Guest jenhamer262 Posted May 9, 2011 at 08:17 PM Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 at 08:17 PM This is a question I have not seen addressed in RONR, therefore I don't know if this is pertainent to this forum.We have a meeting in which a motion will be made that affects us directly (sale of property in which we reside: parsonage). It would seem proper that we leave the room, however and unfortunately, if we are out of the room, there is a certain faction that knows how to manipulate numbers and twist ideas. We feel that if we step out of the room, we will be left completely vulnerable while this faction debates unchecked (forget decorum!).Would it be possible to have someone outside of our assembly who is a nuetral financial advisor to act as our proxy and see to our interests (i.e. make sure the finance committee doesn't pull something out of their hat last minute).We do not have our own /cannot afford a parliamentarian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted May 9, 2011 at 08:19 PM Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 at 08:19 PM It would seem proper that we leave the room, ....Why? Are you members of the organization? Will this be a membership meeting or a Board meeting? Assuming you are members of the body that is meeting, you won't have to leave the room, so that's the first question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted May 9, 2011 at 08:25 PM Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 at 08:25 PM We have a meeting in which a motion will be made that affects us directly (sale of property in which we reside: parsonage). It would seem proper that we leave the room . . . Assuming your're members (of the body that is meeting), the most that RONR might expect is that you not vote on the motion. You have every right to remain in the room and remain you should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jenhamer262 Posted May 9, 2011 at 09:00 PM Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 at 09:00 PM If/when we are asked to step outside, we could refust and stay in the room?Our bylaws do not say anything about leaving the room and we are members of the assembly. Also, I thought a member always had a right to vote (there are no bylaws forbidding this). The topic is not disciplanary in nature, therefore, there would be no vote to suspend our right to vote. Is this correct?Certain members will claim that the practice has been long-standing and there is a precedent set. Could I respond and refuse by stating that since our bylaws do not require our absence, we may remain as voting members? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted May 9, 2011 at 09:04 PM Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 at 09:04 PM If/when we are asked to step outside, we could refust and stay in the room?Yes, as members you have every right to remain. And you also have a right to vote but RONR suggests you not exercise that right on matters in which you have a "personal or pecuniary interest" not common to other members (which appears to be the case here).And no "precedent" (or, more accurately, custom) can deny a member his rights. Nor can anything short of a disciplinary proceeding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted May 9, 2011 at 09:59 PM Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 at 09:59 PM Yes, as members you have every right to remain. And you also have a right to vote but RONR suggests you not exercise that right on matters in which you have a "personal or pecuniary interest" not common to other members (which appears to be the case here).The section on this implies this restriction is limited to a single member, and it sounds (by the use of "we" and "us" in jenhamer's post) that there is a group involved here that would be affected. Is it your sense that this restriction still applies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted May 9, 2011 at 10:05 PM Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 at 10:05 PM The section on this implies this restriction is limited to a single member, and it sounds (by the use of "we" and "us" in jenhamer's post) that there is a group involved here that would be affected. Is it your sense that this restriction still applies?Yes. But we've been through this before. There are some (one?) on this forum that thinks that as long as there are two or more members who have a personal or pecuniary interest, then the admonition against voting doesn't apply. But I think most think that it depends on the situation and that if, as in this case, a couple share a personal or pecuniary interest not shared by any of the other members, the admonition against voting applies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted May 9, 2011 at 10:14 PM Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 at 10:14 PM Yes. But we've been through this before. I recall, though I haven't found the thread on it. I also recall the discussion involving how many is "enough". That is, what if only two members are alone in sharing the personal pecuniary interest, or three, or ten, or half the membership (and so on)? Not sure how many "we" is for jenhamer.I'm not sure what the interest here is, since it seems to revolve around the sale of property in which some of the members live. It's not clear whether they would benefit financially from the sale, or if they benefit financially now from the arrangement (free rent, perhaps). There also seems to be a personal interest involved in some fashion, again looking at living arrangements.Perhaps a few more details may clarify the situation. Or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted May 9, 2011 at 10:17 PM Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 at 10:17 PM Perhaps a few more details may clarify the situation. Or not.No further details are necessary. These two (?) members are free to determine for themselves whether the circumstances warrant abstaining from voting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jenhamer262 Posted May 9, 2011 at 11:58 PM Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 at 11:58 PM Gentlemen,Both of your responses have been helpful and insightful (I apologize for the horrible spelling mistakes).The decision pertains to our family regarding living arrangements, however, our living arrangements have a very direct impact on the continuation of our service here. We are offering to allow the congregation to sell the present parsonage and move into a closer/smaller parsonage, so as to stabilize finances. We will not benefit financially from this arrangement, although the assembly will. Our only interest is to keep the doors of the church open. This may not change the opinions already stated, but I hope the clarification helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted May 10, 2011 at 04:50 PM Report Share Posted May 10, 2011 at 04:50 PM This may not change the opinions already stated, but I hope the clarification helps.The bottom line is that, as a member, it's entirely up to you whether to attend the meeting and, if present, whether to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted May 10, 2011 at 06:13 PM Report Share Posted May 10, 2011 at 06:13 PM It would seem proper that we leave the room....Why? Aren't you members? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted May 10, 2011 at 08:34 PM Report Share Posted May 10, 2011 at 08:34 PM I recall, though I haven't found the thread on it. I also recall the discussion involving how many is "enough". That is, what if only two members are alone in sharing the personal pecuniary interest, or three, or ten, or half the membership (and so on)? Not sure how many "we" is for jenhamer.The two examples RONR uses to illustrate cases in which the "personal or pecuniary interest" rule does not apply involve cases in which the entire membership or a majority shares the interest, so that seems fairly clear-cut. Beyond that, I think members will need to apply their judgment and common sense.The decision pertains to our family regarding living arrangements, however, our living arrangements have a very direct impact on the continuation of our service here. We are offering to allow the congregation to sell the present parsonage and move into a closer/smaller parsonage, so as to stabilize finances. We will not benefit financially from this arrangement, although the assembly will. Our only interest is to keep the doors of the church open. This may not change the opinions already stated, but I hope the clarification helps.As members, you have a right to vote and to be present. RONR would suggest that you not vote if you have a personal or pecuniary interest not in common with other members (and I'll leave that up to your judgment), but nothing in RONR suggests you should leave the room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.