Who can Vote?

[Guest Laura Rubio]

Our By-Laws reads "The quorum for a regular and special business meeting shall be 1/3 of the active members of the Church...."  My question is, what does "active" mean? We have members who only attend the Sunday morning service.  Rarely attend Sunday and Wednesday evening services, much less business meetings. We have a very important business meeting coming up. Should these members be invited and will their vote count?

[Edgar Guest]

My question is, what does "active" mean?

 

It's a good question but I'm afraid you won't find the answer in RONR or, therefore, on this forum.

 

Or, as one of the regulars on this forum used to say, "they're your bylaws; you tell us".

 

You might want to err on the side of caution and let all members vote. That's the RONR rule. Otherwise you might not only want them to attend more than one service each week to be considered "active", you might want them to sing in the choir. Loudly. And on key. And I wouldn't be surprised if some of those who attend all three services each week aren't sleeping through most some of them. Are they "active"? And what about those who leave five minutes after the service begins? Or arrive five minutes before it ends?

 

Do you really want to try to determine how active a member is?

[jstackpo]

Church I worked for as a parliamentarian once defined "active" as regularly using the collection plate envelopes.

(With a little something in them, of course.)

[Richard Brown]

Our By-Laws reads "The quorum for a regular and special business meeting shall be 1/3 of the active members of the Church...." 

 

Do you really want to try to determine how active a member is?

 

 

I imagine the original poster does not want to have determine how active a member must be in order to be considered an "active member", but she seems to be stuck with the bylaws that require her (or someone....the assembly?) to determine what it takes.

 

This seems to be a classic example of having to interpret the bylaws, which is something only the church can do (or whichever of the members are deemed active enough even to vote on interpreting the bylaws). 

 

Methinks it would be nice to amend that bylaw provision....if they can decide who is entitled to vote on the change. 

 

In the meantime, the safest course of action might be to allow all members who show up for the meeting to vote, but the downside of that interpretation is that it may not be possible to obtain a quorum if they consider all members to be active members.  

 

The question at issue is "which members should be counted in determining the number required for a quorum", not "who is entitled to vote?", although the answers might be the same.  If there is an objection that some of those present aren't "active members" and therefore can't vote, well, somebody (or some group of members) must determine whether the point of order is well taken.  Yeah, it's a vicious circle.

 

I will add that if I attend the Sunday morning worship service pretty regularly,  I would consider myself an active member of the church.  I would  not  be pleased with someone telling  me that "that's not active enough" for me to have a say in church affairs.  I would probably start looking for a new church.

 

Good luck!  I think you and the church members (the "active" ones??) must determine what that bylaw provision means.

[Edgar Guest]

I imagine the original poster does not want to have determine how active a member must be in order to be considered an "active member" . . .

 

I agree. That's why she's asking us.

 

But, like Pilate, I'm washing my hands of this question.

[Josh Martin]

Our By-Laws reads "The quorum for a regular and special business meeting shall be 1/3 of the active members of the Church...."  My question is, what does "active" mean? We have members who only attend the Sunday morning service.  Rarely attend Sunday and Wednesday evening services, much less business meetings. We have a very important business meeting coming up. Should these members be invited and will their vote count?

 

What "active" means is, as noted, up to your organization to determine.

 

I would note, however, that I don't see the link between the quoted portion of the bylaws and the questions you ask. The fact that some members may not be counted in determining whether a quorum is present does not necessarily mean that those members should not be invited or that their votes will not count. So unless there is something else in your bylaws which discusses "active" members in those connections, I quite agree with Edgar that all members should be invited and the votes of all members count.

[Gary Novosielski]

Yes, it would be somewhat hypocritical not to invite someone to a meeting because they are not "active", while also defining "activity" in terms of attendance at meetings.

 

You can't expect someone to show up at a meeting that they have not been informed of.  In fact, if there are members who have the right to attend, but who have not been provided proper notice of the meeting, it may call into question the validity of any business transacted at that meeting, and worst-case could render it all null and void.

 

Invite all "members".

[Richard Brown]

Although definitely related, I think that we may losing sight that Guest Laura's question was actually two-fold.  Her first question actually has to do with who is considered an active member in terms of satisfying their peculiarly worded quorum requirement.  

 

According to her post, their bylaws say:  "The quorum for a regular and special business meeting shall be 1/3 of the active members of the Church...."  My question is, what does "active" mean?"

 

Her second question is, essentially, who should be invited and who can vote?  I see the quorum question as somewhat separate from the other one.  I see no harm in inviting everyone and doing so is probably a good idea.  But the quorum issue still has to be dealt with.  It says what it says whether we like it or not.

 

I'm having to read a bit between the lines here, but I think one of Guest Laura's concerns is that if all members are considered active members, it may be impossible to obtain a quorum.  But, since Guest Laura didn't say so, I have only my gut feeling to base that on.   I do agree that the quorum provision is poorly drafted and that the safest course of action, if it doesn't result in the inability to obtain a quorum, may to invite all members and to consider all members as active members. 

 

I still  think, though, in the end, that it is up to Guest Laura's church to interpret that bylaw provision and to decide who the active members are and that our opinions are just our opinions and don't count.

 

Edited to add:  Guest Laura, what do your bylaws say about which members notices of special meletings shall be sent to?  All members?  Active members?   Some other criteria?   What is the custom?

[Timothy]

Yes, it would be somewhat hypocritical not to invite someone to a meeting because they are not "active", while also defining "activity" in terms of attendance at meetings.

 

You can't expect someone to show up at a meeting that they have not been informed of.  In fact, if there are members who have the right to attend, but who have not been provided proper notice of the meeting, it may call into question the validity of any business transacted at that meeting, and worst-case could render it all null and void.

 

Invite all "members".

 

Generally, churches define "active" based on things like whether they attend worship services or not, rather than whether they attend a business meeting. Of course, it is debatable whether a person who just attends worship services and isn't involved in the actual work of the church is "active." Any guest off the street can attend worship services. But how the church defines "active" is something for them to decide and hopefully document in their bylaws.

[Laura Meade]

This citation from RONR supports what several poster have said, and might be helpful:  "In organizations such as many churches or some societies in which there are no required or effective annual dues and the register of members is not generally reliable as a list of the bona-fide members, the quorum at any regular or properly called meeting consists of those who attend." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 346, ll. 1-5)

[Josh Martin]

This citation from RONR supports what several poster have said, and might be helpful:  "In organizations such as many churches or some societies in which there are no required or effective annual dues and the register of members is not generally reliable as a list of the bona-fide members, the quorum at any regular or properly called meeting consists of those who attend." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 346, ll. 1-5)

 

That doesn't help here. It only applies if the bylaws do not define a quorum requirement (look at the bottom of pg. 345).