Joining just to vote

[Guest dublin]

There is talk of a group of people (who are eligible to join the organization) joining for the sole purpose of voting in our elections. Our by-laws don't have any sort of eligibilty clause (requiring membership for a certain amount of time in order to vote in elections), is there anything in RONR that can help in this case?

[jstackpo]

"Help" in what respect?

[David A Foulkes]

There is talk of a group of people (who are eligible to join the organization) joining for the sole purpose of voting in our elections. Our by-laws don't have any sort of eligibilty clause (requiring membership for a certain amount of time in order to vote in elections), is there anything in RONR that can help in this case?

If you mean is there anything in RONR that will prevent these people from being allowed to join as members just prior to an election, or to prevent them from being able to vote in the election having just joined as members days (or moments) prior to the election voting, then I believe the answer is no. As you've indicated, any such restriction or delay (for eligibility purposes or such) would need to come from your bylaws or other governing rules (parent association, applicable law, etc). In RONR land, membership is instantaneous and members' rights (including voting) are in full effect immediately.

[Rev Ed]

Unless otherwise indicated in the By-laws, a member can become a 'full' member as soon as they have paid their membership dues. So yes, these people could pay today and vote today.

What is the real reason you don't want more members? Most organizations I know of would normally welcome more members.

[Chris Harrison]

What is the real reason you don't want more members? Most organizations I know of would normally welcome more members.

I suspect that there is some faction supporting a particular candidate and/or opposing another who has recruited a bunch of their buddies to join in order to "pack" the membership so the faction's candidate will be elected or prevent another candidate from getting the votes necessary to get elected.

[Rev Ed]

I suspect that there is some faction supporting a particular candidate and/or opposing another who has recruited a bunch of their buddies to join in order to "pack" the membership so the faction's candidate will be elected or prevent another candidate from getting the votes necessary to get elected.

And unless that "pack" would create a change in the results (i.e. if the vote would have been 50-40 and 11 new members join in order to bolster the 40 vote to 51 votes) then nothing would change. Even with the election of directors, it's majority rule. So if people don't want a member elected, they need to show up and vote regardless of these new members.

[David A Foulkes]

And unless that "pack" would create a change in the results (i.e. if the vote would have been 50-40 and 11 new members join in order to bolster the 40 vote to 51 votes) then nothing would change. Even with the election of directors, it's majority rule. So if people don't want a member elected, they need to show up and vote regardless of these new members.

True enough, but I suspect that if this group of new members was not of such a number that they could possibly affect the result, our Guest_dublin would have better things to do with his/her time than inquire here on an inconsequential matter. Don't you think so?

[Rev Ed]

We don't know - he isn't telling us. We still don't know for sure why he asked us.

[Abd]

I suspect that there is some faction supporting a particular candidate and/or opposing another who has recruited a bunch of their buddies to join in order to "pack" the membership so the faction's candidate will be elected or prevent another candidate from getting the votes necessary to get elected.

Or, more accurately from the question, there is a rumor that there is such. I'd say that the questioner is likely to be thinking this is a Bad Thing. As others have pointed out, many organizations would be delighted that more people want to join. Suppose they are joining to help their friend get elected. Aren't they more likely, if the friend gets elected, then, to participate beyond that?

On the other hand, if they are greeted at the door with frowns and accusations, what will this do to the reputation of this organization? I'd urge the inquirer here to think this through. Trying to prevent this "vote packing," or even believing that this is the sole objective of these new people, could do more harm than good, and that harm could be lasting.

If there is an immediate problem, as it seems, it may be too late to do anything to prevent it. No harm in encouraging existing members to attend the meeting where the election will be held, though. "This could be an important election. We are expecting some new members, and it would be important to have long-standing members be present to welcome them and stand for our traditions." Saying something more strong than that could, again, damage the organization. Welcome the new people!

