Voting Members

[Jim7]

Hello,

On page 334 in the tenth edition of Robert's Rules of Order, it is stated that a quorum is the number of voting Members who must be present at a Members meeting in order for a transaction of business to be legal, and that the number refers to the number of Members present, not to the number of Members actually voting.

Some Members in my Association have interpreted this to mean that the quorum has NOTHING to do with being ABLE TO VOTE in a particular VOTE or ELECTION and that it only has to do with being present in person at the Members meeting.

The voting entitlement is stated in the Bylaws to be that each Member "shall be entitled to vote in person or by proxy at such meeting, or by written vote delivered to the Association [by mail]."

The quorum percentage is stated in the Bylaws to be "(10%) ten percent."

My position is that if at least 10% of all votes are cast by mailed ballot at the Members meeting in a particular vote or election, as the Members are entitled to do, then a quorum (the minimum required number) of voting Members (Members who are entitled to vote in the vote or election) is present (able to vote in the vote or election) at the Members meeting for that particular vote or election (transaction of business), and consequently the vote or election (the transaction of business) is legal.

The other Members say that the quorum has nothing to do with voting and everything to do with being physically present due to the statement on page 334 that the quorum number is the number present, NOT the number voting.

My reply to them is that in Robert's Rules, a Member must be present in person in order to vote. Therefore, the word "present" on page 334 simply means able to vote. It refers to a VOTING presence, not necessarily to a physical presence. If the voting entitlement of the Members is to vote either in person or by proxy or by mail, then the Members who vote by mailed ballot are "present" (able to vote) by mail for the particular vote or election in which they are voting.

Their reply to me is that the word "present" on page 334 means physically present and that it has nothing to do with voting due to the statement on page 334 that the quorum number is the number present, NOT the number voting. They say that if 10% of the Class B Members, who are NOT allowed to vote in a Class A vote, are physically present at the Members meeting, and if only 5% of the Class A Members vote by mailed ballot in the Class A vote, with no other Class A Members being able to vote in any of the ways that they are entitled to vote, then the presence of a quorum of voting Members is established at the Members meeting by the Class B Members (10%) who are NOT able to vote in the vote, and that the vote is therefore legal, even though only 5% of the Class A Members are able to vote in the Class A vote.

My reply to them is that this is an illegal vote, because at least 10% of the Class A Members must at least be able to vote in a Class A vote in order for the Class A vote to be legal, and that the Class B Members cannot contribute to the presence of a quorum of voting Members for a Class A vote.

Their reply to me is that the term "voting Members" merely means Members of the Association having the general right to vote, and that it does not mean that they have to be able to vote in the particular vote that is occurring at the Members meeting in order to be able to contibute to the presence of a quorum of voting Members for that particular vote.

I'm 99.9% sure that I'm right about this. Is there any official statement in any official book to which I can point in support of my position ... assuming that I'm not wrong.

Jim

[hmtcastle]

I'm 99.9% sure that I'm right about this.

Since RONR does not endorse the use of proxies, "present" means physically present (not, for example, "present by proxy").

To establish the presence of a quorum, count heads.

[George Mervosh]

And see http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#10

[Jim7]

Since RONR does not endorse the use of proxies, "present" means physically present (not, for example, "present by proxy").

To establish the presence of a quorum, count heads.

Then is there any other book that interprets Robert's Rules of Order (the tenth edition) for voting entitlements that allow absentee voting?

Jim

[Robert B Fish]

Then is there any other book that interprets Robert's Rules of Order (the tenth edition) for voting entitlements that allow absentee voting?

Jim

Organizations wishing to allow the use of proxies should establish the procedures for their use. That need to be done in the bylaws. To repolve your situation, make a point of order about your issue at the next meeting. The chairman will rule whether your point of order is well taken and why. If you disagree, you can appeal the ruling and the assembly will decide. A majority vote is required to overturn the ruling of the chairman.

Following this process you should amend your bylaws to be prefectly clear.

-Bob

[hmtcastle]

Then is there any other book that interprets Robert's Rules of Order (the tenth edition) for voting entitlements that allow absentee voting?

Should you find such a book, it's inaccurate.

But your rules apparently permit absentee voting so it's your rules you'll have to look to for the answers to your questions.

