Board Member with an intellectual disability

[AttorneyAnne]

Hello,

There is a board of directors for a non-profit group that includes a couple of "self-advocates." These are board members with intellectual disabilities. During a heated debate and a critical vote of HUGE importance, one of the self-advocates said she did not understand the issue and did not vote. The officers and non-disabled board members did not take out the time to explain what was being voted on. Since the vote was won by a single vote, if the self-advocate had voted, it could have changed the outcome. Given my inside information, it would be fair to say that the self-advocate would not have voted with the majority.

I am a member of this non-profit organization and I have an interest in overturning the vote. A special meeting of all the members is already being organized because most members are not happy with the vote. But should a membership quorum not be reached, what are your thoughts on the validity of the vote as it stands? Does Robert's rules speak to this? As a side action, I am considering filing a federal complaint with the Office of Civil Rights because I think I can make the case that this person was discriminated against based on her disability. Taking out the time to explain the issue is certainly a "reasonable accommodation" that should have been extended and could be a violation of the Americans with Disabilites Act.

Anne

[Chris Harrison]

Understanding that the member has an intellectual disability there unfortunately is nothing in RONR that would render the vote invalid because she did not understand what the issue was about. When something like that happens one course of action would have been for her (or another Board member) to move to take a recess (takes a majority vote) during which she could have had someone explain to her what the issue is about.

[AttorneyAnne]

Understanding that the member has an intellectual disability there unfortunately is nothing in RONR that would render the vote invalid because she did not understand what the issue was about. When something like that happens one course of action would have been for her (or another Board member) to move to take a recess (takes a majority vote) during which she could have had someone explain to her what the issue is about.

Hello,again,

This issue is going to come up more often going forward. In the past, many organizations were formed to help individuals with disabilities, without asking them permission to speak on their behalf. But today, individuals with disabilities are demanding a place at the table. Their mantra is... "Nothing about me, without me." Many organizations that represent the interests of individuals with disabilities work hard to make sure that some of the self-advocates are on the board of directors. But are these board members simply tokens? If they don't understand an issue, it seems only fair that someone explains it to them. You can assume that folks with intellectual disabilities take longer to understand things, and to deprive them of the time they need to process the information or the opportunity to have it broken down in a simpler way, should be a reasonable accommodation.

On a side note, what happens in cases where a member does not have a disability and the issue is so complex that they simply don't understand it. Does the board have any obligation to explain the issue so it is understandable?

Anne

[Shmuel Gerber]

During a heated debate and a critical vote of HUGE importance, one of the self-advocates said she did not understand the issue and did not vote.

By understanding that she didn't understand, she's already one step ahead of many members in many assemblies.

[Chris Harrison]

This issue is going to come up more often going forward. In the past, many organizations were formed to help individuals with disabilities, without asking them permission to speak on their behalf. But today, individuals with disabilities are demanding a place at the table. Their mantra is... "Nothing about me, without me." Many organizations that represent the interests of individuals with disabilities work hard to make sure that some of the self-advocates are on the board of directors. But are these board members simply tokens? If they don't understand an issue, it seems only fair that someone explains it to them. You can assume that folks with intellectual disabilities take longer to understand things, and to deprive them of the time they need to process the information or the opportunity to have it broken down in a simpler way, should be a reasonable accommodation.

Oh you are preaching to the choir. For close to 10 years I have worked with my state's Protection and Advocacy Agency also having a disability myself I definitely understand where you are coming from. However, RONR predominantly focuses on protecting the rights of the majority and a strong minority (more than 1/3) and unfortunately with a few exceptions the rights of a member in situations like this slip through the cracks and fairness and common sense all too often don't factor enough into the equation.

On a side note, what happens in cases where a member does not have a disability and the issue is so complex that they simply don't understand it. Does the board have any obligation to explain the issue so it is understandable?

There is no obligation to do that for a single member. However, that member has a right to move to postpone the consideration until the next meeting, refer it to a committee, take a recess for the purposes of having more time to get the information he or she needs.

[Josh Martin]

But should a membership quorum not be reached, what are your thoughts on the validity of the vote as it stands?

The vote is valid so far as I can tell. No rule in RONR was violated.

Does Robert's rules speak to this?

No.

On a side note, what happens in cases where a member does not have a disability and the issue is so complex that they simply don't understand it. Does the board have any obligation to explain the issue so it is understandable?

No, the board has no obligation under RONR to explain an issue, although it certainly seems like a good idea. A member may raise Points of Information or Parliamentary Inquiries to ask questions and the chair and other officers should do their best to answer, but this only goes so far, and a failure to explain the issue certainly would not invalidate the motion.

[Dan Honemann]

Mr. Martin's responses are entirely correct. The facts as recited do not indicate any violation of a rule in RONR.

[David A Foulkes]

This sounds more and more like you are treading into legal (maybe) rather than parliamentary issues, although there may be remedies (in particular Rescind) available to the membership.

That said, the chair has the obligation to make "clear the exact question the assembly is called upon to decide." (RONR O10th Ed., p. 42 l. 30-31) Additionally, before calling for he vote, the chair "should make sure that the members understand the effect of an 'aye' vote and of a 'no' vote." (p. 43 l. 3-4)

In so doing, if 9 out of 10 (or 4 out of 5, or 99 out of 100) express no doubt as to what they are voting on, or what the effect of their vote will be, it would be safe to assume the chair has done his job. Should one member still not fully understand such things, then it would seem to be their responsibility (or one of their advocates) to take appropriate steps (Recess for discussion, Point of Information, etc. as noted) to clarify the question prior to the chair calling for the vote.

