Voting on who are voting members

[Guest James Quinn]

If the by-laws of an organization are unclear as to who is eligible to vote, how would one take a vote to determine this eligibility? I know this sounds like a prank question but it is actually happening in an organization I am in.

[Trina]

Take a look at this recent thread, which poses a related question:

Your question is potentially harder to resolve because it seems to involve a number of people (not just one individual, whose eligibility for membership is under question).

Can you give more details as to why the right to vote is in question in your organization?

[David A Foulkes]

This sounds like a situation where the bylaw(s) in question must be interpreted so as to determine who the voting members are, with a ruling by the Chair (sustained if appealed), and the bylaws then need to be amended to remove any further doubt. Until then, taking a vote on who can vote may allow non-voting members to vote and...... well, you know the problem you face. That's why you're here. Yes, details might help.

[George Mervosh]

If there is a true ambiguity, my general feeling is the matter should be resolved in favor of those whose rights are in question, and clean up the language later.

[jstackpo]

Although it is only by analogy, a contested delegation at a convention is not allowed to vote on its own eligibility to be the "correct" delegation. Only the uncontested delegates vote to decide if a delegation is legit. P. 614 ff.

If the analogy holds, the "dubious" members don't get to vote on their membership. Or on the appeal that may determine what the bylaws really mean, and whether that "meaning" permits them to vote in the future.

[Tim Wynn]

Although it is only by analogy, a contested delegation at a convention is not allowed to vote on its own eligibility to be the "correct" delegation. Only the uncontested delegates vote to decide if a delegation is legit. P. 614 ff.

If the analogy holds, the "dubious" members don't get to vote on their membership. Or on the appeal that may determine what the bylaws really mean, and whether that "meaning" permits them to vote in the future.

As Mr. Martin pointed out in a similar thread, during the consideration of the report of the Credentials Committee for a convention, the membership has not yet been established. In an organization in which the membership has been established, things change a bit.

You can't take away a member's right to vote, simply by suggesting that he's not a member.

[Tim Wynn]

If the by-laws of an organization are unclear as to who is eligible to vote, how would one take a vote to determine this eligibility? I know this sounds like a prank question but it is actually happening in an organization I am in.

In what way are the bylaws unclear on this issue?

[David A Foulkes]

You can't take away a member's right to vote, simply by suggesting that he's not a member.

So, what is Guest_James' organization's next best step? It appears there is an ambiguity in the bylaws. (We'll see, perhaps) If someone raises a Point of Order, and the chair submits it to the assembly for a ruling, does that settle it (subsequently followed up with a bylaw amendment to remove the ambiguity)?

[jstackpo]

during the consideration of the report of the Credentials Committee for a convention, the membership has not yet been established.

Nonsense!

It is sort of a by-your-bootstraps operation, made legitimate by the society's adoption of RONR, but the initial credentials report establishes, by naming the delegations (or people) who have properly registered, the (initial) membership of the convention, and hence the roll of voters. It is a "limited membership", however, that can only vote on the cred-report and related matters - p. 615.

There obviously has to be a membership established, or in place, to vote on the credentials report, since only members can vote.

[Tim Wynn]

So, what is Guest_James' organization's next best step? It appears there is an ambiguity in the bylaws. (We'll see, perhaps) If someone raises a Point of Order, and the chair submits it to the assembly for a ruling, does that settle it (subsequently followed up with a bylaw amendment to remove the ambiguity)?

It really depends on the situation, which the original poster has not made sufficiently clear. In some cases, a simple ruling by the chair will be all that's needed to settle the matter, subject to appeal. In other cases, it could be much more complicated.

[jstackpo]

You can't take away a member's right to vote, simply by suggesting that he's not a member.

True, a "suggestion" won't do it, but a real bylaw ambiguity or contradiction could. And if the "contested" members were allowed to vote on an appeal relating to a ruling on their membership, things could get very interesting...

Scenario:

A number of "members" are ruled to be not members after all, even though they had been considered such previously. The ruling is appealed, there is a legitimate case both ways, and the chair is sustained (ballot vote because this is contentious) but in a relatively close vote (you can see where this is going, I'll bet...)

An (unquestioned) member then (promptly, of course) raises the point of order that those people who have now been determined to be non-members and indeed haven't been members for quite some time, voted on the appeal, and their votes, by the numbers involved, could have made a difference. So the vote on the appeal is nullified. And the ruling is appealed again... This could go on for a while.

The only way out of this loop (besides folks getting fed up and going home, or voting differently in substantial numbers) is to exclude the contested "members" from voting at all. Just as with a contested convention delegation, or delegate.

[David A Foulkes]

The only way out of this loop (besides folks getting fed up and going home, or voting differently in substantial numbers) is to exclude the contested "members" from voting at all. Just as with a contested convention delegation, or delegate.

And who decides who belongs in the "contested member" group? What if someone who is placed in that grouping is determined to be a member? You've denied them the right to vote and we are facing a p.251(e) breach, aren't we? (And when I say we, I mean Guest_James Gang)

[jstackpo]

Points all well taken, but how would you get out of the loops, some of which you have added?

And it is true that the contested convention delegates analogy is imperfect since there is no beginning point, as there is with a credentials committee.

So, eventually, this discussion boils down to an appeal for carefully crafted (and edited) bylaws.

We all wish Quest James Q. the best of luck.

[David A Foulkes]

Points all well taken, but how would you get out of the loops, some of which you have added?

