What is the best way to give a non-member permanent rights to speak?

[rthib]

Belong to a number of organization which have ex officio non-voting members.

The purpose is they want that person to attend the meeting regularly and be able to report and add comment to debate, but because they are not true representative of the membership, not give them a vote.

Is there a better way to accomplish this?

The term "non-voting member" always bothers me because it is somewhat of an oxymoron.

[Guest Edgar]

Is there a better way to accomplish this?

Yes, simply invite them to meetings and let them speak. It's best to avoid any "non-voting member" (or worse, "voice without vote") nonsense.

RONR-Land is nicely divided between members and non-members. Keep it simple.

[tctheatc]

Belong to a number of organization which have ex officio non-voting members.

The purpose is they want that person to attend the meeting regularly and be able to report and add comment to debate, but because they are not true representative of the membership, not give them a vote.

Is there a better way to accomplish this?

Well, if they became members they then would be representative of the membership. I certainly agree with Edgar's point, but why not take it even further? If they're gonna walk like ducks and sound like ducks, make them full fledged ducks.

[Rev Ed]

I concur with simply making the person a 'full' member with all rights if that is what you are basically doing. However, you could simply have a statement in the By-laws allowing for ex-officio members, but stating that they have all rights of membership, except the right to vote.

[Guest Edgar]

However, you could simply have a statement in the By-laws allowing for ex-officio members, but stating that they have all rights of membership, except the right to vote.

Except "simply" would then no longer apply.

[Trina]

Belong to a number of organization which have ex officio non-voting members.

The purpose is they want that person to attend the meeting regularly and be able to report and add comment to debate, but because they are not true representative of the membership, not give them a vote.

Is there a better way to accomplish this?

The term "non-voting member" always bothers me because it is somewhat of an oxymoron.

One obvious approach is to set up a separate class of membership, with this particular type of member having all rights except the right to vote (if the organization does indeed want them to have all other rights). You'll want to be clear whether the non-voting people count toward quorum or not.

I'm not sure why 'ex officio' is linked with 'non-voting' in your first sentence... so I'll mention that the two descriptions have no inherent connection at all.

edited to add: Setting up separate classes of membership is done by adding such provisions to the bylaws. If there is a particular person who should always have certain rights by virtue of his position (e.g. the faculty adviser in your post below), that could be written into the bylaws.

If you just want the person holding the position to have certain specified rights, that could be done without making the position-holder a member of any kind.

[rthib]

The ex officio is the reason they are non-voting. They are needed because of the office they hold, not because of the membership elected them,

Examples are:

Faculty Adviser. Required to have one but students do not want them to vote, but do want their wise council in debates.

Elected Official. Political Organization that elects them wants them at meetings to report and listen, but does not want to give them a vote since the organization will decide in next election cycle if they want to support that person or not.

"Yes, simply invite them to meetings and let them speak" That doesn't really work from a RONR as every meeting a motion would need to be passed to allow them to speak. Looking for a more elegant way of doing this.

[Guest Edgar]

The ex officio is the reason they are non-voting.

Oh my.

[Trina]

The ex officio is the reason they are non-voting.

...

Take a look at this FAQ, to clear up confusion about the meaning of 'ex officio' and about the rights of ex officio members.

[g40]

it seems that you are making this more complicated than it needs to be (unless I am missing something)

The purpose is they want that person to attend the meeting regularly and be able to report and add comment to debate, but because they are not true representative of the membership, not give them a vote

A body can allow/invite non-members of that body to speak, report, etc. Or, you could appoint this individual to a committee and the committee could then "report". It is very common that some committee members are not members of the body meeting.

[tctheatc]

"Yes, simply invite them to meetings and let them speak" That doesn't really work from a RONR as every meeting a motion would need to be passed to allow them to speak. Looking for a more elegant way of doing this.

I'm not following why the process of making a motion and voting on it at a meeting is problematic from a RONR perspective. It seems very much in line with RONR.

[rthib]

I'm not following why the process of making a motion and voting on it at a meeting is problematic from a RONR perspective. It seems very much in line with RONR.

It is not problematic from RONR. It is correct. But it is not simple.

The committee ideas is good from a report standpoint, except doesn't solve the debate issue. They could be called on to report, but again a motion would have to made to allow them to participate in debate.

[David A Foulkes]

It is not problematic from RONR. It is correct. But it is not simple.

The committee ideas is good from a report standpoint, except doesn't solve the debate issue. They could be called on to report, but again a motion would have to made to allow them to participate in debate.

