Guest Pat Woodfin Posted January 29, 2015 at 02:37 AM Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 at 02:37 AM Once a meeting has begin and discussion is underway can the President or Chairman recommend certain members abstain for voting on the motion being made from the discussion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted January 29, 2015 at 02:44 AM Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 at 02:44 AM Absolutely not! Who does your chairman think he is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted January 29, 2015 at 02:55 AM Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 at 02:55 AM Once a meeting has begin and discussion is underway can the President or Chairman recommend certain members abstain for voting on the motion being made from the discussion? Absolutely not! Who does your chairman think he is?John, are you sure? I'm not disagreeing, I'm just, well, questioning because I want to be sure, too. I agree that a member cannot be compelled to abstain or refrain from voting on something even when he has a conflict of interest, but RONR says pretty clearly on page 407 that "No member should vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization." Couldn't this be looked at as similar to the situation where the chair wants to enter into debate? RONR says he should relinquish the chair, but he cannot be compelled to relinquish it. Would it be out of order for a member to suggest to a chairman who enters into debate that according to RONR the chair should relinquish the chair if he wants to enter into debate? If making such a request or suggestion to a chairman would be permissible, why wouldn't the same thing apply to the chair suggesting to a member that "it appears you have a conflict or a direct personal interest not in common with the other members on this motion. Would the member consider abstaining from voting on this motion?" Again, I'm not disagreeing or arguing, just questioning. Is it out of order to point out a "should" rule in RONR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pat Woodfin Posted January 29, 2015 at 03:21 AM Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 at 03:21 AM There is no monetary concerns or conflicts. The motion was does the board agree to pay more money for insurance so some of the members can go to an overnight conference. Those who care about going have a different thought than those who have no interest in going. The chairman told those who wanted to go were being selfish and should abstain from voting. I don't have a problem with something being said prior to the discussion beginning, but not after it has been going on for awhile. The chair did compel not to vote which is against the rules which I see now. I am thinking that a consequence needs to be put in place in our organization for such behavior. Pat Woodfin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 29, 2015 at 03:32 AM Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 at 03:32 AM John, are you sure? I'm not disagreeing, I'm just, well, questioning because I want to be sure, too.I agree that a member cannot be compelled to abstain or refrain from voting on something even when he has a conflict of interest, but RONR says pretty clearly on page 407 that "No member should vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization." Couldn't this be looked at as similar to the situation where the chair wants to enter into debate? RONR says he should relinquish the chair, but he cannot be compelled to relinquish it. Would it be out of order for a member to suggest to a chairman who enters into debate that according to RONR the chair should relinquish the chair if he wants to enter into debate?If making such a request or suggestion to a chairman would be permissible, why wouldn't the same thing apply to the chair suggesting to a member that "it appears you have a conflict or a direct personal interest not in common with the other members on this motion. Would the member consider abstaining from voting on this motion?"Again, I'm not disagreeing or arguing, just questioning. Is it out of order to point out a "should" rule in RONR?It is certainly in order to point out that the chairman should relinquish the chair in order to speak in debate. As for the latter issue, I do not think it violates any rule to point out that members should abstain from voting if they have a personal or pecuniary interest not in common with other members, but to suggest that a particular member has such an interest, and should therefore abstain, strikes me as an inappropriate remark. Whether a member is currently presiding is a very clear question of fact. Suggesting that a member has a personal or pecuniary interest, however, seems to be close to questioning the member's motives, which is indecorous.There is no monetary concerns or conflicts. The motion was does the board agree to pay more money for insurance so some of the members can go to an overnight conference. Those who care about going have a different thought than those who have no interest in going. The chairman told those who wanted to go were being selfish and should abstain from voting. I don't have a problem with something being said prior to the discussion beginning, but not after it has been going on for awhile. The chair did compel not to vote which is against the rules which I see now. I am thinking that a consequence needs to be put in place in our organization for such behavior.I'm a little confused about what exactly happened. You suggest at times that the chairman actually ordered or compelled members not to vote, and at other times, that he merely recommended that they should not vote. If the chairman actually prevented members from voting, such as by refusing to count the members' votes in the result, then this is a much more serious issue.If the chair merely suggested that the board members should abstain, this is somewhat less serious, but still highly improper in my opinion. The fact that the chair accused the members who wished to go of being selfish is a clear violation of decorum.I'm not sure what sort of consequence you had in mind, but see FAQ #20 for one option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted January 29, 2015 at 03:54 AM Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 at 03:54 AM Thanks, Josh. Well said. I agree. Perhaps this language from the bottom of page 407 and the top of 408 re voting on questions affecting oneself will help guest Pat Woodfin to better understand this: "VOTING ON QUESTIONS AFFECTING ONESELF. The rule on abstaining from voting on a question of direct personal interest does not mean that a member should not vote for himself for an office or other position to which [page 408] members generally are eligible, or should not vote when other members are included with him in a motion. If a member never voted on a question affecting himself, it would be impossible for a society to vote to hold a banquet, or for the majority to prevent a small minority from preferring charges against them and suspending or expelling them (61, 63)." It appears that the motion was to pay for additional insurance so some members could go to a conference. Since adoption of the motion (apparently) would have benefited several members, it was perfectly permissible for those members to vote on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 29, 2015 at 05:17 PM Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 at 05:17 PM There is no monetary concerns or conflicts. The motion was does the board agree to pay more money for insurance so some of the members can go to an overnight conference. Those who care about going have a different thought than those who have no interest in going. The chairman told those who wanted to go were being selfish and should abstain from voting. I don't have a problem with something being said prior to the discussion beginning, but not after it has been going on for awhile. The chair did compel not to vote which is against the rules which I see now. I am thinking that a consequence needs to be put in place in our organization for such behavior.Pat Woodfin That's bogus. People going or not going have an equal right to vote. The chair acted improperly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.