Trying to argue "voting presence" as opposed to physical presence won't fly in RONR-Land. I'm 99.9% sure the average person knows what it means to be present at a meeting.

[Jim7]

Since RONR does not endorse the use of proxies, "present" means physically present (not, for example, "present by proxy").

To establish the presence of a quorum, count heads.

OK. Let's say that the voting entitlement at my Association is to vote only in person and the quorum percentage is 10%. What if the Class B Members who are present in person at the Member meeting, who are NOT allowed to vote in a Class A vote, are 10% of the total Membership, whereas the Class A Members who are present in person at the Members meeting, who ARE allowed to vote in a Class A vote, are only 1% of the total Membership. Is the Class A vote at the Members meeting legal? Or do only the Members who are allowed to vote in a particular vote qualify as voting Members for that particular vote and therefore qualify as contributors to the presence of the quroum of voting Members for that particular vote?

Jim

[hmtcastle]

Is the Class A vote at the Members meeting legal? Or do only the Members who are allowed to vote in a particular vote qualify as voting Members for that particular vote and therefore qualify as contributors to the presence of the quroum of voting Members for that particular vote?

RONR doesn't deal with classes of membership but I would think that, for purposes of determining the presence of a quorum, only members with the right to vote are counted.

For example, a member whose voting rights have been properly suspended as a result of disciplinary action would not count towards the quorum.

But, since your organization has established classes of membership, you'll have to work out the details.

[Jim7]

RONR doesn't deal with classes of membership but I would think that, for purposes of determining the presence of a quorum, only members with the right to vote are counted.

For example, a member whose voting rights have been properly suspended as a result of disciplinary action would not count towards the quorum.

But, since your organization has established classes of membership, you'll have to work out the details.

Thank you.

[Josh Martin]

I'm 99.9% sure that I'm right about this. Is there any official statement in any official book to which I can point in support of my position ... assuming that I'm not wrong.

You're both wrong. The other members are correct that only members who are physically present count toward a quorum. You are correct that only members who have the right to vote count toward a quorum.

Then is there any other book that interprets Robert's Rules of Order (the tenth edition) for voting entitlements that allow absentee voting?

There's a lot of cheap knockoffs of RONR out there (as well as alternate parliamentary authorities), so I'm sure there's one that does, but if RONR is your parliamentary authority, only The Right Book matters.

[Jim7]

There's a lot of cheap knockoffs of RONR out there (as well as alternate parliamentary authorities), so I'm sure there's one that does, but if RONR is your parliamentary authority, only The Right Book matters.

Bylaws 9.00 states that latest edition of Robert's Rules of Order shall govern all meetings when not in conflict with the Bylaws, and Bylaws 4.07 states that each Member shall be entitled to vote in person or by proxy or by mail. Consequently, there has to be a compromise somewhere between the voting entitlement to vote in person or by proxy or by mail and what is said in the tenth edition. Since the voting entitlement in the tenth edition is that each Member shall be entitled to vote only in person, and since a quroum in the tenth edition is therefore the number of voting Members who must be present in person (and therefore able to vote) in order for a vote or election (a transaction of business) to be legal, and since the quorum number refers to the number present, not to the number actually voting, which implies that the number present is the number that is able to vote as opposed to the number that is actually voting, logically the compromise between the tenth edition and the voting entitlement in Bylaws 4.07 to vote in person or by proxy or by mail is that being present means being able to vote either in person or by proxy or by mail (the compromise) as opposed to being able to vote only in person (the tenth edition), hence my conclusion that being present means being able to vote in whatever manner one is entitled to vote. I'll have to find one of those knockoffs, I guess.

If the original quorum requirement in the Bylaws was that a quorum shall exist when Members entitled to cast the quorum percentage of all votes are present (able to vote) either in person or by proxy, and if the voting entitlement changed on the Turnvover Date from the Members being entitled to vote either in person or by proxy to the Members being entitled to vote either in person or by proxy or by mail, then the new quorum requirement should logically be that a quorum shall exist when Members entitled to cast the quorum percentage of all votes are present (able to vote) either in person or by proxy or by mail, shouldn't it? In principle, doesn't the quorum requirement have to be consistent with the voting entitlement?

