mbillard Posted February 17, 2015 at 05:49 PM Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 at 05:49 PM Building from some of the comments made in the original Determination of a Quorum thread, I have a couple more questions regarding membership, voting, etc. Let's say an organization has two classes of members defined in its bylaws, with one of them being specifically categorized as non-voting members. Not worrying so much about the interpretation of those particular bylaws, but speaking more in the spirit of the rules, if a member is defined by RONR as one who has the full complement of rights, would the restriction of any one of those rights restrict all of them? Or are they severable? For instance, in the previous thread, the individuals who are restricted from voting on particular motions, are they also thereby restricted from making motions, entering into debate, etc., on those specific motions? And more broadly, would an individual who falls into a class of non-voting members have the right to make any motions and enter into any debate on anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted February 17, 2015 at 06:43 PM Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 at 06:43 PM . . . if a member is defined by RONR as one who has the full complement of rights, would the restriction of any one of those rights restrict all of them? Generally, the removal of one right leaves the others intact. So a member without the right to vote would still have the right to attend, make motions, and speak in debate. Obviously, if the right to attend is the right that's removed, the other rights could not be exercised. See the footnote on p.6 with particular attention to the last sentence. It may not be directly applicable but I think it's analogous. Finally, I would remind of this from the thread you cited: Once the bylaws start messing around with the basic rights of membership, the organization itself should determine the consequences of doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 17, 2015 at 07:20 PM Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 at 07:20 PM Building from some of the comments made in the original Determination of a Quorum thread, I have a couple more questions regarding membership, voting, etc. Let's say an organization has two classes of members defined in its bylaws, with one of them being specifically categorized as non-voting members. Not worrying so much about the interpretation of those particular bylaws, but speaking more in the spirit of the rules, if a member is defined by RONR as one who has the full complement of rights, would the restriction of any one of those rights restrict all of them? Or are they severable? For instance, in the previous thread, the individuals who are restricted from voting on particular motions, are they also thereby restricted from making motions, entering into debate, etc., on those specific motions? And more broadly, would an individual who falls into a class of non-voting members have the right to make any motions and enter into any debate on anything?A separate class of members which lacks the right to vote may or may not have some or all of the other rights of membership, depending on how the bylaws are worded. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation. In particular, I believe Principles of Interpretation #4 and #8 will be of great assistance for a society in answering this question.You also ask about members who generally have all the rights of membership, but are deprived of their right to vote on particular motions. While it will still be necessary to review the bylaws for a definitive answer, I believe that, generally speaking, such a member would retain his rights to make motions and speak in debate. When an entirely separate class of membership exists, there is some doubt about what rights that class of members has to begin with. If it is already clear that the members start with all the rights of membership, however, then it seems clear to me that they retain the other rights of membership if they lose one right, based upon Principle of Interpretation #4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transpower Posted February 18, 2015 at 02:10 PM Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 at 02:10 PM In my opinion, non-voting members would not have the right to make motions or to debate them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 18, 2015 at 02:17 PM Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 at 02:17 PM In my opinion, non-voting members would not have the right to make motions or to debate them.You can say this without knowing anything about what the bylaws provide regarding non-voting members? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted February 18, 2015 at 02:37 PM Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 at 02:37 PM In my opinion, non-voting members would not have the right to make motions or to debate them. Why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Coronite Posted February 18, 2015 at 04:07 PM Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 at 04:07 PM If not being able to vote removes (automatically) the right to debate and make motions, why not the right to attend, also? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transpower Posted February 18, 2015 at 10:27 PM Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 at 10:27 PM Attendance of nonmembers (and presumably, non-voters) is at the pleasure of the assembly or board. Also, from RONR (11th ed.), p. 263, footnote: "...the rules may be suspended to allow a nonmember to speak in debate." So, suspend the rules.