Guest K McWilliams Posted March 30, 2011 at 09:50 PM Report Share Posted March 30, 2011 at 09:50 PM I am a member of a counsel and this is a group. Are the group member able to be included on votes that pertain to their group? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest K McWilliams Posted March 30, 2011 at 09:51 PM Report Share Posted March 30, 2011 at 09:51 PM I am a member of a counsel and there is a organization under the counsel. Are the organization members able to be included on votes that pertain to their group? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted March 30, 2011 at 10:16 PM Report Share Posted March 30, 2011 at 10:16 PM I am a member of a counsel and this is a group. Are the group member able to be included on votes that pertain to their group?Only members of the body that is meeting can vote. Other than that, I find your question confusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted March 31, 2011 at 12:40 AM Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 at 12:40 AM I am a member of a council and this [council] is a group.I will take you at your word. -- Though I don't understand what YOU mean by "group". (I thought you said it was a "council".)Are the group members able to be included on votes that pertain to their group?Unclear.• Yes, if not conflicted.• No, if conflicted.The rule in The Book is, if there is a motion where there is a personal or pecuniary interest not common to the other members, then the conflicted person is to abstain.But if the motion involves two members OR MORE, then the conflict is gone. -- The conflicted person can vote. The interest is no longer "not common." (i.e., it is "common.") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted March 31, 2011 at 12:44 AM Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 at 12:44 AM But if the motion involves two members OR MORE, then the conflict is gone. -- The conflicted person can vote.I think it's quite possible for two members to share a personal or pecuniary interest that is not in common with the other members and, in such a case, both members should abstain from voting.I'm pretty sure this question came up some years back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted March 31, 2011 at 01:07 AM Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 at 01:07 AM I think it's quite possible for two members to share a personal or pecuniary interest that is not in common with the other members and, in such a case, both members should abstain from voting.I'm pretty sure this question came up some years back.... hmmmmmmmmmmm ... Assume a motion:"That Col. Mustard, Prof. Plum, and Mrs. Peacock, sit on the 2011 Nom. Comm."Q. Is it now the case that Mustard, Plum, Peacock, all cannot vote, as the motion names ONLY THREE PEOPLE, and thus is not common to the organization in general?Q. How many people must be included in a motion, "That _____ all be named to the Nom. Comm." before those expressly named members can vote?• 7? 17? 27?• 2% of the total org? 12%? 32%? 52%? 72%? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted March 31, 2011 at 01:16 AM Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 at 01:16 AM Q. Is it now the case that Mustard, Plum, Peacock, all cannot vote, as the motion names ONLY THREE PEOPLE, and thus is not common to the organization in general?Q. How many people must be included in a motion, "That _____ all be named to the Nom. Comm." before those expressly named members can vote?• 7? 17? 27?• 2% of the total org? 12%? 32%? 52%? 72%?Firstly, it is never the case that an individual cannot vote due to a personal or pecuniary interest, at least under the rules in RONR. Secondly, your example is flawed, as RONR specifically clarifies that the rule regarding "personal or pecuniary interest not in common with other members" does not an apply to an election for an office or other position for which other members are generally eligible.As to what percentage is needed for the rule to no longer apply, there is no hard and fast rule. For what it's worth, the two examples in RONR are a banquet (which affects all members) and a motion in which a small minority attempts to suspend or expel a majority of the assembly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted March 31, 2011 at 01:23 AM Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 at 01:23 AM I think it's quite possible for two members to share a personal or pecuniary interest that is not in common with the other members and, in such a case, both members should abstain from voting.Certainly they could share an interest that the remaining members (except for each other) do not share, but that's not what the rule says. In this case, if they share an interest with each other, they share it with other member(s) and they may vote. If they do not share it with anyone else, they may not.Otherwise an absurdity arises. Suppose in a group of 100 members, 99 have an interest that they share with each other but not with the lone remaining member. It would be absurd to suggest that none of the 99 may vote.As long as a member is not the ONLY one with such an "interest", he may vote on it. If he is named in a motion with others, then he may vote, even if all the others named might have the same personal or pecuniary interest. In fact, especially then, as that is the essence of a "shared" interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted March 31, 2011 at 01:25 