Majority of all members - do "non-voting" members count?

[John Edwards]

As assembly I serve has 22 members overall. 19 of them are elected by the membership (or portions thereof), and three are appointed. The three appointees are listed in the bylaws as "non-voting". The practice as I have seen is that they hold all other rights of membership, other than the right to vote.

Absent any other provisions, what is a majority of all members: is it 12 (of 22), or is it 10 (of 19)?

Also absent any other provisions, do the non-voting members count in determining whether a quorum is present?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

RONR does not address "non-voting members". It is up to your organization to determine how they affect whether a quorum is present.

[Richard Brown]

Your question has been the subject of some recent discussions (and disagreement) in this forum.  However, it is ultimately up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws.

Here is the RONR definition of a "member" from page 3 that you might find helpful:

"A member of an assembly, in the parliamentary sense, as mentioned above, is a person entitled to full participation in its proceedings, that is, as explained in 3 and 4, the right to attend meetings, to make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote. No member can be individually deprived of these basic rights of membership—or of any basic rights concomitant to them, such as the right to make nominations or to give previous notice of a motion—except through disciplinary proceedings. Some organized societies define additional classes of "membership" that do not entail all of these rights. Whenever the term member is used in this book, it refers to full participating membership in the assembly unless otherwise specified. Such members are also described as "voting members" when it is necessary to make a distinction. "

[Kim Goldsworthy]

31 minutes ago, John Edwards said:

As assembly I serve has 22 members overall.

19 of them are elected by the membership (or portions thereof), and three are appointed.

The three appointees are listed in the bylaws as "non-voting". 

The practice as I have seen is that they hold all other rights of membership, other than the right to vote.

Absent any other provisions, what is a majority of all members: is it 12 (of 22), or is it 10 (of 19)?

Also absent any other provisions, do the non-voting members count in determining whether a quorum is present?

Members who cannot vote are NOT to be counted toward the quorum requirement.

[See Parliamentary Law, Question #287.]

[Dan Honemann]

2 minutes ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

Members who cannot vote are NOT to be counted toward the quorum requirement.

Well, at least we've got this right. 

[John Edwards]

5 minutes ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

Members who cannot vote are NOT to be counted toward the quorum requirement.

[See Parliamentary Law, Question #287.]

Thanks for all the responses. If it is up to the organization, then that's fine. I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't a "common-law" standard before I advise them on how to proceed, should this come up.

Does PL mention the MEM question, at all?

[Dan Honemann]

6 minutes ago, John Edwards said:

Thanks for all the responses. If it is up to the organization, then that's fine. I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't a "common-law" standard before I advise them on how to proceed, should this come up.

The rule that persons not entitled to vote are not to be counted in determining the presence of a quorum is common parliamentary law.

[George Mervosh]

43 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Your question has been the subject of some recent discussions (and disagreement) in this forum.  However, it is ultimately up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws.

It has?  I don't recall one thread where anyone has suggested the mythical creature - a "non-voting member" - counts toward a quorum.

[g40]

If you counted non-voting members in a vote requiring a majority of members, then if you had a lot of non-voting members, you could end up in a situation where it would be very difficult, if not impossible to ever pass such a motion. So, for example, if you had 11 voting members and 10 non-voting members, if you counted non-voting members, you would need 11 votes to pass such a motion. If you had 11 non-voting members and 10 voting members, passing such a motion would be impossible. [UNLESS and until some of the non-voting members ceased being members]

[Kim Goldsworthy]

P.S. to my post.

• I found no equivalent statement in the 11th Edition. (My citation was from PL, a 1923 work.)

I would appreciate it if someone could dig up a true RONR Eleventh Edition citation.

If there is no such statement, then the 12th Edition has got to get one, please.

[George Mervosh]

10 minutes ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

P.S. to my post.

• I found no equivalent statement in the 11th Edition. (My citation was from PL, a 1923 work.)

I would appreciate it if someone could dig up a true RONR Eleventh Edition citation.

If there is no such statement, then the 12th Edition has got to get one, please.

KG, why isn't p.345, ll. 3-5 crystal clear, especially since it takes the extra step of referring you back to p. 3 to precisely define what the passages mean when it says "members"?

[jstackpo]

FWIMBW, the 9th edition had it right:  "a quorum ... is the number of members entitled to vote who must be present..."

Subsequently, the A-Team struck out "entitled to vote" and generated sixteen years of confusion.

[Dan Honemann]

1 hour ago, jstackpo said:

FWIMBW, the 9th edition had it right:  "a quorum ... is the number of members entitled to vote who must be present..."

Subsequently, the A-Team struck out "entitled to vote" and generated sixteen years of confusion.

The confusion being experienced only by those who require redundancy for clarity.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

2 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

KG, why isn't p.345, ll. 3-5 crystal clear, especially since it takes the extra step of referring you back to p. 3 to precisely define what the passages mean when it says "members"?

GM,

Page 345 is not clear because page 345 does not say how to count, if at all, the CLASSES of members, some classes of which have crippled rights, when and if such crippled-rights class members sit on board and committees.

See page 3.

Page 3 lists six rights of members, as RONR uses the term. Call such members "R6" members.

(Namely, (1.) to attend meetings; (2.) to make motions; (3.) to speak in debate; (4.) to vote; (5.) to make nominations; (6.) to give previous notice.)

***

Hypothetical.

• Assume the board puts a consultant on a standing committee

(perhaps a parliamentarian, perhaps a legal counsel, perhaps an accountant)

who is NOT a member of the organization,

and the board expressly says that the consultant has NO vote in that committee,

but retain all other rights of a committeeship.

The question arises: "Is the consultant a member of the committee?"

If the consultant is considered a "member" of the committee, then the question arises,

Q1. "Does the consultant count toward the quorum of the committee?"

Q2. "Does the consultant have the right to attend executive sessions of the body to which he was appointed?"

Q3. "If the consultant is not a 'member' in the R6 sense of RONR page 3, then what noun or adjective is the consultant?

Q4. "If the consultant cannot vote, then what other rights are concomitantly crippled?"

***

 

 

 

 

 

[Dan Honemann]

This last post appears to me to be a rather good example of the confusion experienced by someone who requires redundancy for clarity.

[George Mervosh]

1 hour ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

The question arises: "Is the consultant a member of the committee?"

If the consultant is considered a "member" of the committee, then the question arises,

Q1. "Does the consultant count toward the quorum of the committee?"

Q2. "Does the consultant have the right to attend executive sessions of the body to which he was appointed?"

Q3. "If the consultant is not a 'member' in the R6 sense of RONR page 3, then what noun or adjective is the consultant?

Q4. "If the consultant cannot vote, then what other rights are concomitantly crippled?"

***

If the consultant has no right to vote, he is not considered a member as defined in RONR.

A1 - No

A2 - Not under the rule in RONR (but this horse was beaten dead in a different thread)

A3 - Make up a name - Wilma?  Oh, and you're best to stick with R4, the other 2 examples naturally accompany the main 4 rights and the words "such as"suggest there could be more.

A4 - RONR doesn't say, it didn't create and does not define this made up non-voting creature (Wilma).

[Guest Nancy N.]

9 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

...   A3 - Make up a name - Wilma?  ...

A4 --  this made up non-voting creature (Wilma).

"Wilma" won't do, George, it's already taken.  Mr. Honemann coined it a few years back, I think contrasting it to "Fred," another nameless breed of  teratological special rules.

___________

N. B.  I meant "teratological" in the positive sense.