Conflict of motion with regard to voting rights of members

[Betty Heim]

now a proposed bylaw change is being considered and up for a vote next meeting.

It states "No Club Officer may engage in a for-profit business arrangement with the club."

"Any Club Officer who is employed by, or is an immediate relative of, a person or company which has a for-profit business arrangement, or with whom such a business arrangement I'd proposed, will recuse themselves from any discussion of or vote concerning that business arrangement or proposed business arrangement."

"No member who has a for-profit business arrangement with the club, or is the immediate relative of a person who has a business arrangement, or is employed by a person or company who has such a business arrangement, will be eligible to run for election to a club office."

i want to know if this proposed change conflicts with Roberts Rules of order? 

Under current bylaws any member with one year of membership is able to run for office. This change is proposed to prevent certain members from running for office and I believe infringes on the rights of all members to vote on all matters.

I would appreciate any help or suggestions and a speedy response would be appreciated as a this will be up for a vote  soon.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

It is up to your organization to decide what to put in its bylaws. If you don't like this change, debate and vote against it.

[Richard Brown]

Agreeing with Mr. Huynh, it doesn't matter if a proposed by law change conflicts with any rules in RONR because your own bylaws are superior and take priority. Your bylaws trump any contrary Provisions in RONR. 

[Gary Novosielski]

13 hours ago, Betty Heim said:

i want to know if this proposed change conflicts with Roberts Rules of order? 

Under current bylaws any member with one year of membership is able to run for office. This change is proposed to prevent certain members from running for office and I believe infringes on the rights of all members to vote on all matters.

I would appreciate any help or suggestions and a speedy response would be appreciated as a this will be up for a vote soon.

3

Yes, that does conflict with RONR, but the bylaws supersede any rules in RONR with which they conflict, so that's not a basis for objecting to the language. Your current bylaws already conflict with RONR, which has no one-year requirement, but your bylaws take precedence.

That's the answer to your question.  What's below is just my opinion, which, as I am not a member of your society, is free advice--and worth every penny:

You could certainly argue against this proposal on the merits.  There's no question that it restricts the rights of members to vote for candidates of their choice even more than your bylaws already do.  You could argue that if members believe that a given candidate has business ties that would present a conflict of interest, they are free not to vote for that candidate.  You could offer an amendment to this proposal such that a candidate for office with such a potential conflict must ensure that the relationship is revealed prior to the election, rather than being automatically disqualifying.

It is not uncommon for bylaws, especially for elected public bodies, to exclude from membership anyone who is a party to a contract with the body, or a party to a lawsuit against the body. The language of your proposal seems somewhat vague.  Have you defined "immediate" relative somewhere else?  Is a brother immediate?  Is a brother-in-law?  Is an estranged spouse, living in another state?

[Betty Heim]

The proposed bylaw change was drafted by an officer who wishes to prevent another officer from running for re-election.  Since the language affects members voting an all matters before the assembly, I needed confirmation that it violates Roberts Rules.  Also in the current bylaws Article V: meetings 5.5  "Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised shall take precedence in any question on procedure on points of order not covered in these bylaws."

also Article III membership  3.6 Voting - "Each annual, life, and spouse member will be entitled to one vote on each matter submitted to a vote by the membership."

now this new proposed bylaw change is to be added (if ratified by 2/3's of the membership) as Article XIII Conflict of Interest.  This leaves 3.6 Voting still in tact, and leaves  Article VII Election of officers 8.3 Qualifications for office  -"Any member nominated for office in the club must been a member for at least twelve months prior to the December election......."

i think there are too many conflicts between what is currently in the bylaws and the proposed addition/change.

i was thinking on pointing out these conflicts during debate and afterwards move to postpone indefinitely.  Any other suggestions?

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

I don't see the problem. The proposed change restricts voting and running for office under particular circumstances, which will obviously be an exception to the existing provisions.

[Atul Kapur]

It is clear that you do not like this proposed amendment. You are perfectly free to argue against it in debate.

However, you cannot validly state that it is in violation of RONR because the bylaws supercede RONR, as has been posted earlier on this thread and as specifically stated in article 5.5 of your bylaws as quoted by yourself.

It seems clear to me that the proposed amendment is an example of the situation where the specific (having a contract with the club) supersedes the general statements you have quoted above.

