Tomm Posted June 5, 2020 at 10:35 PM Report Share Posted June 5, 2020 at 10:35 PM The Bylaws do not include or allow for electronic meetings. The majority of the Board had a meeting. They met in person and they had a quorum. One member was not in attendance but was included in the meeting over the phone. Question: Should his vote have been allowed and/or counted or was the fact that he was participating electronically voided his participation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Zook Posted June 5, 2020 at 10:51 PM Report Share Posted June 5, 2020 at 10:51 PM No. While the extraordinary situation presented this spring has been used by some to justify all-video meetings, the asymmetry presented by this case is entirely beyond what is acceptable absent specific provisions in the bylaws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted June 5, 2020 at 10:59 PM Report Share Posted June 5, 2020 at 10:59 PM Voting is limited to members who are actually (that is, physically) present at the meeting at the time the vote is taken. If this member's vote affected the result, the vote is null and void and constitutes what is called a "continuing breach", because the violation of the rule involves a fundamental principle of parliamentary law. Assuming the member's vote did, in fact, affect the result, any member of the board may raise a Point of Order at a quorate meeting of the board, as long as doing so would make any difference. Any two members of the society who are aware of these actions of the board may initiate a disciplinary proceeding at a general membership meeting—perhaps, to convict and punish some or all of the members of the board, as the facts and the harm done may warrant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted June 5, 2020 at 11:42 PM Report Share Posted June 5, 2020 at 11:42 PM (edited) There is nothing wrong with permitting the absent member to participate in the meeting by telephone, but, as the others have said, it is not proper to permit him to vote. Technically, it likely requires a two thirds vote to permit him to participate in debate via telephone, but it is perfectly permissible. Edited to add: In addition, this member should not be counted as present for quorum purposes. Also, the more I think about it, I'm not sure that he can technically participate in debate, but it is absolutely permissible to permit him to be heard as the assembly wishes. Edited June 5, 2020 at 11:49 PM by Richard Brown Added last paragraph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted June 6, 2020 at 05:54 PM Report Share Posted June 6, 2020 at 05:54 PM 18 hours ago, Richard Brown said: Also, the more I think about it, I'm not sure that he can technically participate in debate, but it is absolutely permissible to permit him to be heard as the assembly wishes. I don't see anything which would prevent the assembly from suspending the rules to permit the member to speak in debate. It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the right to vote is limited to those who are present, but no similar principle exists for the right to speak in debate. This seems comparable to how an assembly may suspend the rules to permit a non-member to speak in debate (but not to vote). I concur entirely that the member should not have been permitted to vote and that he should not have been considered "present" for the purposes of quorum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts