Guest TyroneK Posted February 9, 2011 at 04:53 AM Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 at 04:53 AM At a recent meeting of my dog club, we needed ten members to have a quorum to conduct club business. We had ten members show up, but when it came time to vote on an item, a club member objected that two members hadn't paid their dues and thus were not members in good standing. The two members were not allowed to vote on the item and the item passed without their vote. My question is, if these two were not in good standing to vote, would this mean the they didn't have a quorum and thusly couldn't vote on the item? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lisa Posted February 9, 2011 at 04:55 AM Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 at 04:55 AM At a recent meeting of my dog club, we needed ten members to have a quorum to conduct club business. We had ten members show up, but when it came time to vote on an item, a club member objected that two members hadn't paid their dues and thus were not members in good standing. The two members were not allowed to vote on the item and the item passed without their vote. My question is, if these two were not in good standing to vote, would this mean the they didn't have a quorum and thusly couldn't vote on the item?If you did not have a Quorum and you bylaws state that if you are not in good standing than you can't vote. Than you need to adjorn your meeting and reschedule when they are in good standing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted February 9, 2011 at 05:12 AM Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 at 05:12 AM If you did not have a Quorum and you bylaws state that if you are not in good standing than you can't vote. Than you need to adjorn your meeting and reschedule when they are in good standing.RONR doesn't define "in good standing" or "not in good standing" so making the claim that the members can't vote because they are "not in good standing" might be overreaching since you don't know the specifics of Tyrone K's bylaws. Also, RONR pp. 393-394 say that a member who is in arrears still has a right to vote unless the bylaws say otherwise so the question to Tyrone K is if the bylaws deprive a member of the right to vote because he is in arrears with his dues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted February 9, 2011 at 05:36 AM Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 at 05:36 AM At a recent meeting of my dog club, we needed ten members to have a quorum to conduct club business. We had ten members show up, but when it came time to vote on an item, a club member objected that two members hadn't paid their dues and thus were not members in good standing. The two members were not allowed to vote on the item and the item passed without their vote.My question is, if these two were not in good standing to vote, would this mean that they didn't have a quorum and thusly couldn't vote on the item?No, that wouldn't mean that.If you asking about Robert's Rules of Order, ____:• "to not paying one's dues" is not the same thing as "to not be in good standing."• To not pay one's dues does not imply that "one does not count toward the quorum."No text in RONR 10th edition supports either of the above assertions.If you have rules which say otherwise, then, fine, your question is a question about your customized rules, and not a question about Robert's Rules of Order.If the meaning of "not paying one's dues" carries a certain penalty, then the answer might be "yes" for you, but only due to your unique rules, and not due to Robert's Rules of Order.Q. Do you have any rule which says that not paying one's dues places one in bad standing?Q. Do you have any rule which says that being in bad standing implies that one cannot vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted February 9, 2011 at 12:18 PM Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 at 12:18 PM Because of the way this was mis-handled, it is possible the vote taken is now null and void, depending on whether those two votes could have affected the result. Do you know what the vote count of the eight members was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted February 9, 2011 at 12:35 PM Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 at 12:35 PM . . . depending on whether those two votes could have affected the result.What two votes? The two "votes" that weren't cast? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted February 9, 2011 at 12:47 PM Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 at 12:47 PM What two votes? The two "votes" that weren't cast?The two votes that were not allowed to be cast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted February 9, 2011 at 12:53 PM Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 at 12:53 PM The two votes that were not allowed to be cast.Well, votes that aren't cast aren't votes. The two should have voted and then protested that their votes weren't counted. I've never been a fan of "you snooze, you lose" but you have to exercise your rights if you want to argue that they've been denied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted February 9, 2011 at 01:15 PM Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 at 01:15 PM Well, votes that aren't cast aren't votes. The two should have voted and then protested that their votes weren't counted. I've never been a fan of "you snooze, you lose" but you have to exercise your rights if you want to argue that they've been denied.Fair enough. However, from the facts given so far, it seems that these members were improperly denied their right to vote (and we're not even sure how properly this was handled, if that's even possible) and I'd like to think that counts for something. I know "rules don't enforce themselves." Hypothetically, let's say these two members were not noticed of the meeting because of their "bad standing" status, and thus weren't there to vote. Would we then have a possible "null and void" situation, as absentee rights were violated? Where is that line drawn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted February 9, 2011 at 01:20 PM Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 at 01:20 PM Hypothetically, let's say these two members were not noticed of the meeting because of their "bad standing" status, and thus weren't there to vote. Would we then have a possible "null and void" situation, as absentee rights were violated? Where is that line drawn?I think there's a significant difference between not being notified of a meeting and being told, at a meeting, that you can't vote. In the first instance, there's no basis for immediate individual action. In the second, there is.But I'll admit that the ice I'm skating on is thinning if you'll stop using "noticed" instead of "notified". