Guest roger Posted February 11, 2011 at 01:01 AM Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 at 01:01 AM If a constitution states that individuals appointed to position by the board rather than being elected by the electing-body has "voice but not vote" at meetings, how should voice be interpreted? Can motions be made by this person even if he/she can't vote on the motion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted February 11, 2011 at 01:39 AM Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 at 01:39 AM If a constitution states that individuals appointed to position by the board rather than being elected by the electing-body has "voice but not vote" at meetings, how should voice be interpreted? Can motions be made by this person even if he/she can't vote on the motion?That is up to you all to decide. See RONR pp. 570-573 for some principles to help you all with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted February 11, 2011 at 04:26 AM Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 at 04:26 AM Can motions be made by this person even if he/she can't vote on the motion?I believe that such a motion, if adopted, would be valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 11, 2011 at 07:40 AM Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 at 07:40 AM I believe that such a motion, if adopted, would be valid.Well, it certainly wouldn't cause a continuing breach, but that doesn't really answer the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted February 11, 2011 at 01:40 PM Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 at 01:40 PM If a constitution states that individuals appointed to position by the board rather than being elected by the electing-body has "voice but not vote" at meetings, how should voice be interpreted? Unknown.Can motions be made by this person even if he/she can't vote on the motion?Unknown.The phrase "voice but no vote" is not a phrase taken from Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR 10th ed. 2000).So, no page can be cited to prove that one interpretation is more authentic than another interpretation.Funny, how so many organizations incorporate this phrase into their bylaws, but the organizations do not know what the phrase means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted February 12, 2011 at 07:08 AM Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 at 07:08 AM The phrase "voice but no vote" is not a phrase taken from Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR 10th ed. 2000).So, no page can be cited to prove that one interpretation is more authentic than another interpretation.Funny, how so many organizations incorporate this phrase into their bylaws, but the organizations do not know what the phrase means.About 350,000 hits on Google for "voice but no vote". But... No results found for "voice but no vote means".Still, what is even funnier is that we have seen this phrase so many times, and claim not to know what it means. I know, I know, we don't interpret bylaws, but I think it's at least clear that such a person would have no vote, due to the reasonably unambiguous words "no vote".The only real question is what "voice" means. I don't think many would disagree that this means a voice in debate. Some might have no opinion on what it means, or have a strong opinion that others should have no opinion on what it means, but among those who have an opinion on what it means, that's probably what it means. And if that's true, a strong case could be made that it includes the right to second motions made by others, since someone with the right to debate a motion ought to be free to express his wish that it be considered.So the only nagging question is whether or not "voice" includes the right to make motions . I'm less sure about that. And I don't think it's a problem for each organization to decide for themselves. If pressed, I think I would suggest that making motions should be permitted, at least in small boards, which is almost exclusively where this comes up.But of course it's up to each society to interpret ambiguities in its own bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted February 12, 2011 at 01:48 PM Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 at 01:48 PM "Voice but no vote" seems to be one of those boiler-plate catchphrases that gets passed around like an urban myth or a regifted Christmas fruitcake. It tends to straddle the gray area between restricted member rights (where through some action only the right to vote has been curtailed) and the "rights" of non-members (who may be allowed to attend, and may be allowed to speak in debate, but otherwise cannot participate). Even Puerto Rico's government website includes: Puerto Rico has one resident commissioner (with voice, but no vote) in the Congress of United States. Could it be our own Congressional rule book includes this ambiguity?The American Association of Engineering Societies wisely clarifies: Members of the Board serving with voice but no vote shall have all the parliamentary rights and privileges of the Governors except the right to vote.This seems clear enough, and would be a wise replacement for the more ambiguous, albeit considerably less poetic, "voice but no vote." Perhaps our Guest_Roger, through amendment of his bylaws, can help send this fruitcake on its travels, and we'll have one less recurring post here with which to deal. One can hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 12, 2011 at 09:39 PM Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 at 09:39 PM Even Puerto Rico's government website includes: Puerto Rico has one resident commissioner (with voice, but no vote) in the Congress of United States. Could it be our own Congressional rule book includes this ambiguity?No, that's a paraphrase. The rules of the U. S. House of Representatives do not use the term "voice, but no vote." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted February 12, 2011 at 09:49 PM Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 at 09:49 PM No, that's a paraphrase. The rules of the U. S. House of Representatives do not use the term "voice, but no vote."Whew!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulmcclintock Posted February 13, 2011 at 01:10 AM Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 at 01:10 AM The phrase "voice but no vote" is not a phrase taken from Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR 10th ed. 2000). So, no page can be cited to prove that one interpretation is more authentic than another interpretation.RONR p. 414 does use "voice and vote" in discussing proxies: "In a stock corporation, on the other hand, where the ownership is transferable, the voice and vote of the member also is transferable, by use of a proxy." But RONR does not define what "voice" includes.Also see a similar discussion at this thread:http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/8298-voice-but-no-voteAlthough "have voice but not vote" style provisions can be readily found via an internet search, a clearer provision example is: "The [Club] Leader shall have the right to make and debate motions at County Committee meetings, but not to vote at such meetings unless he is otherwise a member." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.