I think barring any clear ruling from somewhere that a person is not a voting member, all persons assumed to be voting members should be accepted as such at first. A point of order is raised, and the chair either rules (subject to appeal) or submits it to the assembly for decision. Then you sort out the wheat from the chaff and get busy on amending the bylaws.

It puts me in mind of this post by Mr. Balch, though I won't say it's 100% applicable, but I think it's "persuasive", in particular this from the third line: "the individual must be regarded as a member until an appropriate process is used to determine that he is not entitled to membership".

[Josh Martin]

Scenario:

A number of "members" are ruled to be not members after all, even though they had been considered such previously. The ruling is appealed, there is a legitimate case both ways, and the chair is sustained (ballot vote because this is contentious) but in a relatively close vote (you can see where this is going, I'll bet...)

An (unquestioned) member then (promptly, of course) raises the point of order that those people who have now been determined to be non-members and indeed haven't been members for quite some time, voted on the appeal, and their votes, by the numbers involved, could have made a difference. So the vote on the appeal is nullified. And the ruling is appealed again... This could go on for a while.

The only way out of this loop (besides folks getting fed up and going home, or voting differently in substantial numbers) is to exclude the contested "members" from voting at all. Just as with a contested convention delegation, or delegate.

The problems that arise in your scenario are due to the failure of the assembly to separate non-members from members, which can happen in any vote. It has nothing specifically to do with this situation.

While I acknowledge there are odd quirks with assuming members are non-members until the chair or assembly determines otherwise (such as how the non-members' ability to vote on the issue depends on the chair's ruling or lack thereof), but I think this is preferable to treating an established society to a convention in the formative stages. The society has a clearly established membership roll and a member's right to vote should not be stripped by a single member's challenge.

If the by-laws of an organization are unclear as to who is eligible to vote, how would one take a vote to determine this eligibility?

As you can see, the responses are all over the map, since this is a complex issue and the answer depends greatly on the specifics of your situation. If you could provide some additional facts we may be able to provide a clearer answer.

It puts me in mind of this post by Mr. Balch, though I won't say it's 100% applicable, but I think it's "persuasive", in particular this from the third line: "the individual must be regarded as a member until an appropriate process is used to determine that he is not entitled to membership".

It may or may not be applicable - we don't have enough facts to know.

EDIT: Thanks to an illuminating response from Mr. Balch in another thread, I've struck a part of my post which I have pleasantly learned is incorrect.

[Guest Edgar]

If there is a true ambiguity, my general feeling is the matter should be resolved in favor of those whose rights are in question, and clean up the language later.

While I'm sympathetic to that view, one could argue that the default status of the proverbial "man on the street" is that he's not a member. Thus it's membership that must be proven, not non-membership.

One would hope that in this instance there are a significant number of persons who are unambiguously members. It is this group that would determine the status of the others. Which, as I re-read the posts, seems to be Mr. Stackpole's position as well.

[Josh Martin]

While I'm sympathetic to that view, one could argue that the default status of the proverbial "man on the street" is that he's not a member. Thus it's membership that must be proven, not non-membership.

One would hope that in this instance there are a significant number of persons who are unambiguously members. It is this group that would determine the status of the others. Which, as I re-read the posts, seems to be Mr. Stackpole's position as well.

I don't think we have enough facts to know whether the "man on the street" analogy applies to this situation. The situation could be quite the reverse - the individuals in question could have been presumed to be members for years, and it was not until some new fact about the members or some new rule in the Bylaws was discovered that their membership was called into question. That doesn't seem like a "man on the street" to me. The "man on the street" analogy seems much more applicable to conventions than to established societies.

[Shmuel Gerber]

A number of "members" are ruled to be not members after all, even though they had been considered such previously. The ruling is appealed, there is a legitimate case both ways, and the chair is sustained (ballot vote because this is contentious) but in a relatively close vote (you can see where this is going, I'll bet...)

An (unquestioned) member then (promptly, of course) raises the point of order that those people who have now been determined to be non-members and indeed haven't been members for quite some time, voted on the appeal, and their votes, by the numbers involved, could have made a difference. So the vote on the appeal is nullified. And the ruling is appealed again... This could go on for a while.

Maybe I'm just being dense this morning, but I don't understand the problem. The chair ruled that the people in question are not members, and this ruling was sustained. Are you suggesting that the pseudo-members might have voted to kick themselves out of membership, thereby changing the outcome that would have obtained if they had not voted at all, and that the society must nullify their votes and keep them as members against their own wishes?

[jstackpo]

The "problem" is that the non-members voted at all. It doesn't matter how they voted. All that matters is that, because of the (presumed, in my scenario) close vote and number of non-member votes, there was the possibility those votes "might affect the result" - p. 416, l. 32.

Since this was a secret ballot there is no way to know if they did affect the result, but that is not a consideration. A revote is called for.

[Josh Martin]

The "problem" is that the non-members voted at all. It doesn't matter how they voted. All that matters is that, because of the (presumed, in my scenario) close vote and number of non-member votes, there was the possibility those votes "might affect the result" - p. 416, l. 32.

Since this was a secret ballot there is no way to know if they did affect the result, but that is not a consideration. A revote is called for.

I still don't think this quite leads to the endless loop of madness you speculated about, since it seems the assembly would eventually wise up and keep the non-members out of the room while taking the vote, but the issue seems to be moot anyway. The thread Trina and Mr. Foulkes referenced has progressed further now, and I think Mr. Balch's last post on the subject is quite illuminating.