Guest Marisa Posted January 12, 2012 at 02:53 PM Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 at 02:53 PM What is the/is there a procedure when a member would like to waive their voting rights on one particular matter but still be included in quorum? She doesn't want to abstain because in doing so our organization may not meet quorum. In order to reinstate her rights, would the entire organization then have to vote to do so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted January 12, 2012 at 02:56 PM Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 at 02:56 PM A member abstaining solely because they don't wish to vote on a matter has no effect on the quorum whatsoever. She can simply abstain when the question is put. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted January 13, 2012 at 12:42 AM Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 at 12:42 AM What is the/is there a procedure when a member would like to waive their voting rights on one particular matter but still be included in quorum? She doesn't want to abstain because in doing so our organization may not meet quorum. In order to reinstate her rights, would the entire organization then have to vote to do so?A member retains the right to abstain (without losing any other rights, or aspects, of membership), since s/he cannot be compelled to vote. (RONR 11th Ed. p. 404 ll. 12-15) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 13, 2012 at 04:22 AM Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 at 04:22 AM What is the/is there a procedure when a member would like to waive their voting rights on one particular matter but still be included in quorum?Yes. The procedure is to abstain but to remain in the room.She doesn't want to abstain because in doing so our organization may not meet quorum.Unless she leaves the room, this is not correct. A quorum is based on the number of members present, not the number of members voting.In order to reinstate her rights, would the entire organization then have to vote to do so?No. The member abstains and votes when she sees fit. She never really "gave up" her rights, she just chose not to exercise them in a particular case, so there is no need to "reinstate" anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 13, 2012 at 02:23 PM Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 at 02:23 PM A quorum is based on the number of members present, not the number of members voting.Yes, indeed, as witness Speaker Reed's famous "Present Quorum" ruling of January 29, 1890, which so outraged all of the Democrats in the House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted January 13, 2012 at 02:32 PM Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 at 02:32 PM Yes, indeed, as witness Speaker Reed's famous "Present Quorum" ruling of January 29, 1890, which so outraged all of the Democrats in the House.It's a day I'll never forget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted January 13, 2012 at 02:36 PM Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 at 02:36 PM What is the/is there a procedure when a member would like to waive their voting rights on one particular matter but still be included in quorum? She doesn't want to abstain because in doing so our organization may not meet quorum. In order to reinstate her rights, would the entire organization then have to vote to do so?The other possibility that occurs to me is the situation where an organization bases vote outcomes on a something like 'majority of members present' rather than the default majority of those present and voting. In the former case, there is no real way for a member to avoid having an influence on the vote -- since anyone who stays in the room and abstains from voting is essentially counted on the 'no' side of the question.I'm not sure this is behind Marisa's question, but it is a possible reason for a member being concerned about maintaining quorum, yet not wanting to have any part in the outcome of a vote. In a society with such a voting rule, I don't think there is a way for the member to have it both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted January 13, 2012 at 02:39 PM Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 at 02:39 PM Speaker Reed and the "Present Quorum":And for lots more details about "the times" as well as the specific ruling and how it came about, read James Grant's "Mr. Speaker" - a (political) biography that is a delight to read. Reed was a very sharp-witted guy. From Maine.The Democrats were the obstructionists in those days. Time change... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted January 13, 2012 at 04:18 PM Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 at 04:18 PM The other possibility that occurs to me is the situation where an organization bases vote outcomes on a something like 'majority of members present' rather than the default majority of those present and voting. In the former case, there is no real way for a member to avoid having an influence on the vote -- since anyone who stays in the room and abstains from voting is essentially counted on the 'no' side of the question.I'm not sure this is behind Marisa's question, but it is a possible reason for a member being concerned about maintaining quorum, yet not wanting to have any part in the outcome of a vote. In a society with such a voting rule, I don't think there is a way for the member to have it both ways.I'm not sure how the first paragraph has anything to do with a quorum and the stated concern: "She doesn't want to abstain because in doing so our organization may not meet quorum." No mention of how the vote would be affected was indicated, thankfully, since it's common to mix the two things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted January 13, 2012 at 04:41 PM Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 at 04:41 PM It's a day I'll never forget.You were there? <insert winky face here> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted January 13, 2012 at 06:38 PM Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 at 06:38 PM Abstaining does not affect quorum. Plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted January 13, 2012 at 07:30 PM Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 at 07:30 PM I'm not sure how the first paragraph has anything to do with a quorum and the stated concern: "She doesn't want to abstain because in doing so our organization may not meet quorum." No mention of how the vote would be affected was indicated, thankfully, since it's common to mix the two things.My comments were more related to the first sentence of the OP:What is the/is there a procedure when a member would like to waive their voting rights on one particular matter but still be included in quorum?I can imagine this being a concern to someone in an organization which follows the rule of majority of those present required to adopt a motion. In an organization following the RONR rules about voting, the member in question has no problem (as assorted posters have already pointed out). After the introduction of Speaker Reed into the thread, I thought we were free to wander off to left field . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 13, 2012 at 08:10 PM Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 at 08:10 PM After the introduction of Speaker Reed into the thread, I thought we were free to wander off to left field No, the reference to Speaker Reed's ruling was precisely on point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanh49 Posted January 13, 2012 at 08:35 PM Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 at 08:35 PM Yes, indeed, as witness Speaker Reed's famous "Present Quorum" ruling of January 29, 1890, which so outraged all of the Democrats in the House. I believe that in reply to a member of the house who was objecting to his ruling he said "Does the gentleman deny that he is present" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted January 13, 2012 at 09:22 PM Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 at 09:22 PM No, the reference to Speaker Reed's ruling was precisely on point.\As perhaps would be to Constantine Buckley "Buck" Kilgore. You might get a kick out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 14, 2012 at 05:13 PM Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 at 05:13 PM I believe that in reply to a member of the house who was objecting to his ruling he said "Does the gentleman deny that he is present"Something to that effect, yes. The full quote is: "The Chair is making a statement of fact that the gentleman from Kentucky is present. Does he deny it?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.