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted February 18, 2015 at 10:28 PM Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 at 10:28 PM Attendance of non-members (and presumably, non-voters) is at the pleasure of the assembly or board. That's quite a presumption considering the fact that these "non-voters" are members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted February 18, 2015 at 10:31 PM Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 at 10:31 PM Attendance of non-members (and presumably, non-voters) is at the pleasure of the assembly or board.I disagree that attendance of members who are non-voters is at the pleasure of the assembly or the board. I do agree with Edgar Guest, Josh Martin and 1st Church. The people at issue ARE MEMBERS. They are just non-voting members. Unless the bylaws specify that they lose other rights in addition to the right to vote, they may participate as fully as other members with the exception of voting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transpower Posted February 18, 2015 at 11:33 PM Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 at 11:33 PM If they are members but non-voters on particular topics, it seems to me then that they would not be able to make motions or debate on these topics, unless the rules are suspended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 18, 2015 at 11:35 PM Report Share Posted February 18, 2015 at 11:35 PM Attendance of nonmembers (and presumably, non-voters) is at the pleasure of the assembly or board. Also, from RONR (11th ed.), p. 263, footnote: "...the rules may be suspended to allow a nonmember to speak in debate." So, suspend the rules....It seems a bit strange to suggest that a person who is accorded the status of "non-voting member" by an organization's bylaws is no different from someone who is not a member of the assembly at all.I disagree that attendance of members who are non-voters is at the pleasure of the assembly or the board.I do agree with Edgar Guest, Josh Martin and 1st Church. The people at issue ARE MEMBERS. They are just non-voting members. Unless the bylaws specify that they lose other rights in addition to the right to vote, they may participate as fully as other members with the exception of voting.Well, while I think it certainly goes too far to suggest that non-voting members have no rights (especially without any knowledge of what the bylaws say), I think it also goes too far to say that non-voting members always have all the rights of membership (except for voting), unless the bylaws specifically provide otherwise.As I have noted previously, interpreting this question will require a careful review of an organization's bylaws. The Principles of Interpretation in RONR may be of assistance in this regard. In particular, Principles of Interpretations #4 and #8 should be especially helpful. Most regulars on this forum turn immediately to POI #4, but then neglect what is said in POI #8.If they are members but non-voters on particular topics, it seems to me then that they would not be able to make motions or debate on these topics, unless the rules are suspended.If members generally have all the rights of membership, I disagree that depriving them of the right to vote would automatically deprive them of the rights to make motions and speak in debate. Principle of Interpretation #4 would suggest that they are deprived of only the right to vote, unless the bylaws provide otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted February 19, 2015 at 03:16 PM Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 at 03:16 PM If they are members but non-voters on particular topics, it seems to me then that they would not be able to make motions or debate on these topics, unless the rules are suspended.Is this based upon something contained in RONR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transpower Posted February 19, 2015 at 03:25 PM Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 at 03:25 PM Josh, Gary: You could very well be right. However, take a look at RONR (11th ed.), p. 591, ll. 11-14 in regard to bylaws interpretation: "In cases where the bylaws use a general term and also two or more specific terms that are wholly included under the general one, a rule in which only the general term is used applies to all the specific terms." It seems to me that voting is more "general" than making a motion or debating, so if voting is banned on a certain topic, then so is making a motion or debating. But it is a bit nebulous. I think that what would most likely happen is that a non-voting member would give a proposed motion to a voting member, who would then make the motion and debate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted February 19, 2015 at 03:32 PM Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 at 03:32 PM It seems to me that voting is more "general" than making a motion or debating . . . Really? Isn't that like saying an apple is more "general" than an orange? