Entitled to vote?

[Watson]

In several instances the standing committees of a municipal Common Council are composed of both elected Aldermen and members of the general public. In one committee, the Municipal Code (RONR parliamentary authority) states that the public member will have non-voting status because such membership is ex officio. This member is counted in determining a quorum and has all other rights and responsibilities of a committee member. Is this both a double standard and denial of a fundamental right?

Edited April 25, 2020 at 10:29 PM by Watson
Not in the community where I live.

[Atul Kapur]

It may be. The governing documents can deny any right(s) as the organization feels appropriate.

Does the Municipal Code explicitly say that the public member is non-voting or just that they are ex officio? It is sometimes incorrectly assumed that ex officio automatically means non-voting.

Also, it's unclear from your post what office the public member holds that makes them automatically a member of the committee.

[Watson]

I apologize for my lack of due diligence. This morning I opened to "Part III, page 37" in Slaughter, Jim, Gaut Ragsdale, and Jon Ericson. Notes and Comments on Robert's Rules. Carbondale; Southern Illinois University Press (4^th ed.), 2012. And I quote: "If a person is a member of the organization, there is no distinction between ex officio and regular membership. An ex officio committee member who is not a member of the organization has all of the privileges but none of the obligations of membership and is not counted in determining a quorum (RONR 483-84, 497)."

 

 

[Atul Kapur]

Yes, that is what RONR says. But your Municipal Code can say something different, in which case you need to follow your Code.

[Josh Martin]

18 hours ago, Watson said:

In several instances the standing committees of a municipal Common Council are composed of both elected Aldermen and members of the general public. In one committee, the Municipal Code (RONR parliamentary authority) states that the public member will have non-voting status because such membership is ex officio. This member is counted in determining a quorum and has all other rights and responsibilities of a committee member.

It should first be noted that pretty much none of this is accurate so far as RONR is concerned.

• In RONR, ex-officio members have the right to vote and all other rights of a committee member. If they are under the control of the society, they also have all responsibilities of a committee member and count in determining a quorum. If they are not under the society, they keep their rights (but have no responsibilities) and do not count in determining a quorum.
• If a committee does indeed have a "non-voting" member, then such a person is not a member in the sense RONR uses the term. As a result, such persons would not count in determining a quorum (unless, of course, the organization's rules provide otherwise).

With that said, however, the Municipal Code takes precedence over RONR. I'm not entirely certain, however, how much of what is in this paragraph is actually in your Municipal Code and how much of it is you guessing at what RONR says. Perhaps you should quote exactly.

18 hours ago, Watson said:

Is this both a double standard and denial of a fundamental right?

Yes, but an organization can have double standards and deny fundamental rights in its bylaws (or equivalent) if it wishes to do so.

"Within this framework under the general parliamentary law, an assembly or society is free to adopt any rules it may wish (even rules deviating from parliamentary law) provided that, in the procedure of adopting them, it conforms to parliamentary law or its own existing rules. The only limitations upon the rules that such a body can thus adopt might arise from the rules of a parent body (as those of a national society restricting its state or local branches), or from national, state, or local law affecting the particular type of organization." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 10)

Edited April 26, 2020 at 05:22 PM by Josh Martin