Who has standing to make a request for someone to recuse him/herself? Can a member of the public or must it be a peer (co board or council member)?

[Guest cdhenry3]

The pivotal vote from a City Council is from a councilor who owns a business in the impacted district.  He is feeling pressure to vote to save his livelihood versus what he believes is right for the city.  1) does this rise to the level of recusal 2) who can formally ask the councilor to recuse himself on this vote?

[George Mervosh]

13 minutes ago, Guest cdhenry3 said:

The pivotal vote from a City Council is from a councilor who owns a business in the impacted district.  He is feeling pressure to vote to save his livelihood versus what he believes is right for the city.  1) does this rise to the level of recusal 2) who can formally ask the councilor to recuse himself on this vote?

Here is the rule in RONR:

"ABSTAINING FROM VOTING ON A QUESTION OF DIRECT PERSONAL INTEREST. No member should vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization. For example, if a motion proposes that the organization enter into a contract with a commercial firm of which a member of the organization is an officer and from which contract he would derive personal pecuniary profit, the member should abstain from voting on the motion. However, no member can be compelled to refrain from voting in such circumstances. "  RONR (12th ed.), 45:4 emphasis added by me.

So it's up to him if he abstains but no member should question the motives of a member in a meeting. I suppose any member of council can ask him to abstain.

You should also check with the city council's attorney regarding any applicable provision in statute which may apply as it would take precedence over the rules in RONR.

Edited April 5, 2021 at 03:21 PM by George Mervosh

[Guest Puzzling]

9 minutes ago, Guest cdhenry3 said:

The pivotal vote from a City Council is from a councilor who owns a business in the impacted district.  He is feeling pressure to vote to save his livelihood versus what he believes is right for the city.  1) does this rise to the level of recusal 2) who can formally ask the councilor to recuse himself on this vote?

Under RONR  it is debatable if this would rise to the level of recusal, it is a interest that is not shared with other councilors but is there  a pecuniary interest? (Should there not be compensation for business owners affected?)

Also RONR would not prohibit the council to vote.

Under RONR only members of the a assembly have a right to speak at meetings.

But council meetings are more and by precedence regulated by other laws and regulations, if they prohibit the counselor to vote then he cannot vote. But looking to RONR will not help.

 

[Joshua Katz]

7 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

No member should vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization.

 

7 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

Under RONR  it is debatable if this would rise to the level of recusal, it is a interest that is not shared with other councilors but is there  a pecuniary interest? (Should there not be compensation for business owners affected?)

 

GP, does not the quote from Mr. Mervosh (from RONR) above mean that a personal interest not in common is sufficent?

 

7 hours ago, Guest cdhenry3 said:

The pivotal vote from a City Council is from a councilor who owns a business in the impacted district.  He is feeling pressure to vote to save his livelihood versus what he believes is right for the city.  1) does this rise to the level of recusal 2) who can formally ask the councilor to recuse himself on this vote?

I think the real answer here is 1) it's up to the person, and 2) formally? No one, as far as RONR is concerned. Well, maybe not - no one can be required to, but I guess a board can make a motion asking him to. The fact is, RONR does not have strict rules on this, it provides guidance for the individual to follow.

This is less tenable in the circumstance described here than in the typical ordinary society. Thus, I would suggest that such organizations, if they choose to use RONR, should adopt their own rules on this topic. This one may have already done so in statute, so you should check that.

I am also a little uncomfortable applying RONR in the case of a member who represents a constituency, and would suggest that organizations should, at least sometimes, adopt rules in that circumstance as well.

[Guest Puzzling]

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

GP, does not the quote from Mr. Mervosh (from RONR) above mean that a personal interest not in common is sufficent?

You are right, but I also was thinking that it was about a  city council, and because of that he is probably the only representative of the business owners in the district in the council, maybe he should refrain if there is enough compensation for inhabitants like him. But still if that compensation is not there or not sufficient why should he not be allowed to vote against? 

But maybe I was  overthinking it all to much and RONR doe say that a personal not in common is sufficient.

But also maybe RONR it to strict in this there are other people with the same interests as this councillor only they are not councillors but given that they exists should count for something. 

[Josh Martin]

12 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

You are right, but I also was thinking that it was about a  city council, and because of that he is probably the only representative of the business owners in the district in the council, maybe he should refrain if there is enough compensation for inhabitants like him. But still if that compensation is not there or not sufficient why should he not be allowed to vote against? 

But maybe I was  overthinking it all to much and RONR doe say that a personal not in common is sufficient.

But also maybe RONR it to strict in this there are other people with the same interests as this councillor only they are not councillors but given that they exists should count for something. 

We could speculate all day about exactly how this city council is structured, which area(s) of the city its members represent, whether they (or other business owners) live in the same area where they own a business, and whether (and to what degree) business owners are being compensated, but I don't think doing so is particularly fruitful, since none of this is relevant to the rules in RONR.