Assuming their participation is desired by most if not all, a quick call for unanimous consent won't take up too much time, though. Until then, straighten out this "ex-officio non-voting member" confusion, it doesn't seem like an insurmountable problem.

[Trina]

Couldn't the organization adopt a special rule of order to do what Robert is asking -- for example: "The faculty adviser, although not a member, shall have the following rights at all meetings of the society -- the right to attend, the right to make motions, the right to participate in debate, and the right to make points of order. Any of the rights described in this rule may be suspended by a two-thirds vote."

Wouldn't that accomplish the goal of maintaining the rights beyond the end of the session (something that could not be done simply by suspending the rules to allow the non-member to participate in debate, for example, at a particular meeting)? I'm not sure if the second sentence is necessary, but it would make it clear that the rule could be suspended in whole or in part (if that's what the organization wants).

A standing rule (easier to adopt) doesn't seem appropriate for this particular goal, since this matter doesn't relate to details of administration of the society.

[George Mervosh]

Couldn't the organization adopt a special rule of order to do what Robert is asking -- for example: "The faculty adviser, although not a member, shall have the following rights at all meetings of the society -- the right to attend, the right to make motions, the right to participate in debate, and the right to make points of order. Any of the rights described in this rule may be suspended by a two-thirds vote."

I don't think so. Membership rights find their home within the bylaws.

[Trina]

I don't think so. Membership rights find their home within the bylaws.

That's what I was wondering -- so even if the person is not really a member, with voting rights, there is no way to give someone other member-like rights (rights that last for more than the current session) without amending the bylaws?

[Shmuel Gerber]

Couldn't the organization adopt a special rule of order to do what Robert is asking -- for example: "The faculty adviser, although not a member, shall have the following rights at all meetings of the society -- the right to attend, the right to make motions, the right to participate in debate, and the right to make points of order. Any of the rights described in this rule may be suspended by a two-thirds vote."

Wouldn't that accomplish the goal of maintaining the rights beyond the end of the session (something that could not be done simply by suspending the rules to allow the non-member to participate in debate, for example, at a particular meeting)? I'm not sure if the second sentence is necessary, but it would make it clear that the rule could be suspended in whole or in part (if that's what the organization wants).

A standing rule (easier to adopt) doesn't seem appropriate for this particular goal, since this matter doesn't relate to details of administration of the society.

I don't think so. Membership rights find their home within the bylaws.

There doesn't seem to be a need for conferring any "rights" on these nonmembers. The group (or at least Robert) simply wishes to allow them to participate in the meetings, which I agree could be done by a special rule of order.

Personally, I think this whole idea goes in the wrong direction. Faculty advisers and elected officials should not be entering into debate on equal footing with the members at a meeting. They are important guests, but still guests. Like children in more polite times gone by, they should speak only when spoken to.

[George Mervosh]

There doesn't seem to be a need for conferring any "rights" on these nonmembers. The group (or at least Robert) simply wishes to allow them to participate in the meetings, which I agree could be done by a special rule of order.

So that's not a defacto conferring of rights?

[Dan Honemann]

So that's not a defacto conferring of rights?

No; rights cannot be suspended by simply suspending the rules.

[George Mervosh]

No; rights cannot be suspended by simply suspending the rules.

Of course. It just seems as though the special rule of order was, in fact, conferring them on people.......but if you guys don't think so, ok by me.

[Trina]

If the word 'permission' were used instead of 'right', would that make the rule more palatable?

[Dan Honemann]

If the word 'permission' were used instead of 'right', would that make the rule more palatable?

Not in my book. I think it's a dumb rule no matter what you call it.

[Guest Edgar]

If the word 'permission' were used instead of 'right', would that make the rule more palatable?

I'd certainly sleep a whole lot better.

[Gary Novosielski]

Couldn't the organization adopt a special rule of order to do what Robert is asking -- for example: "The faculty adviser, although not a member, shall have the following rights at all meetings of the society -- the right to attend, the right to make motions, the right to participate in debate, and the right to make points of order. Any of the rights described in this rule may be suspended by a two-thirds vote."

I don't think so. Membership rights find their home within the bylaws.

But the rule specifies that he is "not a member".

[Guest Nancy N.]

But the rule specifies that he is "not a member".

I was going to quibble with Gary Novosielski here, but on a moment's reflection, I decided not to, because I sometimes know what's good for me.

1.