An absolute majority of members, though, can amend the bylaws, immediately. If there really is some serious problem here, an amendment could be used to prevent packing, by setting up qualifications to vote, perhaps, and notice is not required for such a move. Doing it at the meeting where the election is going to be held, will probably be too late, and the conditions of the problem make it likely that such a majority may not then be obtainable, once the new members have joined. I would only think of going this route if the danger were severe. Normally, you want to make it easy for people to join and participate, not hard.

(Note: I'm not a parliamentarian, but an organizational facilitator.)

[Trina]

...

An absolute majority of members, though, can amend the bylaws, immediately. If there really is some serious problem here, an amendment could be used to prevent packing, by setting up qualifications to vote, perhaps, and notice is not required for such a move.

...

If there is an amendment process described in the bylaws, and if that process requires notice, then the bylaws cannot be amended if notice has not be provided (not unless ALL the members are present at the meeting). Even a vote of majority of entire membership won't do it. (RONR 11th ed. p. 263 l. 29 - p. 264 l. 5)

[Rev Ed]

Amending the By-laws may sound like a great idea today, but afterwards it may slow down recruitment of new members. It is easier to just keep the membership requirements the way they are, and try to drum up current members into going to the meeting (which may be part of the problem too, we still don't have any more information on the issue.) And at the same time, other current members could also try to get new members to join.

So here are my questions for Guest_dublin:

1) What are the current membership requirements?

2) Why are you so worried about these new members simply joining for one vote? Is there a coup on and if so why?

3) Are current members not attending in sufficient numbers? If not, why?

[Abd]

If there is an amendment process described in the bylaws, and if that process requires notice, then the bylaws cannot be amended if notice has not be provided (not unless ALL the members are present at the meeting). Even a vote of majority of entire membership won't do it. (RONR 11th ed. p. 263 l. 29 - p. 264 l. 5)

That's important to note. I also missed the requirement that the meeting be a "regular meeting." If there is no regular meeting before the election meeting, the amendment would violate the rules even if an absolute majority approve it, as far as I can tell.

The question, then, would devolve to the right of an absolute majority to act. It could do other things, with a special meeting, to nullify the danger from vote stacking. There may even be an option that would not involve a special meeting. But advising people about these options could be like advising them how to conduct a civil war. Bad Idea, everyone loses. There are some excellent suggestions and questions, in this thread, that don't involve increasing division and conflict in the organization and the pending election. Let's not go there, based on speculation.

[Bruce Lages]

Where did the issue of "regular meetings" and special meetings enter into this thread?

[David A Foulkes]

Where did the issue of "regular meetings" and special meetings enter into this thread?

In the post just prior to yours.

[Bruce Lages]

OK, let me try again - Since Abd in post # 12 says he missed the requirement that the meeting be a "regular meeting", where, prior to his post, did the issue of "regular meetings and special meetings arise, and what is their relationship to the original poster's question?

[Guest dublin]

Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you, I'm overseas and all of your replies were made overnight for me.

The people who are *possibly* going to join are the spouses of the people who are already members. These spouses would be joining our group for the sole purpose of making sure that one person gets elected over another.

Our by-laws require that any amendments be approved by the board, then submitted to the general membership, posted for thirty days, and then voted on by the general membership. It is too late, now, to go through the amendment process, plus we have been informed by the base commander (who has to officially sign off on any changes to our governing documents) that he will not approve any amendments that he doesn't like. That's a whole separate issue being dealt with above my pay grade.

These possible new members are NOT likely to participate beyond the meeting where elections are held, I'd love for them to continue their membership because our numbers are declining! There are numerous other issues going on here, it's basically turned into a giant popularity contest wherein one person has been playing dirty. The only reason that I haven't resigned as parliamentarian is that I refuse to be bullied by the higher-ups into doing what they want when it's contrary to not only our governing documents, but to the documents that govern *their* behavior.

Thanks for confirming what I already suspected, that RONR doesn't have any guidance on this situation. When I turn over my continuity at the end of my term, I will be leaving a list of suggested amendments to be made at our document review next year, and this will definitely be in there! (As will www.robertsrules.org, this site has been so helpful!)

