actual legal side. What course of action can be taken? Area there legal ramification? I thank you all for your time.