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted February 9, 2011 at 01:30 PM Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 at 01:30 PM I think there's a significant difference between not being notified of a meeting and being told, at a meeting, that you can't vote. In the first instance, there's no basis for immediate individual action. In the second, there is.But I'll admit that the ice I'm skating on is thinning if you'll stop using "noticed" instead of "notified".So "notified." I still think depriving a member of any of his basic rights of membership without "due process" warrants some corrective action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted February 9, 2011 at 01:38 PM Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 at 01:38 PM I still think depriving a member of any of his basic rights of membership without "due process" warrants some corrective action.I agree. But I think a member has an obligation to at least say "Sez who?" when told he can't vote. It's part of the whole "timely point of order" requirement.Though I'm certainly not in the camp of those who insist that the magical words "point of order" must be used. Something like "this stinks!" works for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted February 9, 2011 at 01:48 PM Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 at 01:48 PM Okay, back to the question at hand. Correct phraseology notwithstanding, it might be interpreted that the objecting member raised a point of order regarding the two members' right to vote due to their dues being in arrears. As it seems that this was accepted by the remaining eight, with the (dangerous) assumption that the chair ruled the point of order well taken by not disputing it, and that the implied ruling was not appealed therefore the chair's decision was upheld, has a special rule of order been adopted that denies a member the right to vote when dues are in arrears? And if so, at that moment, did the meeting become inquorate?I'm not trying to be argumentative, just exploring some of the subtleties that RONR at times presents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted February 9, 2011 at 02:01 PM Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 at 02:01 PM it might be interpreted that the objecting member raised a point of order regarding the two members' right to vote due to their dues being in arrearsI see no basis for that interpretation. I suspect this is beginning to look like a zebra hunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 9, 2011 at 09:45 PM Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 at 09:45 PM As it seems that this was accepted by the remaining eight, with the (dangerous) assumption that the chair ruled the point of order well taken by not disputing it, and that the implied ruling was not appealed therefore the chair's decision was upheld, has a special rule of order been adopted that denies a member the right to vote when dues are in arrears?If the chair actually ruled that the members could not vote, Official Interpretation 2006-6 applies. If the members simply accepted the other member's statement, that's their loss. In neither case did the assembly adopt a special rule of order.And if so, at that moment, did the meeting become inquorate?The meeting was inquorate if there actually were fewer than ten voting members present. If the members were improperly denied the right to vote, then this means they were voting members. If they were not voting members, they were not improperly denied the right to vote. There may be a voting rights issue here and there may be a quorum issue here, but I don't see how both can be true at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted February 9, 2011 at 11:25 PM Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 at 11:25 PM Guest_TyroneK --- where are you? Any answers to the many question posed here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted February 10, 2011 at 01:17 AM Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 at 01:17 AM Guest_TyroneK --- where are you? Any answers to the many question posed here?I think "he snoozed."I think "he lost." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted February 10, 2011 at 01:21 AM Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 at 01:21 AM At a recent meeting of my dog club, we needed ten members to have a quorum to conduct club business. We had ten members show up, but when it came time to vote on an item, a club member objected that two members hadn't paid their dues and thus were not members in good standing. The two members were not allowed to vote on the item and the item passed without their vote. My question is, if these two were not in good standing to vote, would this mean the they didn't have a quorum and thusly couldn't vote on the item?The quorum is determined on the basis of the number of voting members who are present. Members whose right to vote is in suspense on account of a disciplinary action or the operation of some rule in the bylaws are not counted toward the quorum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.