[David A Foulkes]

Thanks for confirming what I already suspected, that RONR doesn't have any guidance on this situation. When I turn over my continuity at the end of my term, I will be leaving a list of suggested amendments to be made at our document review next year, and this will definitely be in there! (As will www.robertsrules.org, this site has been so helpful!)

While you're still around (I hope) I just wanted to make note that the website you linked to references the 4th Edition of Robert's Rules, published in 1915!! It's a bit out of date, and most likely has no parliamentary authority for your group. It's a wonderful historical read, but I'd be scared to death to learn that my doctor has been using 100 year-old texts when he yells out "scalpel" (or worse yet, "pass me the leaches!") across the operating table!

[Abd]

OK, let me try again - Since Abd in post # 12 says he missed the requirement that the meeting be a "regular meeting", where, prior to his post, did the issue of "regular meetings and special meetings arise, and what is their relationship to the original poster's question?

Okay, since you want to know, I'd written a response similar to what others had written, answering the question of what might be done about the problem. That response noted that it might be possible to amend the bylaws with an absolute majority (and, as well, though I didn't mention it, an absolute majority might be able to do other things to address the issue). I had in mind that a special meeting might be arranged, and that under these conditions notice and delay was not necessarily required. I'd missed the requirement for "regular meeting." Trina mentioned that if the Bylaws specified Bylaw amendment process, that even an absolute majority would not suffice under those conditions. I was accepting that and made the correction about "regular meeting." This is all now moot, because of additional conditions that the inquirer posted.

On that original question, I agree with others that amending the Bylaws to inhibit membership may be contrary to the long-term welfare of the organization. After all, as described, membership has been declining. "Popularity contests" happen to some extent in most organizations. Opposing them and the people who engage in them can also be destructive, just in a different way.

How about inviting and encouraging the spouses of other members, than those of this faction whose spouses might join? Maybe if there are more spouses there, the club might be more popular?

I'm getting the sense from the inquirer that other things are happening that he (?) opposes, and that he does not have the support of a majority (or else "the higher-ups" would not be able to get way with those "contrary" actions) so the spouse thing may be irrelevant. But maybe I misunderstood.

As parliamentarian, he discharges his duty when he informs the chair of his understanding of the rules, actual decisions are not for him to make. The parliamentarian is not an executive, and has nothing to "do" other than interpret the rules as an advisor. So, I wonder, what are the "higher-ups" demanding that he "do"? Is he offering his advice when it is not requested or is even disliked? I'd urge him to read the section in Robert's Rules on the office and duties of the Parliamentarian. A Parliamentarian would not, for example, move a Point of Order. It is a service position that relinquishes all control. Our friend has suggested he might resign, which is what RONR more or less recommends if the advice is routinely disregarded. As an ordinary member, he'd have the freedom to object, raise points of order, enter motions, and debate and vote openly on them. But he is truly opposing the majority, it's pretty useless.

Famous last words: "But, but ... it was against the Rules!"

Parliamentarian, if you have become involved, in the way that you describe, you probably should resign, for that reason, and, as a parliamentarian, you should know why. However, perhaps you have been following the 1915 edition, which doesn't mention the office of Parliamentarian. If you haven't looked at something more recent, such as the current one, the 11th, perhaps that is an issue here. I only have the10th (2000), but I doubt it is much different.

The point made about getting the 11th edition was well taken.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Okay, since you want to know, I'd written a response similar to what others had written, answering the question of what might be done about the problem. That response noted that it might be possible to amend the bylaws with an absolute majority (and, as well, though I didn't mention it, an absolute majority might be able to do other things to address the issue). I had in mind that a special meeting might be arranged, and that under these conditions notice and delay was not necessarily required. I'd missed the requirement for "regular meeting." Trina mentioned that if the Bylaws specified Bylaw amendment process, that even an absolute majority would not suffice under those conditions. I was accepting that and made the correction about "regular meeting."