The problem is that the guy who did the Turnover Amendment of the Bylaws changed the voting entitlement but not the quorum requirement. So now we have a quorum requirement in the Bylaws that is not consistent with the voting entitlement in the Bylaws, hence my questions.

I know what you're going to say. If we adopt a strict adherence to the tenth edition, then all of these problems will disappear. Right?

Jim

[hmtcastle]

In principle, doesn't the quorum requirement have to be consistent with the voting entitlement?

No.

An organization can permit absentee voting and/or voting by proxy and still have a perfectly normal quorum requirement based on the number of members present at a meeting.

[Josh Martin]

logically the compromise between the tenth edition and the voting entitlement in Bylaws 4.07 to vote in person or by proxy or by mail is that being present means being able to vote either in person or by proxy or by mail (the compromise) as opposed to being able to vote only in person (the tenth edition), hence my conclusion that being present means being able to vote in whatever manner one is entitled to vote.

Nope. "Present" means "physically present" unless your Bylaws state otherwise. If you want to change that, you need to state otherwise in your Bylaws for the quorum requirement. There's no need to "compromise" anything. It's entirely possible to have a quorum based on the number of voting members present and to have members who are not present be able to vote. You can't make a "compromise" just because you don't like what the rules say.

I'll have to find one of those knockoffs, I guess.

That would be pointless. You said your Bylaws prescribe the latest edition of Robert's Rules of Order as your parliamentary authority. That's this book, and no other book.

If the original quorum requirement in the Bylaws was that a quorum shall exist when Members entitled to cast the quorum percentage of all votes are present (able to vote) either in person or by proxy, and if the voting entitlement changed on the Turnvover Date from the Members being entitled to vote either in person or by proxy to the Members being entitled to vote either in person or by proxy or by mail, then the new quorum requirement should logically be that a quorum shall exist when Members entitled to cast the quorum percentage of all votes are present (able to vote) either in person or by proxy or by mail, shouldn't it?

It's up to your society to determine what your quorum should be, but what matters right now is what your quorum requirement actually is.

In principle, doesn't the quorum requirement have to be consistent with the voting entitlement?

No.

The problem is that the guy who did the Turnover Amendment of the Bylaws changed the voting entitlement but not the quorum requirement. So now we have a quorum requirement in the Bylaws that is not consistent with the voting entitlement in the Bylaws, hence my questions.

I know what you're going to say. If we adopt a strict adherence to the tenth edition, then all of these problems will disappear. Right?

If your problem is that your society screwed up when amending the Bylaws, the only way to fix it is by amending the Bylaws again.

[Gary Novosielski]

The problem is that the guy who did the Turnover Amendment of the Bylaws changed the voting entitlement but not the quorum requirement. So now we have a quorum requirement in the Bylaws that is not consistent with the voting entitlement in the Bylaws, hence my questions.

If that is indeed the problem, a premise I view as debatable, then the solution is to amend the bylaws, according to the provisions contained within them for their own amendment.

But there is no doubt that a quorum means the number of voting members (i.e., members whose voting rights are in effect) that must be physically present in the room.

[Jim7]

Jim7 (previous message):

In principle, doesn't the quorum requirement have to be consistent with the voting entitlement?

Josh Martin (reply):

No.

Jim7 (this message):

Why not?

If the Members are entitled to vote in a certain manner, then they are entitled to vote that way.

If the ability to have a legal vote or election (the quorum requirement) requires the Members to vote in a different manner, then it is a violation of their voting entitlement, is it not?

If the Members are explicitly entitled to vote in person or by mail, but the quorum requirement is that a quorum percentage of the Members must be able to vote in person in order for the vote to be legal, then at least a quorum percentage of the Members are being deprived of their entitlement to vote by mail in any vote or election that is stated in the written notice of the Members meeting, are they not?

That would be comparable to voting Members in Robert’s Rules of Order being entitled vote in person at the Members meeting with no other restriction, but the quorum requirement being more strict, such as requiring each voting Member who is present in person to pay a thousand dollars in order to contribute to the presence of a quorum. That would be a violation of the Members voting entitlement.

It seems to me that the issue in a quorum requirement is not the manner in which the Members are able to vote, but the number of Members who must be able to vote in a vote or election in whatever manner they are entitled to vote in order for the vote or election to be legal.