AM Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 at 01:25 AM Otherwise an absurdity arises. Suppose in a group of 100 members, 99 share an interest that they share with each other but not with the lone remaining member. It would be absurd to suggest that none of the 99 may vote.As long as a member is not the ONLY one with such an "interest", he may vote on it. If he is named in a motion with others, then he may vote, even if all the others named might have a personal or pecuniary interest. In fact, especially then, as that is the essence of a "shared" interest.While I agree that it is absurd to suggest that 99 members should abstain because they have an interest which the lone remaining member does not (which RONR acknowledges), it is equally absurd to suggest, for instance, that two members out of an assembly of 100 should feel free to vote on a motion in which they have a personal or pecuniary interest not in common with the other 98 members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted March 31, 2011 at 01:29 AM Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 at 01:29 AM Otherwise an absurdity arises. Suppose in a group of 100 members, 99 have an interest that they share with each other but not with the lone remaining member. It would be absurd to suggest that none of the 99 may vote.The fact that it would be absurd to suggest that 99 members out of 100 should not vote because they have a personal interest not in common with the one remaining member does not mean that 2 members out of 100 should not vote because they each have the same personal interest not in common with the other 98 members.But I'm basing this on my memory of a years-old topic so perhaps Mr. Honemann will weigh in.And, by way of example, consider a husband and wife who stand to personally benefit from the adoption of a motion. I don't think the fact that two would benefit lifts the expectation that both should abstain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted March 31, 2011 at 01:53 AM Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 at 01:53 AM While I agree that it is absurd to suggest that 99 members should abstain because they have an interest which the lone remaining member does not (which RONR acknowledges), it is equally absurd to suggest, for instance, that two members out of an assembly of 100 should feel free to vote on a motion in which they have a personal or pecuniary interest not in common with the other 98 members.Then how about three? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted March 31, 2011 at 01:58 AM Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 at 01:58 AM Then how about three?Three out of 100 should abstain.But if you're searching for a tipping point, you won't find it.And since the rule is advisory, not compulsory, it's up to each member to do the right thing. Or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted March 31, 2011 at 03:28 AM Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 at 03:28 AM Then how about three?Just as I said to Mr. Goldsworthy, there is no hard and fast rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted March 31, 2011 at 03:30 AM Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 at 03:30 AM Three out of 100 should abstain.But if you're searching for a tipping point, you won't find it.Well, no, I was going to say what about three out of five. Or five out of five. On a board on which I serve there is, several times a year, a resolution to approve travel expenses for board members. There have been times when all the members are listed in the resolution. Although every member has a personal and pecuniary interest in the outcome, I see no ethical problem with everyone voting on the resolution, because multiple people are named in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted March 31, 2011 at 03:36 AM Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 at 03:36 AM Well, no, I was going to say what about three out of five. Or five out of five. On a board on which I serve there is, several times a year, a resolution to approve travel expenses for board members. There have been times when all the members are listed in the resolution. Although every member has a personal and pecuniary interest in the outcome, I see no ethical problem with everyone voting on the resolution, because multiple people are named in it.The two examples used in RONR in which it suggests that the "personal or pecuniary interest" rule does not apply involves a banquet (which involves all the members) and an instance in which a small minority attempts to suspend or expel the majority. From these examples, it seems safe to conclude that the rule does not apply if a majority or more of the members are involved. I'd say it's a judgment call beyond that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted March 31, 2011 at 04:01 AM Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 at 04:01 AM The two examples used in RONR in which it suggests that the "personal or pecuniary interest" rule does not apply involves a banquet (which involves all the members) and an instance in which a small minority attempts to suspend or expel the majority. From these examples, it seems safe to conclude that the rule does not apply if a majority or more of the members are involved. I'd say it's a judgment call beyond that.Well, okay, I have nothing against the use of judgment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.