This doesn't make any more sense now than the first time you mentioned it. Who says that bylaws can't be amended at a special meeting?

[Trina]

If there is an amendment process described in the bylaws, and if that process requires notice, then the bylaws cannot be amended if notice has not be provided (not unless ALL the members are present at the meeting). Even a vote of majority of entire membership won't do it. (RONR 11th ed. p. 263 l. 29 - p. 264 l. 5)

...

That response noted that it might be possible to amend the bylaws with an absolute majority (and, as well, though I didn't mention it, an absolute majority might be able to do other things to address the issue). I had in mind that a special meeting might be arranged, and that under these conditions notice and delay was not necessarily required. I'd missed the requirement for "regular meeting." Trina mentioned that if the Bylaws specified Bylaw amendment process, that even an absolute majority would not suffice under those conditions. I was accepting that and made the correction about "regular meeting." This is all now moot, because of additional conditions that the inquirer posted.

I'm not sure how my comment led to this conclusion. I didn't say anything about regular meetings, nor does the citation (pp. 263-264) say anything about regular meetings. The point is that if the bylaws require notice for amendment, that rule 'cannot be suspended when any member is absent.'

Parliamentarian, if you have become involved, in the way that you describe, you probably should resign, for that reason, and, as a parliamentarian, you should know why. However, perhaps you have been following the 1915 edition, which doesn't mention the office of Parliamentarian. If you haven't looked at something more recent, such as the current one, the 11th, perhaps that is an issue here. I only have the10th (2000), but I doubt it is much different.

The point made about getting the 11th edition was well taken.

The language in RONR that I referred to, including particularly the quoted portion above, are indeed new in the 11th edition. The parallel language in your 10th edition (p. 255 ll. 13-18) is different. The point about getting the 11th edition is indeed very well taken.

edited: typo on page number

[Abd]

This doesn't make any more sense now than the first time you mentioned it. Who says that bylaws can't be amended at a special meeting?

Nobody. However, amendment by an absolute majority of members can be done at a regular meeting without notice, unless the Bylaws are contrary. It cannot be done at a special meeting, as I read the Rules, unless the meeting is noticed properly. Trina had pointed out one thing, which was correct, and I accepted it, and then I corrected an error that *I had made*, overlooking "regular meeting" as the requirement for amendment by absolute majority of membership, bypassing notice requirements.

Now, if *that* is still incorrect, if the 11th has some different process, and not merely different language, I'll be surprised but pleased to be so informed.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Who says that bylaws can't be amended at a special meeting?

Nobody. However, amendment by an absolute majority of members can be done at a regular meeting without notice, unless the Bylaws are contrary. It cannot be done at a special meeting, as I read the Rules, unless the meeting is noticed properly. Trina had pointed out one thing, which was correct, and I accepted it, and then I corrected an error that *I had made*, overlooking "regular meeting" as the requirement for amendment by absolute majority of membership, bypassing notice requirements.

Now, if *that* is still incorrect, if the 11th has some different process, and not merely different language, I'll be surprised but pleased to be so informed.

The 11th edition explains the difference between specifying the business that will take place at a special meeting and providing previous notice of a motion. See page 93, lines 13-21.

[Guest Guest]

Someone needs to run to the bookstore tonight because I am losing count of how many times it has been pointed out to ABD that he needs the 11th Edition.

[Guest dublin]

First off, goober=me! I meant to type in robertsrules.com instead of .org. I DO have a copy of the 11th Edition, I've been desecrating it with a highlighter and pink sticky tabs in order to make sure that I have as much pertinent info as possible on hand.

I typed up an explanation of the whole situation and then deleted it, you guys don't need to know what drama is going on and you don't care. I have informed both sides of this argument that I'm here to interpret the docs, advise the President, and conduct votes (as required by our By-Laws). If they don't understand that by now, they're idiots. Because I have to deal with all of the drama, I've demanded reparations, to be payed in wine. Speaking of which, I need to hassle my wine wench about that, she's behind on her payments...