Challenge to Member Roll

[Guest Michael]

My organization has an upcoming election for leadership in which only members in good standing may vote. A specific bylaw provision that provides that members who fail to pay their annual dues at least 30 days prior to the election lose their good standing and are ineligible to vote. There is, however, a bylaw provision that provides that the executive board may waive the requirement to pay dues - and the bylaws are ambiguous as to when that waiver must be granted for a member to have voting privileges.

There will be members who (1) did not pay dues more than 30 days before the election and (2) who nevertheless received a waiver of dues less than 30 days before the election. The Secretary has decided to place such members on the member roll as being in good standing. We have one contrarian member - who is also a candidate in the election - who has announced an intention to challenge the right of some members to vote on the basis of this dues issue.

I can't find anything in Robert's Rules that governs a procedure for one member to challenge the standing of another member who is listed on the member roll. But, assuming a challenge is made in connection with the election - i.e., a challenge to the eligibility of certain members to vote - what is the process for resolving that challenge?

Is the member roll as maintained by the Secretary incontestable? I can find nothing in Roberts Rules governing the procedure for challenging whether someone is a member of an organization once enrolled.

Is the resolution a majority vote of the membership to interpret the ambiguity surrounding the waiver of dues, and if so, do members whose right to vote depends on the interpretation of the bylaws have the right to vote on the question of interpretation?

Is it an election dispute to be resolved by the membership (see p. 446), and if so, can the members who received the contested waiver vote on the resolution of that dispute?

Is it a point of order to be resolved by the chair, and only gets put to the membership if there is an appeal? And, if appealed - same question on who can vote on the appeal?

Thank you for your help!

[Richard Brown]

Ultimately it is up to your organization to interpret the bylaw provision regarding suspending the dues requirement.  That is done by someone raising a point of order and a possible appeal.

Any member may raise a point of order that one or more members are not entitled to vote.  The chair rules on the point of order.  Any two members may appeal from the ruling.  It requires a majority vote to overturn the ruling of the chair.  The ruling is sustained on a tie vote.

It is likewise up to your organization to determine whether those members whose right to vote is challenged may vote on an appeal.

[Guest Michael]

25 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Ultimately it is up to your organization to interpret the bylaw provision regarding suspending the dues requirement.  That is done by someone raising a point of order and a possible appeal.

Any member may raise a point of order that one or more members are not entitled to vote.  The chair rules on the point of order.  Any two members may appeal from the ruling.  It requires a majority vote to overturn the ruling of the chair.  The ruling is sustained on a tie vote.

It is likewise up to your organization to determine whether those members whose right to vote is challenged may vote on an appeal.

Thank you! The rules pertaining to voting in the election and voting on any other issue are the same. So maybe as a practical matter - how to avoid endless circularity?

Point of order on the question of dues. Chair finds the waivers are acceptable. Appeal goes to the membership, but then there's a point of order on who can vote on the appeal. Chair rules that members whose dues were waived can vote on the appeal. Then there is an appeal of that ruling -- and so forth. Short of someone deciding not to appeal or the appeal not getting a second, what is the escape from that cycle?

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Guest Michael said:

Thank you! The rules pertaining to voting in the election and voting on any other issue are the same. So maybe as a practical matter - how to avoid endless circularity?

Point of order on the question of dues. Chair finds the waivers are acceptable. Appeal goes to the membership, but then there's a point of order on who can vote on the appeal. Chair rules that members whose dues were waived can vote on the appeal. Then there is an appeal of that ruling -- and so forth. Short of someone deciding not to appeal or the appeal not getting a second, what is the escape from that cycle?

As you suggest, such a circular process is obviously ridiculous. In my view, the chair should not admit a Point of Order on the question of whether certain members can vote when an Appeal regarding whether those same members can vote is already pending. I would refer to RONR (12th ed.) 39:1-4 regarding Dilatory Motions.

Edited February 17, 2021 at 10:57 PM by Josh Martin

[Atul Kapur]

2 hours ago, Guest Michael said:

Short of someone deciding not to appeal or the appeal not getting a second, what is the escape from that cycle?

24:3(2)(a) interrupts the cycle: "if a point of order is raised while an appeal is pending, there is no appeal from the chair’s decision on this point of order, although the correctness of the ruling can be brought up later by a motion covering the case;"