I am heartened by your desire to help. Two on our board have circumstances that would lead the newly-introduced to think "disabilities" until they became more closely acquainted. I'd only hope that if "most members" are not happy with the vote, that attaining a quorum will be the least of your worries.

Good luck.

[tctheatc]

There are certainly options aavailable thru RONR if a member needs more information, discussion, or time. I don't know if it's fair to say that the onus is on the remainder of the assembly to do that for the member, especially if that member recognizes he is in such a situation. And the question of whether the reasonable accommodation of ADA is applicable is a legal question rather than a parliamentary one addressed by RONR.

[J. J.]

In all honesty, teach the member how to ask questions. There are two motions, Parliamentary Inquiry and Point of Information, to do this. This is perhaps the smartest thing that any member can do.

[Gerry4000]

In my view, anyone who is not capable (for whatever reason) of fully carrying out the duties oa a board member should not be on the board. Form advisory committees, member councils, etc. to get involvement and input from such persons who are not able to serve on the board itself. You could also establish positions such as "honorary" board members in your bylaws.

Would you let someone drive a bus who was significantly visually impaired, or had severe coordnation problems? I hope not. Same for board members.

[J. J.]

In my view, anyone who is not capable (for whatever reason) of fully carrying out the duties oa a board member should not be on the board. Form advisory committees, member councils, etc. to get involvement and input from such persons who are not able to serve on the board itself. You could also establish positions such as "honorary" board members in your bylaws.

Would you let someone drive a bus who was significantly visually impaired, or had severe coordnation problems? I hope not. Same for board members.

Neither RONR nor Congress requires IQ tests for members.

[Gerry4000]

Based on AttorneyAnne's reference to "inside information" - it seems that confidentiality of a board meeting may have been violated (by someone).

[AttorneyAnne]

In my view, anyone who is not capable (for whatever reason) of fully carrying out the duties oa a board member should not be on the board. Form advisory committees, member councils, etc. to get involvement and input from such persons who are not able to serve on the board itself. You could also establish positions such as "honorary" board members in your bylaws.

Would you let someone drive a bus who was significantly visually impaired, or had severe coordnation problems? I hope not. Same for board members.

[AttorneyAnne]

Gerry4000, That's not a fair analogy. No, we would not allow a person who happens to be blind become a bus driver. But we certainly would not require every bus driver to be professional drivers with Nascar experience. Board members with disabilities have a wealth of information. They know what it's like to walk in their shoes. They offer a perspective that most of us do possess. Diversity within a board can only enrich the discussions and lead to better outcomes.

Anne

[Rob Elsman]

Gerry4000, That's not a fair analogy. No, we would not allow a person who happens to be blind become a bus driver. But we certainly would not require every bus driver to be professional drivers with Nascar experience. Board members with disabilities have a wealth of information. They know what it's like to walk in their shoes. They offer a perspective that most of us do possess. Diversity within a board can only enrich the discussions and lead to better outcomes.

Anne

Notwithstanding all this, Anne, I agree with the replies already given by Messrs. Honemann and Martin.

[Gerry4000]

Gerry4000, That's not a fair analogy. No, we would not allow a person who happens to be blind become a bus driver. But we certainly would not require every bus driver to be professional drivers with Nascar experience. Board members with disabilities have a wealth of information. They know what it's like to walk in their shoes. They offer a perspective that most of us do possess. Diversity within a board can only enrich the discussions and lead to better outcomes.

Anne

I am sure such disabled persons do have a wealth of information and a different perspective. The key issue, though, to me is whether such persons as you describe can fully function as a board member for the referenced organization. From your description and narrative, this board member could not fully function (you state she did not understand the issue). Input/perspective is one thing - decision making is another. People who can not function on a board should not be on it - whether dsabled or not. I suggest finding a different way for such persons to serve, provide information and be involved.

I am involved with organizations which are run by boards, and in these organizations a common problem is board members who are no longer able to fully function in important roles, ofetn due to declining health (including verying degrees of senile dementia). The orgznizations are hampered when boards have too many of such persons. In these cases, one answer some organizations have come up with is a board member "emeritus" or "Honorary" board member, where such persons can participate, but the organization is not hamstrung by board memners who can not fully function. I suggest similar positions be considered for the some of the disabled persons in your organizations who are not able to function as board members.

[Josh Martin]

From your description and narrative, this board member could not fully function (you state she did not understand the issue). Input/perspective is one thing - decision making is another. People who can not function on a board should not be on it - whether dsabled or not. I suggest finding a different way for such persons to serve, provide information and be involved.

Gerry, the fact that a member did not understand one issue which came before the board does not suggest to me, in and of itself, that the member is incapable of serving on the board. I do not think we have enough facts to begin to evaluate such a question, and such a question is beyond the scope of RONR and this forum anyway.

[Dan Honemann]

My guess is that it will suffice for AttorneyAnne's purposes to know that an organization’s adoption of RONR as its parliamentary authority places no greater or less of a burden upon it to accommodate persons with disabilities than the organization would have absent such adoption.