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Coronite Posted February 19, 2015 at 04:49 PM Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 at 04:49 PM As associate pastor in my church, I am an ex-officio member of all committees and boards without the right to vote. FWIW (not much, I know) I consider principle of interpretation #6 on page 590 to be compelling in regards to this discussion. Our bylaws prohibit me from voting, and I believe that prohibition prohibits anything greater (can't think of anything) but permits lesser or things in the same class but not mentioned in the prohibition. I can't cite anything specific, but it seems to me voting is greater than debating or making motions. I suppose I think this because a non-member can be given permission to speak, but not vote. Giving the latter would go too far, so it must be greater. But more so, I consider debating, making motions, and voting to be in the same class of rights of members. So if the prohibition in our bylaws prohibits me from voting and says nothing of debate or making motions, I can do those two. That's my story and I'm sticking with it. the senior pastor (same bylaw restriction) had always operated under the assumption he could not make a motion, but could debate. So who knows? To assert that voting is more general than making a motion or debating, or to equate non-voters with non-members simply misses the mark. Or am I all wet regarding how I see principle #6? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted February 19, 2015 at 04:57 PM Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 at 04:57 PM I don't know that I'm basing my interpretation on principle No 6 on page 590, but I believe, as I believe all of us except Transponder transpower do, that a member who does not have the right to vote does have all other rights of membership unless those other rights are also restricted. I believe it would take a pretty clear declaration in the bylaws for a member to lose more than just the right to vote. Edited to change "Transponder" to "Transpower". I had a dream last night that I was flying and my plane was hijacked and I set my transponder to the "Hijack" code of 7500. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Coronite Posted February 19, 2015 at 05:01 PM Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 at 05:01 PM No, I'm basing my opinion on #6. I apologize if that wasn't clear. I only mention it because in others' opinions, #4 & 8 were mentioned as illuminating, but not 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 19, 2015 at 07:26 PM Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 at 07:26 PM Josh, Gary: You could very well be right. However, take a look at RONR (11th ed.), p. 591, ll. 11-14 in regard to bylaws interpretation: "In cases where the bylaws use a general term and also two or more specific terms that are wholly included under the general one, a rule in which only the general term is used applies to all the specific terms." It seems to me that voting is more "general" than making a motion or debating, so if voting is banned on a certain topic, then so is making a motion or debating. But it is a bit nebulous. I think that what would most likely happen is that a non-voting member would give a proposed motion to a voting member, who would then make the motion and debate it.I don't follow how making motions and speaking in debate are "wholly included under" voting.I don't know that I'm basing my interpretation on principle No 6 on page 590, but I believe, as I believe all of us except Transponder transpower do, that a member who does not have the right to vote does have all other rights of membership unless those other rights are also restricted. I believe it would take a pretty clear declaration in the bylaws for a member to lose more than just the right to vote.My own views on this subject are more nuanced, as I have tried to explain a few times. No, I'm basing my opinion on #6. I apologize if that wasn't clear. I only mention it because in others' opinions, #4 & 8 were mentioned as illuminating, but not 6.Yes, upon further reflection, it seems that POI #6 may be more apt here than POI #4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transpower Posted February 19, 2015 at 08:28 PM Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 at 08:28 PM In the index to RONR (11th ed.), p. 688, under "fundamental principles of parliamentary law" there is an item for "one person, one vote" but not for making motions or debate. It seems therefore that the right to vote is therefore "higher" or "more general" than making a motion or debating. But, yes, it's a bit nebulous. If I were the parliamentarian at a meeting at which a non-voting member were present who wanted to make a motion, I would suggest to the chair to ask for a suspension of the rules by unanimous consent to allow the person to proceed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 19, 2015 at 11:47 PM Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 at 11:47 PM In the index to RONR (11th ed.), p. 688, under "fundamental principles of parliamentary law" there is an item for "one person, one vote" but not for making motions or debate. It seems therefore that the right to vote is therefore "higher" or "more general" than making a motion or debating. But, yes, it's a bit nebulous. If I were the parliamentarian at a meeting at which a non-voting member were present who wanted to make a motion, I would suggest to the chair to ask for a suspension of the rules by unanimous consent to allow the person to proceed."Higher" and "more general" are synonyms now? So is "President" a more general term compared to the more specific "Vice President?"It seems to me that voting, making motions, and speaking in debate are equally specific terms included under the general term of "rights of membership." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.