It seems to me that a quorum requirement is not allowed (logically) to invent its own voting entitlement in contradiction to the official voting entitlement.

[Gary Novosielski]

It seems to me that a quorum requirement is not allowed (logically) to invent its own voting entitlement in contradiction to the official voting entitlement.

A requirement isn't "allowed" to invent things.

The requirement is for a certain number of members to be present. That's the definition of quorum. What would be illogical would be if a certain number of members were required to be present, yet absent members would be considered present. Quite illogical.

Nobody is deprived of any fundamental rights. Nobody has the fundamental right to vote while absent. Besides, if the meeting has a quorum, everybody votes. If it does not, nobody votes. That's fair.

RONR is quite explicit that it is a very bad idea to try to count absentee votes along with in-person votes, because a motion can change substantially while pending, to the point that absentees might not recognize it any more. Having been advised that this is a very bad idea, if you still insist on doing it that way, you should not be surprised when unpleasant side effects occur. Nor should you blame the book that advised you not to do it.

The important thing to remember is that present means present, and absent means absent. That, at least should sound logical.

[Josh Martin]

If the ability to have a legal vote or election (the quorum requirement) requires the Members to vote in a different manner, then it is a violation of their voting entitlement, is it not?

It requires enough members to actually show up in order for a meeting to be held. The rest of the members can vote however they want.

If the Members are explicitly entitled to vote in person or by mail, but the quorum requirement is that a quorum percentage of the Members must be able to vote in person in order for the vote to be legal, then at least a quorum percentage of the Members are being deprived of their entitlement to vote by mail in any vote or election that is stated in the written notice of the Members meeting, are they not?

I suppose, but if you deviate from RONR's requirement that members must be present to vote, and don't think through to change the quorum requirement as well, it shouldn't be surprising that weird things will happen.

That would be comparable to voting Members in Robert’s Rules of Order being entitled vote in person at the Members meeting with no other restriction, but the quorum requirement being more strict, such as requiring each voting Member who is present in person to pay a thousand dollars in order to contribute to the presence of a quorum. That would be a violation of the Members voting entitlement.

I don't think showing up to a meeting is comparable to paying $1,000 (unless this is a national or international society, then airfare and such might do the trick), but making analogies isn't going to change what RONR says.

It seems to me that the issue in a quorum requirement is not the manner in which the Members are able to vote, but the number of Members who must be able to vote in a vote or election in whatever manner they are entitled to vote in order for the vote or election to be legal.

It seems to me that a quorum requirement is not allowed (logically) to invent its own voting entitlement in contradiction to the official voting entitlement.

A quorum requirement is the number of members who must be present in order for business to be conducted. This works out perfectly fine in RONR, since everyone must be present to vote. If your organization wants to permit people who are not present to vote, then your organization should change the quorum requirement as well (if it wants to). Your organization has not yet done so. As I said, the solution to your problem is to amend your Bylaws.

[tctheatc]

The other Members say that the quorum has nothing to do with voting and everything to do with being physically present due to the statement on page 334 that the quorum number is the number present, NOT the number voting.

My reply to them is that in Robert's Rules, a Member must be present in person in order to vote. Therefore, the word "present" on page 334 simply means able to vote.

Jim, one thing I've learned in my study is RONR is painfully precise in word choice. I am CERTAIN that if RONR had meant "able to vote" it would read "able to vote". Present (particularly when italicized) is best read as "present".

I think you're way overthinking this.

[Jim7]

Jim, one thing I've learned in my study is RONR is painfully precise in word choice. I am CERTAIN that if RONR had meant "able to vote" it would read "able to vote". Present (particularly when italicized) is best read as "present".

I think you're way overthinking this.

A member of an assembly ... is a person having the right to full participation in its proceedings ... the right to make motions, to speak in debate on them, and to vote. ... Such members are also described as voting members. ... A quorum in an assembly is the number of voting members ... who must be present in order that business can be legally transacted. The quorum refers to the number of such members present, not to the number actually voting on a particular question. ... It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the right to vote is limited to the members of an organization who are actually present at the time the vote is taken at a legal meeting [pages 3, 334 and 408 in the tenth edition of Robert’s Rules of Order].

