Guest esmdr Posted February 15, 2012 at 05:21 PM Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 at 05:21 PM Our city council is comprised of a Mayor, and 4 council members. Two of the members are active firemen with the city's fire department.In an upcoming meeting, we will be discussing and voting on the pensions of the fire men.Are there rules of order addressing if the firemen/council members can or should vote on this issue?It would directly affect their income from their pension plans, and it could result in a higher monetary contribution from the city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted February 15, 2012 at 05:44 PM Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 at 05:44 PM You want to be looking elsewhere than Robert's Rules about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted February 15, 2012 at 06:04 PM Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 at 06:04 PM You want to be looking elsewhere than Robert's Rules about this.Well the word "ethics" isn't used but is p. 407, lines 21-31 chopped liver? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted February 15, 2012 at 07:00 PM Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 at 07:00 PM Well the word "ethics" isn't used but is p. 407, lines 21-31 chopped liver?As far as this question goes, I'd say it's an applicable meal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 16, 2012 at 01:04 AM Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 at 01:04 AM Are there rules of order addressing if the firemen/council members can or should vote on this issue?It would directly affect their income from their pension plans, and it could result in a higher monetary contribution from the city.Under RONR, the members can vote on the issue, but shouldn't, since they have a pecuniary interest not in common with other members.Well the word "ethics" isn't used but is p. 407, lines 21-31 chopped liver?What is said in RONR, 11th ed., pg. 407, lines 21-31 is certainly applicable, but the poster should still probably look to other sources, as Mr. Tesser suggested. Given the circumstances, it seems entirely possible there is an applicable law which takes a stronger stance on this subject than RONR does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted February 16, 2012 at 01:41 AM Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 at 01:41 AM Under RONR, the members can vote on the issue, but shouldn't, since they have a pecuniary interest not in common with other members.At what point would that rule not apply? 2 out of the 5 (40%) members have this interest. Would the rule still apply if there was a 3rd member with this interest making it over half of the members with the interest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted February 16, 2012 at 02:12 AM Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 at 02:12 AM At what point would that rule not apply? 2 out of the 5 (40%) members have this interest. Would the rule still apply if there was a 3rd member with this interest making it over half of the members with the interest?Just to be picky, p. 407 says no member (singular) should vote in such a circumstance if the pecuniary interest is "not common to other members of the organization." But in this case, it is common (for each of the members) with other members (the other fireman). Is that what you're getting at, Chris? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted February 16, 2012 at 02:42 AM Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 at 02:42 AM Just to be picky, p. 407 says no member (singular) should vote in such a circumstance if the pecuniary interest is "not common to other members of the organization." But in this case, it is common (for each of the members) with other members (the other fireman). Is that what you're getting at, Chris?Sort of. If there were 10-15 other members there I would have said that those two shouldn't vote but my question is that with there being so few other members (3) that those 2 members constitute a sizable percentage of the number of members there and at what point does the percentages become high enough to make the rule not applicable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 16, 2012 at 03:03 AM Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 at 03:03 AM At what point would that rule not apply? 2 out of the 5 (40%) members have this interest. Would the rule still apply if there was a 3rd member with this interest making it over half of the members with the interest?If there were 10-15 other members there I would have said that those two shouldn't vote but my question is that with there being so few other members (3) that those 2 members constitute a sizable percentage of the number of members there and at what point does the percentages become high enough to make the rule not applicable?There is no hard and fast rule on this, although the examples RONR provides may be instructive - they speak of cases in which the motions affect the entire assembly (or at least a majority) as obvious instances where this rule does not apply. (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 408, lines 1-7) Beyond that, it's up to the judgment of the members who have the interest to determine whether it would be appropriate to vote in a particular case. Now that I've seen the actual percentages laid out, I concede that this case may be a judgment call.Just to be picky, p. 407 says no member (singular) should vote in such a circumstance if the pecuniary interest is "not common to other members of the organization." But in this case, it is common (for each of the members) with other members (the other fireman).I admit that this case may be a judgment call since this is such a small assembly, but I don't believe that the rule on pg. 407 is meant to apply exclusively to cases in which only a single member has the interest. If two members in an assembly of 100 share a pecuniary interest not common to the other 98 members, I think they should still abstain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted February 16, 2012 at 03:10 AM Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 at 03:10 AM . . . I don't believe that the rule on pg. 407 is meant to apply exclusively to cases in which only a single member has the interest. If two members in an assembly of 100 share a pecuniary interest not common to the other 98 members, I think they should still abstain.Yes, this came up some years back and, though there was some (hyper-technical?) dissent, I believe the prevailing opinion was that it was not enough for the conflicted member to simply find one other member who shared his predicament in order to be let off the hook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.