Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

discussion protocol


skg1234

Recommended Posts

During the discussion at a board of directors meeting, what is the protocol for dicussion when one director has a pecuniary interest in the topic. According to Robert's Rules of Order, they should not take part in the vote, we are unsure of what should be allowed during discussion of the topic -- should he remove himself from the discussion table?

thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

If RONR wanted to say more than "should not" vote, no doubt it would have.

It is up to him how much he wishes to partake in discussion, which may very well be not at all, but there can be no question of what you will "allow", since you cannot deprive him of the rights of membership, even by a unanimous vote. And I can imagine no reason why he should leave the meeting, especially if he does not vote or debate.

Note well that RONR does not say "shall not" vote. Although he retains the right to vote, there are certain rights, at certain times, that it would be wrong to exercise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While RONR discourages the member from voting, RONR also states that the member does not lose his rights as a member. This would include debating as well as voting. By default, RONR would then also discourage entering into debate, but cannot stop him from doing so.

If the organization wishes to enact its own rules on the issue, it is free to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't follow your logic.

If the member is discouraged from voting on the issue, why would he/she therefore not also be discouraged from entering into debate? Unless RONR specifically discourages one practise (i.e. voting) while encouraging another (i.e. entering into debate), then I would assume that what applies to one practise (i.e. voting) would also apply to another (i.e. entering into debate.)

P.S. no wonder I prefer organizations to decide upon their own rules regarding "direct or indirect interest" - they can determine if the two practises (i.e. voting and entering into debate) are equally important or not, what constitutes an "interest", etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the member is discouraged from voting on the issue,

then why would he/she therefore not also be discouraged from entering into debate?

Unless RONR specifically discourages one practice (i.e. voting) while encouraging another (i.e. entering into debate), then I would assume that what applies to one practice (i.e. voting) would also apply to another (i.e. entering into debate.)

Sheesh!

RONR (page 394) could have said, "... debate ...". But it didn't.

RONR (page 394) could have said, "... leave the room". But it didn't.

If page 394 (the page on "pecuniary interest") had meant to include "... making motions ...", it could have. But it didn't.

THAT is why page 394's rule on "personal or pecuniary interest" does not automatically apply to (a.) making motions; (b.) debate; (c.) leaving the room.

There is no gag rule in RONR. Not even page 394. There is no circumstance under RONR where a (non-chairman) individual has his debate limited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the member is discouraged from voting on the issue, why would he/she therefore not also be discouraged from entering into debate?

Why?

Unless RONR specifically discourages one practise (i.e. voting) while encouraging another (i.e. entering into debate), then I would assume that what applies to one practise (i.e. voting) would also apply to another (i.e. entering into debate.)

I wouldn't. I think it's generally best to assume that RONR means exactly what it says - no more, and no less.

P.S. no wonder I prefer organizations to decide upon their own rules regarding "direct or indirect interest" - they can determine if the two practises (i.e. voting and entering into debate) are equally important or not, what constitutes an "interest", etc.

For most organizations, it would be much better to leave such judgments to a case-by-case basis in disciplinary procedures rather than developing elaborate rules regarding "conflict of interest" (or slapping a few sentences about "conflict of interest" in and assuming it's already defined somewhere).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the member is discouraged from voting on the issue, why would he/she therefore not also be discouraged from entering into debate? Unless RONR specifically discourages one practise (i.e. voting) while encouraging another (i.e. entering into debate), then I would assume that what applies to one practise (i.e. voting) would also apply to another (i.e. entering into debate.)

I suppose anyone might assume that, but only until they had actually read the relevant citations. Then they would know that only voting is deprecated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...