[Betty Heim]

I read somewhere that RONR - there is a rule that when a motion conflicts with a constitution, rule or bylaw that it is null and void.

getting back to previous posts, current bylaws permit members to run for office who have been members for at least a year.  It also permits all members the right to vote on all matters. For voting rights it is consistent with Roberts Rules.

now the addition  or proposed change conflicts with these rights as I see it.  How can a bylaw have two different rules that conflict each other. Which do you follow?  

The new proposed change is to be placed at the end of the bylaws.  The previous  rights ARE NOT being removed.

i would think if this proposed change is rarified and put into the bylaws it would create a nightmare.

my question - page 16 of Roberts Rules  - Newly Revised  11th edition does address this. But the wording is such only a lawyer can understand it.

I think I am right that you cannot restrict voting rights.  Page 407 of Roberts Rules one person one vote - it is a fundamental principal of preliminary law that each person who is a member of a deliberative assembly is entitled to one vote and only one vote on a question.

Also if the vote accepts this change - where can I appeal it?  Where does one go to have it resolved? What recourse is there?

 

[Dan Honemann]

16 minutes ago, Betty Heim said:

my question - page 16 of Roberts Rules  - Newly Revised  11th edition does address this. But the wording is such only a lawyer can understand it.

Nothing at all on page 16 of RONR (11th ed.) is relevant to the questions you have raised.

22 minutes ago, Betty Heim said:

I think I am right that you cannot restrict voting rights.  Page 407 of Roberts Rules one person one vote - it is a fundamental principal of preliminary law that each person who is a member of a deliberative assembly is entitled to one vote and only one vote on a question.

As has previously been noted, bylaw provisions may be adopted that restrict voting rights. 

27 minutes ago, Betty Heim said:

Also if the vote accepts this change - where can I appeal it?  Where does one go to have it resolved? What recourse is there?

You can, at any time in the future, propose the adoption of a bylaw amendment which will effectively remove any provision in the bylaws which you find improper or undesirable. 

[Joshua Katz]

56 minutes ago, Betty Heim said:

I read somewhere that RONR - there is a rule that when a motion conflicts with a constitution, rule or bylaw that it is null and void.

 

When it conflicts with an applicable procedural law, the organization's constitution, or the bylaws.

56 minutes ago, Betty Heim said:

now the addition  or proposed change conflicts with these rights as I see it.  How can a bylaw have two different rules that conflict each other. Which do you follow?  

 

If your organization were to introduce conflicting provisions into its bylaws, the most specific rule applicable to any given situation would prevail. However, if it is a change, there is no conflict. In other words, if someone wants to propose an amendment that modifies voting rights, he should do so in such a manner that it also eliminates any conflicting provisions. If that is not done, you apply the rules of interpretation. (But, keep in mind, you say here "as I see it." That is important, because it could be that the organization's majority sees it differently and doesn't see a conflict at all.

56 minutes ago, Betty Heim said:

 The new proposed change is to be placed at the end of the bylaws.  The previous  rights ARE NOT being removed.

 

This is either a mistake by the drafter, or an expression of the belief that they do not conflict. In either case, your remedy is to argue in debate against passage, rather than any point of order.

56 minutes ago, Betty Heim said:

 i would think if this proposed change is rarified and put into the bylaws it would create a nightmare.

 

You should argue against it in debate.

56 minutes ago, Betty Heim said:

 my question - page 16 of Roberts Rules  - Newly Revised  11th edition does address this. But the wording is such only a lawyer can understand it.

 

Lawyers are not generally known for being good at parliamentary procedure, to be honest.

56 minutes ago, Betty Heim said:

 I think I am right that you cannot restrict voting rights.  Page 407 of Roberts Rules one person one vote - it is a fundamental principal of preliminary law that each person who is a member of a deliberative assembly is entitled to one vote and only one vote on a question.

 

As you cited earlier in this post, there is a hierarchy of rules. Your bylaws supersede anything in RONR. Your bylaws can restrict the right to vote. Your bylaws can give some people two votes (many organizations give out multiple votes, such as stock corporations). 

 

56 minutes ago, Betty Heim said:

 Also if the vote accepts this change - where can I appeal it?  Where does one go to have it resolved? What recourse is there?

 

If the change is accepted, it is what your bylaws say. You could always move to amend the bylaws back. There is no international body of bylaws which must approve your bylaws, and there is no higher authority absent a conflict with law. Even if a rule were violated, which none are here, parliamentary procedure ultimately rests, in general, on the willingness of organizations to follow it. 

Edited October 21, 2018 at 02:12 PM by Joshua Katz
Said the opposite of what I wanted it to say

[Betty Heim]

Thank you