Valid Vote by Unfinancial Board Member

[Guest Mr. Parker]

My fraternity has a seven member board of directors. A vote was taken in October 2012 at the board meeting with the quorum met but with one voting board member absent. So there were six members present. Of the six members present the motion passed by a vote of 4 in favor, 0 against, and 2 abstaining. The motion passed. However, one board member who voted in favor is not a current financial member. When he does pay his dues he will be financial for the entire fraternal year, making his vote valid retroactively, per our Constitution. However should the vote be recorded instead as 3 in favor,0 against, and 2 abstaining? If that were the case, excluding the vote of the unfinancial board member, would the motion still pass? Am I correct in this logic? Please advise.

[Guest Edgar]

However should the vote be recorded instead as 3 in favor,0 against, and 2 abstaining? If that were the case, excluding the vote of the unfinancial board member, would the motion still pass?

You need only record that the motion was adopted. No need to record abstentions and (probably) no need to record the actual count (3-0 after the illegal vote was discarded).

[Weldon Merritt]

So far as RONR is concerned, one is either or a member or not. A member has the right to vote; a non-member does not. Nor is there any such thing in RONR as a "retroactively valid" vote; if a vote was not vaild at the time it was cast, it does not somehow become valid by subsequent action. If by "financial member," you mean one whose dues are current (as I infer), be aware that non-payment of dues does not remove a member's rights, unless the bylaws say so. With all of that said, even if the person is question was not entitled to vote, one vote would not have made a difference in the result. The vote was 4-0 with that vate, or 3-0 without. Either is a majpority vote, so the motion stands as adopted.

[Guest Edgar]

When he does pay his dues he will be financial for the entire fraternal year, making his vote valid retroactively, per our Constitution.

That's one wacky rule you've got there.

Assuming his non-payment of dues made him ineligible to vote (which is not what RONR would say), the vote was 3-0. If you have to record the count in the minutes (and RONR says you probably don't), that's the count. If, once he pays his dues, his illegal vote miraculously becomes legal, amend to minutes to change the vote to 4-0.

Though one might ask why, if he was ineligible to vote, he voted at all. Especially since the motion is adopted either way. And what if it had only been adopted by one vote and he never paid his dues? Would it revert back to the tie it should have been in the first place?