Are the voting Members who are not present in person able to vote? No. Therefore, not present mean not able to vote.

Are the voting Members who are present in person able to vote? Yes. Therefore, present means able to vote.

Is the number of voting Members who are present in person necessarily the number of voting Members actually voting? No. Therefore, present means able to vote.

Robert’s Rules of Order goes out of its way to distinguish being present from actually voting. So obviously being present differs from actually voting. What aspect of voting differs from actually voting? Being able to vote.

Therefore, present means able to vote.

The only reason that anyone is saying that present does NOT mean able to vote, even though it obviously does mean able to vote, is that I’ve been suggesting that it is possible (in logic, although not in Robert’s Rules of Order) to be able to vote, and therefore to be present, without actually being present.

In the phrase “actually present” on page 408, the qualifying adverb “actually” implies the possibility (in logic, although not in Robert’s Rules of Order) of being present (able to vote) in another kind of way.

Anyone who votes is able to vote and is therefore present from a voting perspective (able to vote).

If the voting entitlement is to vote in person (as in Robert’s Rules of Order), then anyone who votes is present (able to vote) in person.

If the voting entitlement is to vote in person or by proxy (not allowed in Robert’s Rules of Order), then anyone who votes is present (able to vote) in person or by proxy.

If the voting entitlement is to vote in person or by proxy or by mail (not allowed in Robert’s Rules of Order), then anyone who votes is present (able to vote) in person or by proxy or by mail.

That’s all I’m saying.

[David A Foulkes]

That’s all I’m saying.

Well, there's no arguing with that.

[hmtcastle]

That’s all I’m saying.

But saying it doesn't make it true. And saying it again and again doesn't make it true.

Your repeated use of the word "therefore" is particularly suspect.

You seem to be saying that, since being present is equivalent to being able to vote, then being able to vote is equivalent to being present. But that's simply not true.

[Josh Martin]

Therefore, present means able to vote.

The only reason that anyone is saying that present does NOT mean able to vote, even though it obviously does mean able to vote, is that I’ve been suggesting that it is possible (in logic, although not in Robert’s Rules of Order) to be able to vote, and therefore to be present, without actually being present.

The reason we're saying "present" does not mean "able to vote" is because that's not what the word means. "Present" is not a term of parliamentary art. It carries its ordinary, everyday meaning. In this context, it means being in the physical location of the meeting space. The definition of the word "present" does not automatically change as a result of an assembly amending its Bylaws to permit absentee voting. You are correct that some organizations permit a member to vote by mail or by proxy, but that doesn't make them "present." If you want to have proxy votes and absentee ballots count toward the quorum, the Bylaws must be amended to provide for that.

As Mr. Mountcastle points out, the fact that RONR only permits members who are present to vote doesn't mean "present" means "able to vote." In fact, this is certainly not the case, since RONR defines a quorum as the number of voting members who must be present in order to conduct business. If "present" meant "able to vote," that definition would be redundant. Some members who are present are not able to vote, such as members who are under disciplinary suspension, or as a result of weird Bylaw provisions like the ones you have with different "classes" of members. In order to count toward a quorum, a member must be present and be able to vote. The terms are not synonymous.

Also keep in mind that methods of voting such as mail voting and proxy voting are defined as "absentee voting," and I don't believe it's possible to be absent and present at the same time.

[Gary Novosielski]

My reply to them is that in Robert's Rules, a Member must be present in person in order to vote. Therefore, the word "present" on page 334 simply means able to vote.

And my reply to you is that a member must be present in person in order to throw paper airplanes at the secretary. Therefore, the word "present" means being close enough to throw paper airplanes at the secretary.

I'm 99.9% sure that I'm right about this. Is there any official statement in any official book to which I can point in support of my position ... assuming that I'm not wrong.

No, there is no official statement in any official book of which I am aware to which you can point in support of your position because, contrary to your assumption, you are NOT not wrong.

The meaning of "present" is a completely settled matter among parliamentarians. It always means physically present and it never means present in spirit, or any other metaphysical interpretation.

And I am 100.0% sure of that. You came very close, though.

[Josh Martin]

And my reply to you is that a member must be present in person in order to throw paper airplanes at the secretary. Therefore, the word "present" means being close enough to throw paper airplanes at the secretary.

