Guest Patty Posted April 21, 2011 at 08:20 PM Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 at 08:20 PM We have a website that our our membership can access - certain board members have been heavily influencing a vote with strong language - swaying everyone in the membership towards a "yes" vote - stating there is no other way to vote. The President is included in this opinionated posturing. When another member dares to state a differing opinion, they are shot down immediately by a board member. I am wondering if Roberts Rules of Order has anything regarding impartiality on voting by board members - to keep their opinions to themselves since they were elected to represent the membership, not themselves. This is a 2/3rds membership vote to pass.Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted April 21, 2011 at 08:24 PM Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 at 08:24 PM We have a website that our our membership can access - certain board members have been heavily influencing a vote with strong language - swaying everyone in the membership towards a "yes" vote - stating there is no other way to vote. The President is included in this opinionated posturing. When another member dares to state a differing opinion, they are shot down immediately by a board member. I am wondering if Roberts Rules of Order has anything regarding impartiality on voting by board members - to keep their opinions to themselves since they were elected to represent the membership, not themselves. This is a 2/3rds membership vote to pass.Thank you.Board members are certainly allowed to speak as strongly as any other member of the society, but they are not allowed to shoot other members down in cold blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted April 21, 2011 at 08:29 PM Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 at 08:29 PM I am wondering if Roberts Rules of Order has anything regarding impartiality on voting by board members - to keep their opinions to themselves since they were elected to represent the membership, not themselves. You have it backwards.• There is no gag rule in Robert's Rules.• Robert's Rules says that members have a duty to express their opinion, especially via the vote.You are mixing up (a.) silence; with (b.) impartiality.While RONR has a rule about the presiding officer regarding silence and impartiality, RONR has no such rule for the members of a board.There is no rule against:• lobbying• caucusing• canvassing• networking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted April 21, 2011 at 08:36 PM Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 at 08:36 PM We have a website that our our membership can access - certain board members have been heavily influencing a vote with strong language - swaying everyone in the membership towards a "yes" vote - stating there is no other way to vote. The President is included in this opinionated posturing. When another member dares to state a differing opinion, they are shot down immediately by a board member. I am wondering if Roberts Rules of Order has anything regarding impartiality on voting by board members - to keep their opinions to themselves since they were elected to represent the membership, not themselves. This is a 2/3rds membership vote to pass.Thank you.It sounds like you're conducting your voting online at this website, yes? Or am I misreading this and you'll ultimately all join together in a single meeting face-to-face? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted April 22, 2011 at 12:35 AM Report Share Posted April 22, 2011 at 12:35 AM I am wondering if Roberts Rules of Order has anything regarding impartiality on voting by board members - to keep their opinions to themselves since they were elected to represent the membership, not themselves.There is nothing in RONR which requires that board members be impartial (other than the President), and the limitations even for the President don't apply outside the context of a meeting. The board members are indeed elected to represent the membership in their capacity as a board member, but that doesn't mean they give up being a general member or that they must "keep their opinions to themselves." Since this is a vote by the general membership, the board members are essentially acting as general members rather than board members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patti Posted April 22, 2011 at 04:05 PM Report Share Posted April 22, 2011 at 04:05 PM I have the same scenario in my club, except it involves dissolution of the club!! It is the President's sole idea, did not approach the board for other options,presented it as if it was the ONLY option and the board said OK. NOW the president posted by email a letter to the membership stating the the board urges it's members to agree To dissolve the club. We need a 2/3vote. That letter went out only two days ago!She just wrote to the board that the 2/3 vote was achieved . HOW? (yet, there was no ballot, no cut off date, nothing that even suggested a voting protocol), all votes (or should i say, all "yesses") went to her email. how can we, as a board believe That this "vote" was even valid?, which I believe the whole process was not in accordance with RRO? This idea To dissolve the club came out of the blue, with no prior discussions or even a hint of a possibility.This is serious. How can a few in this club protect it from a hostile demantling through violation of the RRO? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted April 22, 2011 at 05:41 PM Report Share Posted April 22, 2011 at 05:41 PM I have the same scenario in my club, except it involves dissolution of the club!! It is the President's sole idea, did not approach the board for other options,presented it as if it was the ONLY option and the board said OK. NOW the president posted by email a letter to the membership stating the the board urges it's members to agree To dissolve the club. We need a 2/3vote. That letter went out only two days ago!She just wrote to the board that the 2/3 vote was achieved . HOW? (yet, there was no ballot, no cut off date, nothing that even suggested a voting protocol), all votes (or should i say, all "yesses") went to her email. how can we, as a board believe That this "vote" was even valid?, which I believe the whole process was not in accordance with RRO? This idea To dissolve the club came out of the blue, with no prior discussions or even a hint of a possibility.This is serious. How can a few in this club protect it from a hostile demantling through violation of the RRO? Unless the bylaws explicitly authorize e-mail voting, then it is not allowed, and any so-called "vote" taken by e-mail is null and void. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.