Voting Members

[Gary Novosielski]

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

Nah, you don't necessarily have to succeed, just throw. But hey, I'll be the first to admit that the logic behind the whole proposal is shaky in the extreme.

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.

I fully agree. The organization is free to redefine its quorum requirement so that proxy votes count toward a quorum. But it has to actually do so. It can't count on the fact that "present" is somehow going to redefine itself so that it means whatever anyone anywhere wants it to mean.

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

[Jim7]

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.

If two Members are present in person at a meeting, and one is a voting Member, and the other is not a voting Member because his voting privileges have been suspended for some reason, then being present does not mean the same thing for both of them. For the one who is not a voting Member, being present does not mean being able to vote, whereas for the one who is a voting Member, being present means being able to vote, which may or may not result in actually voting.

On page 334, being present is contrasted to actually voting. The adverb "actually" in the phrase "actually voting" implies that being "present" has somethng to do with "voting" without "actually voting." What could that be?

[Jim7]

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.

Whether you know it or not, you've just corroborated what I've been saying, which is that when a voting Member is present, being present means that the voting Member is able to vote, which may or may not result in actually voting, whereas when a Member who is not a voting Member (due to disciplinary action) is present, being present does not mean that the Member who is not a voting Member is able to vote.

[Jim7]

"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.

I agree.

And the reason that state laws and bylaws allow the concept of "present by proxy" is that the writers understand the word "present" (on page 334 in the tenth edition of Robert's Rules of Order) to mean able to vote as opposed to "actually voting."

If the voting entitlement is to vote in person (as in Robert's Rules of Order), then a voting Member must be present in person in order to be able to vote.

If the voting entitlement is to vote in person or by proxy (as in state laws and in bylaws / not in Robert's Rules of Order), then a voting Member must be present in person or by proxy in order to be able to vote.

If the voting entitlement is to vote in person or by proxy or by mail (as in state laws and in bylaws / not in Robert's Rules of Order), then a voting Member must be present in person or by proxy or by mail in order to be able to vote.

[Gary Novosielski]

If two Members are present in person at a meeting, and one is a voting Member, and the other is not a voting Member because his voting privileges have been suspended for some reason, then being present does not mean the same thing for both of them. For the one who is not a voting Member, being present does not mean being able to vote, whereas for the one who is a voting Member, being present means being able to vote, which may or may not result in actually voting.

That is why only one of the two will count toward a quorum.

You've just refuted your own point. Being present does not mean the same thing as "able to vote". And please note that only voting members count toward a quorum.

Voting members in this context means members with the right to cast a vote. Whether they actually vote or not will be up to them, presuming a quorum is achieved. Members who are not voting members whose right to vote is somehow abridged--we won't speculate here on the reason. Whether they actually vote is NOT up to them, as the answer will always be no.

Members who are not present, however, according to RONR do not count toward a quorum and cannot vote.

[Jim7]

That is why only one of the two will count toward a quorum.

You've just refuted your own point. Being present does not mean the same thing as "able to vote". And please note that only voting members count toward a quorum.

Voting members in this context means members with the right to cast a vote. Whether they actually vote or not will be up to them, presuming a quorum is achieved. Members who are not voting members whose right to vote is somehow abridged--we won't speculate here on the reason. Whether they actually vote is NOT up to them, as the answer will always be no.

Members who are not present, however, according to RONR do not count toward a quorum and cannot vote.

Being present does not enable the Member who is not a voting Member to contribute to the presence of a quorum of voting Members, because one must be able to vote in a vote or election in order to contribute to the presence of a quorum of voting Members for that vote or election. A minimum number of voting Members must at least be able to vote in a vote or election in order for the vote or election to be legal. If that minimum number of voting Members is not at least able to vote in the vote or election, then the vote or election is inadequately representative of the Membership and is therefore not legal. In contrast, being present enables the voting Member to contribute to the presence of a quorum of voting Members by enabling the voting Member to vote in the vote or election.

[Dan Honemann]

Being present does not enable the Member who is not a voting Member to contribute to the presence of a quorum of voting Members, because one must be able to vote in a vote or election in order to contribute to the presence of a quorum of voting Members for that vote or election. A minimum number of voting Members must at least be able to vote in a vote or election in order for the vote or election to be legal. If that minimum number of voting Members is not at least able to vote in the vote or election, then the vote or election is inadequately representative of the Membership and is therefore not legal. In contrast, being present enables the voting Member to contribute to the presence of a quorum of voting Members by enabling the voting Member to vote in the vote or election.

The people you need to convince that your views on this subject are correct are the members of your organization, not the parliamentarians who respond to questions here in this forum (and who, I suspect, are not about to agree with you unless your organization has some applicable rule which supports your opinion).

It really is time for you to give up here, and work on your membership.

Good luck.