I don't know about that. That would be pretty difficult in some large convention halls.

It always means physically present and it never means present in spirit, or any other metaphysical interpretation.

Well, it always means that unless the organization's Bylaws explicitly state otherwise. Some organizations, for instance, provide that a quorum is met if enough members are present "in person or by proxy." In the absence of such explicit language, however, the rules of RONR prevail. Permitting members to vote by proxy does not, in and of itself, make proxies count toward the quorum.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

A member of an assembly ... is a person having the right to full participation in its proceedings ... the right to make motions, to speak in debate on them, and to vote. ... Such members are also described as voting members. ... A quorum in an assembly is the number of voting members ... who must be present in order that business can be legally transacted. The quorum refers to the number of such members present, not to the number actually voting on a particular question. ... It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the right to vote is limited to the members of an organization who are actually present at the time the vote is taken at a legal meeting [pages 3, 334 and 408 in the tenth edition of Robert’s Rules of Order].

Are the voting Members who are not present in person able to vote? No. Therefore, not present mean not able to vote.

Are the voting Members who are present in person able to vote? Yes. Therefore, present means able to vote.

Is the number of voting Members who are present in person necessarily the number of voting Members actually voting? No. Therefore, present means able to vote.

Robert’s Rules of Order goes out of its way to distinguish being present from actually voting. So obviously being present differs from actually voting. What aspect of voting differs from actually voting? Being able to vote.

Therefore, present means able to vote.

The only reason that anyone is saying that present does NOT mean able to vote, even though it obviously does mean able to vote, is that I’ve been suggesting that it is possible (in logic, although not in Robert’s Rules of Order) to be able to vote, and therefore to be present, without actually being present.

In the phrase “actually present” on page 408, the qualifying adverb “actually” implies the possibility (in logic, although not in Robert’s Rules of Order) of being present (able to vote) in another kind of way.

Anyone who votes is able to vote and is therefore present from a voting perspective (able to vote).

If the voting entitlement is to vote in person (as in Robert’s Rules of Order), then anyone who votes is present (able to vote) in person.

If the voting entitlement is to vote in person or by proxy (not allowed in Robert’s Rules of Order), then anyone who votes is present (able to vote) in person or by proxy.

If the voting entitlement is to vote in person or by proxy or by mail (not allowed in Robert’s Rules of Order), then anyone who votes is present (able to vote) in person or by proxy or by mail.

That’s all I’m saying.

"It's dead, Jim! Dead!"

Here is quick Q&A on absentee voting.

***

There are two modes of voting:

1. in-person

2. absentee

Q. What is in-person voting?

It is voting when one is physically present. (The book adds, "actually present," on another page.)

Q. What is absentee voting?

It is voting when one is not physically present.

Note:

1. The book adds "actually present", since the law recognizes that where proxy voting exists, the law allows one to be "present by proxy." But under strict Robert's Rules of Order, there is NO SUCH THING as being "present by proxy." Thus the book's emphasis on "actually present" as opposed to "present by proxy", which would trigger "absentee voting", which is forbidden under Robert's Rules of Order.

2. The default rule is, the quorum is based on being physically present, and gathered into a meeting area, so as to satisfy the quorum requirement of presence. The quorum criteria has nothing to do with the voting criteria. -- A vote of 1-0 or 0-1, in a room of 99 abstainers, is a valid vote under Robert's Rules. The threshold of one's quorum is UNRELATED to the threshold of "majority vote", or "adoption." -- Thus, any argument to the effect, "... the number of incoming proxies count toward the quorum ...", is FALSE, under Robert's Rules of Order.

Q. Is voting by telephone, i.e, tele-conference, considered voting in-person or voting absentee?

It is voting absentee. -- Even if you can hear, and even if you can speak, simultaneously with the other physically present (better, "actually present") members.

Q. If voting by proxy considered voting in-person or voting absentee?

It is voting absentee.

Q. What does Robert's Rules say about absentee voting?

All forms of absentee voting (e.g., mail, proxy, telephone, fax, e-mail, twitter, skype) are forbidden. A superior rule, like one's bylaws, or higher, must authorize any form of absentee voting.