Guest Kadi Posted October 16, 2012 at 12:03 AM Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 at 12:03 AM In the section regarding meetings, the bylaws for our organization stateVoting "by proxy" shall be allowedThis is the only place proxy votes are mentioned. A board member who does not want to attend meetings anymore is claiming that if they have a proxy at the meeting to vote for them, that counts as them having been in attendance. They are doing this so they can avoid attending the meetings, but also avoid a section of the bylaws that states if someone misses 3 meetings in a row they are automatically removed from the Board of Directors.On the flip side, the bylaws stateA quorum of the Board shall be met by the presence of the President, or in the President's absence, the Vice President, and no less than three (3) other Board members.This same board member is arguing that although having a proxy there to vote for them counts as attendance, it does not count towards the quorum requirements.I believe this board member is incorrect in their interpretation on the attendance issue, but correct regarding the quorum.Who is correct, and where should I look in Robert's Rules for this information? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted October 16, 2012 at 12:11 AM Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 at 12:11 AM . . . where should I look in Robert's Rules for this information?See FAQ #10, paying particular attention to the last sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted October 16, 2012 at 12:12 AM Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 at 12:12 AM He is dead wrong. Get him to show you the "rule" that somehow redefines "presence" to include a proxy vote cast by someone who is manifestly NOT present. (He won't be able to, of course, unless it is in your Bylaws.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kadi Posted October 16, 2012 at 12:14 AM Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 at 12:14 AM I read that before I posted, I'm just unclear on if allowing a vote by proxy means the person is considered to be "at the meeting". Or if the bylaws have to specifically state that a person can be "present by proxy" to count towards attendance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted October 16, 2012 at 12:15 AM Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 at 12:15 AM . . . a proxy vote cast by someone who is manifestly NOT present.Well, a proxy vote is actually cast by someone who is present. That's the whole point of proxies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted October 16, 2012 at 12:22 AM Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 at 12:22 AM He is dead wrong. Get him to show you the "rule" that somehow redefines "presence" to include a proxy vote cast by someone who is manifestly NOT present. (He won't be able to, of course, unless it is in your Bylaws.)I don't think anyone would argue that a proxy vote cast by -- meaning, on behalf of -- someone not present constitutes presence. It is the presence, by proxy, of the member that one might think constitutes presence.I'm not saying that it does, but only that if anyone thinks it does, that's probably what he thinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted October 16, 2012 at 12:56 AM Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 at 12:56 AM I don't think anyone would argue that a proxy vote cast by -- meaning, on behalf of -- someone not present constitutes presence.Oh I don't know. Someone who thinks "cast by" means "on behalf of" is likely to think almost anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnR Posted October 16, 2012 at 01:10 AM Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 at 01:10 AM Poor Kadi must be wondering what the heck y'all are talking bout. What we're saying is that someone casting a proxy vote doesn't seem to be equivalent to the member being present. But there is no rule in RONR to answer your question because RONR doesn't allow proxies. So your organization will have to interpret its bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted October 16, 2012 at 01:45 AM Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 at 01:45 AM Oh I don't know. Someone who thinks "cast by" means "on behalf of" is likely to think almost anything.When John Stackpole said it, that's obviously what he meant. You must be just pretending not to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted October 16, 2012 at 07:48 PM Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 at 07:48 PM When John Stackpole said it, that's obviously what he meant. You must be just pretending not to understand.No, I was just expecting his usual precision with language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted October 16, 2012 at 11:13 PM Report Share Posted October 16, 2012 at 11:13 PM I'll have to hold off on responses until after the second cup of morning coffee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kadi Posted October 17, 2012 at 07:51 PM Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 at 07:51 PM Thank you for your responses, sorry about the tiny type in the first post, it didn't copy and paste like that in the posting box :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.