Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

absentee rights question


Trina

Recommended Posts

In a thread from several weeks ago, Mr. Honemann posed a question which has been puzzling me:

To set up a hypothetical situation (similar to that in the linked thread), suppose an association requires an affirmative vote from 90% of the entire membership in order to adopt any bylaws amendment to raise dues. There are 50 members of the association. Notice is properly given of a proposed bylaws amendment to raise the dues from $100 to $150. Six of the members, who happen to be good friends, agree that they are opposed to the dues increase, and they decide to go out to dinner together on the appointed evening (instead of attending the meeting). They are secure in the knowledge that, in their absence, there cannot possibly be an affirmative vote from 90% of the entire membership.

The other 44 members attend the meeting, and after some debate, the vote is 36 to 3, in favor of the proposed dues increase (a few members don't vote). No exact count of attendance is taken, but there are a lot of people in the room, and the vote is (obviously) overwhelmingly in favor of raising the dues. The chair remembers something about the 90% requirement, looks at the vote count, and sees that over 90% of the votes are in favor. The chair announces that the amendment to the bylaws has been adopted. No one raises a point of order.

Obviously the chair made an error, but have the rights of the absentees been violated? Is there a continuing breach?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a thread from several weeks ago, Mr. Honemann posed a question which has been puzzling me:

http://robertsrules....dpost__p__76893

To set up a hypothetical situation (similar to that in the linked thread), suppose an association requires an affirmative vote from 90% of the entire membership in order to adopt any bylaws amendment to raise dues. There are 50 members of the association. Notice is properly given of a proposed bylaws amendment to raise the dues from $100 to $150. Six of the members, who happen to be good friends, agree that they are opposed to the dues increase, and they decide to go out to dinner together on the appointed evening (instead of attending the meeting). They are secure in the knowledge that, in their absence, there cannot possibly be an affirmative vote from 90% of the entire membership.

The other 44 members attend the meeting, and after some debate, the vote is 36 to 3, in favor of the proposed dues increase (a few members don't vote). No exact count of attendance is taken, but there are a lot of people in the room, and the vote is (obviously) overwhelmingly in favor of raising the dues. The chair remembers something about the 90% requirement, looks at the vote count, and sees that over 90% of the votes are in favor. The chair announces that the amendment to the bylaws has been adopted. No one raises a point of order.

Obviously the chair made an error, but have the rights of the absentees been violated? Is there a continuing breach?

Yes. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. :)

Yeah, that clears it up :unsure: .

I think the thing that's confusing me is that usually, when there is discussion of absentee rights, it has to do with absentees not receiving notice, or otherwise being denied their right to exercise rights of membership. In this example the absentees were fully informed, and voluntarily chose not to attend or participate. How exactly would one describe the absentee right that was violated here? Is there a right to expect that the rules of the organization will not be broken, even if one chooses not to be present at a meeting to observe and challenge the possible breaking of the rules? Whatever the absentee right is, it can't really be that comprehensive -- the breaking of most rules has to be challenged promptly. I feel like I'm missing something obvious... but, so far, I'm still missing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that clears it up :unsure: .

I think the thing that's confusing me is that usually, when there is discussion of absentee rights, it has to do with absentees not receiving notice, or otherwise being denied their right to exercise rights of membership. In this example the absentees were fully informed, and voluntarily chose not to attend or participate. How exactly would one describe the absentee right that was violated here? Is there a right to expect that the rules of the organization will not be broken, even if one chooses not to be present at a meeting to observe and challenge the possible breaking of the rules? Whatever the absentee right is, it can't really be that comprehensive -- the breaking of most rules has to be challenged promptly. I feel like I'm missing something obvious... but, so far, I'm still missing it.

You might think of it this way. The quorum requirement is based on absentee rights. Business transacted in the absence of of a quorum is, ultimately, a violation of absentee rights (p. 251, e.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that clears it up :unsure: .

...

I feel like I'm missing something obvious... but, so far, I'm still missing it.

Maybe this will help (maybe)...

The absent members still retained the right to be counted (whether absent or not) because the vote threshold was 90% of everybody - all members. And obviously (in the chair's error anyway) they were not counted while absent.

That help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, J.J., there was no question of a quorum present or not in Tina's setup.

No, but the underlying principle is the same. You need a quorum to conduct most business. To conduct this particular type of business, the dues increase, you need to have 90% present.

Let's assume that Trina's bylaws set a quorum for conducting all business at 25% (13 members, in whole numbers). 12 members are present. What if they adopt a motion, i.e. "That we hire a parliamentarian for a cost of not more than $500." What on p. 251 makes it null and void? 251 e., because its adoption violates "a rule protecting absentees." There may have been proper notice, but this still is an absentee rights issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but the underlying principle is the same. You need a quorum to conduct most business. To conduct this particular type of business, the dues increase, you need to have 90% present.

So would you say that a decision by the chair which misstates the result of a vote requiring a percentage of the entire membership constitutes a continuing breach when that percentage of the membership wasn't present? And, as such, it represents an exception to the principle that the chair's announcement, even if in error, does not normally constitute a continuing breach?

In other words. a rule requiring the vote of a percentage of the entire membership is, in effect, a de facto quorum requirement? (And, yes, I think the use of "in effect" and "de facto" is redundant.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe this will help (maybe)...

The absent members still retained the right to be counted (whether absent or not) because the vote threshold was 90% of everybody - all members. And obviously (in the chair's error anyway) they were not counted while absent.

That help?

No, but the underlying principle is the same. You need a quorum to conduct most business. To conduct this particular type of business, the dues increase, you need to have 90% present.

Let's assume that Trina's bylaws set a quorum for conducting all business at 25% (13 members, in whole numbers). 12 members are present. What if they adopt a motion, i.e. "That we hire a parliamentarian for a cost of not more than $500." What on p. 251 makes it null and void? 251 e., because its adoption violates "a rule protecting absentees." There may have been proper notice, but this still is an absentee rights issue.

Thank you, the quorum analogy (as well as the reference to the members' right to be counted) does help, I think.

What would happen if the original example was changed, so that only 5 members decided to skip the meeting, in favor of a night out on the town? They realize this doesn't quite guarantee the defeat of the dues increase, but they think it's unlikely that all 45 remaining members will attend the meeting AND that all 45 will vote in favor of the increase. So, they take the chance.

As it happens, 45 members do attend the meeting (and their attendance is well documented by a sign-in sheet at the door). The vote count, as before, is 36-3 in favor of the dues increase, and the chair makes the same error of declaring the bylaws amendment adopted.

Is there still a violation of the rights of absentees (in this version, the 90% quorum-equivalent number has been reached by the attendance of 45 members at the meeting)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, the quorum analogy (as well as the reference to the members' right to be counted) does help, I think.

What would happen if the original example was changed, so that only 5 members decided to skip the meeting, in favor of a night out on the town? They realize this doesn't quite guarantee the defeat of the dues increase, but they think it's unlikely that all 45 remaining members will attend the meeting AND that all 45 will vote in favor of the increase. So, they take the chance.

As it happens, 45 members do attend the meeting (and their attendance is well documented by a sign-in sheet at the door). The vote count, as before, is 36-3 in favor of the dues increase, and the chair makes the same error of declaring the bylaws amendment adopted.

Is there still a violation of the rights of absentees (in this version, the 90% quorum-equivalent number has been reached by the attendance of 45 members at the meeting)?

No. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, the quorum analogy (as well as the reference to the members' right to be counted) does help, I think.

What would happen if the original example was changed, so that only 5 members decided to skip the meeting, in favor of a night out on the town? They realize this doesn't quite guarantee the defeat of the dues increase, but they think it's unlikely that all 45 remaining members will attend the meeting AND that all 45 will vote in favor of the increase. So, they take the chance.

As it happens, 45 members do attend the meeting (and their attendance is well documented by a sign-in sheet at the door). The vote count, as before, is 36-3 in favor of the dues increase, and the chair makes the same error of declaring the bylaws amendment adopted.

Is there still a violation of the rights of absentees (in this version, the 90% quorum-equivalent number has been reached by the attendance of 45 members at the meeting)?

No. :)

(I just wanted to beat Dan H. to it.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting. So, in this case, the 5 party-goers are out of luck (YSYL) when they later complain that the bylaws amendment was improperly adopted with only 72% affirmative votes (36 out of 50), when the bylaws clearly specify 90%.

Thanks for the explanation!

The 5 party-goers might also later complain if, during their absence, a motion was declared adopted by a vote of 22 in favor and 15 opposed when the rules clearly specify that a two-thirds vote is required for adoption. So what? In either case, later complaints by the party-goers (or anyone else) will do no good because the members present at the meeting had it within their power to validly adopt the motion. If anyone did any snoozing and losing it was members present at the meeting who failed to raise a timely point of order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . because the members present at the meeting had it within their power to validly adopt the motion.

Which, as I understand it, would not be the case if the voting requirement was a percentage of the entire membership and that percentage wasn't present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Honemann uses the same words General Robert does:

“Although it is necessary for every society to have its own rules, adapted to its own special needs, yet there are times when some of these rules, instead of being a help, are a great hindrance to the transaction of business, and if they affect none but those present at the meeting, they should be capable of being suspended.” (Parliamentary Law, p. 156)

The key to this matter of suspendability and violations of certain rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Honemann uses the same words General Robert does:

“Although it is necessary for every society to have its own rules, adapted to its own special needs, yet there are times when some of these rules, instead of being a help, are a great hindrance to the transaction of business, and if they affect none but those present at the meeting, they should be capable of being suspended.” (Parliamentary Law, p. 156)

The key to this matter of suspendability and violations of certain rules.

Exactly! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...