The rule in RONR is that "No member should vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization... However, no member can be compelled to refrain from voting in such circumstances." RONR (12th ed.) 45:4

The general principle behind this rule is simple - a member should vote in the best interests of the society rather than in his own best interests. When a situation arises in which those interests may be in conflict, the member should therefore abstain. RONR does not (and should not) attempt to speculate on how this rule applies in every conceivable situation.

It appears that the situation here is that the motion in question has negative impacts pertaining to a business the member owns. Whether this constitutes "a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization" to the degree that the member should abstain is ultimately a question for the member to decide for himself, at least so far as RONR is concerned. The member presumably knows more of the facts of the situation than I do, so he is in a better position to make this call. In weighing this decision, there certainly are a number of factors to be considered, and I have no disagreement with the idea that the interests of the persons the member is elected to represent should be a factor.

Under the rules of RONR, if other members disagreed with a member's determination in this regard, nothing can be done about it in regard to that particular vote, since the member cannot be compelled to refrain from voting. If the member's behavior in this regard was particularly egregious and/or there was a pattern of behavior in this regard, the society might view it as conduct "tending to injure the good name of the organization, disturb its well-being, or hamper it in its work" and choose to take disciplinary action against the member, in which event the member is entitled to the due process protections in RONR (or in the organization's rules). See RONR (12th ed.) 61:3. Since this is an elected public body, the rules in RONR on that subject are almost certainly not relevant here.

I expect, however, that ultimately none of this will be relevant. Since this is a City Council, it seems extremely like that there are rules on this subject in the council's rules and/or in applicable state or local law, and those rules will take precedence over what is said regarding this matter in RONR. So I concur with Mr. Mervosh that if there are concerns regarding this situation, the best course of action is to consult the council's attorney.

In the unlikely event that there are no such rules, it would likely be prudent for the council to adopt some.

Edited April 6, 2021 at 12:39 PM by Josh Martin

[Richard Brown]

 I concur with the comments above by Josh Martin and wish to emphasize two points: first, under the rules in RONR, it is crystal clear that the member cannot be compelled to abstain. Second, since this is a public body, there are almost certainly superior rules in the nature of ordinances, a city charter, or state law regarding conflicts of interest and when members of a public body should recuse themselves from voting or participating.

[Guest Puzzling]

Still puzzling and would welcome discussion 

In general:

22 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

Here is the rule in RONR:

"ABSTAINING FROM VOTING ON A QUESTION OF DIRECT PERSONAL INTEREST. No member should vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization.  "  RONR (12th ed.)

It speaks about "not common to other members of the organisation " in this case I would argue the (whole) city is the organization (not just the city council) and if he is not the only businessmen in the area there are more "members" that have a common interest.

The same could happen in an ordinary organization more members have a common interest while there is only one boardmember with that interest.

This article should not be used then to persuade the boardmember not to vote.

[Atul Kapur]

6 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

It speaks about "not common to other members of the organisation " in this case I would argue the (whole) city is the organization (not just the city council)

The councillor is not voting as a citizen of the city in an election or a referendum. The councillor is voting as a member of the city council in a vote of the city council. So, in this case, the "organisation" is the city council. 

So I disagree with your argument.

[Josh Martin]

24 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

Still puzzling and would welcome discussion 

In general:

It speaks about "not common to other members of the organisation " in this case I would argue the (whole) city is the organization (not just the city council) and if he is not the only businessmen in the area there are more "members" that have a common interest.

The same could happen in an ordinary organization more members have a common interest while there is only one boardmember with that interest.

This article should not be used then to persuade the boardmember not to vote.

The key paragraph of my most recent response was this:

"It appears that the situation here is that the motion in question has negative impacts pertaining to a business the member owns. Whether this constitutes "a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization" to the degree that the member should abstain is ultimately a question for the member to decide for himself, at least so far as RONR is concerned. The member presumably knows more of the facts of the situation than I do, so he is in a better position to make this call. In weighing this decision, there certainly are a number of factors to be considered, and I have no disagreement with the idea that the interests of the persons the member is elected to represent should be a factor."

What part of this, exactly, are you disagreeing with?

[Guest Puzzling]

46 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

What part of this, exactly, are you disagreeing with?

I am puzzling with what is in general the meaning of "the organization" in "not common to other members of the organisation" from "No member should vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization. "

Is it the whole membership or only the boardmembership? (Or in this case the whole city or only the city council) 

I would argue that it is the whole membership and in this case all citizens of the city, 

Mr Kapur (if I summarize him correctly) argues that it is only the boardmembership and in this case only the city council.

 

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Guest Puzzling said:

I am puzzling with what is in general the meaning of "the organization" in "not common to other members of the organisation" from "No member should vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization. "

Is it the whole membership or only the boardmembership? (Or in this case the whole city or only the city council) 

I would argue that it is the whole membership and in this case all citizens of the city, 

Mr Kapur (if I summarize him correctly) argues that it is only the boardmembership and in this case only the city council.

I don't think it really matters.

The reason why I don't think it really matters is because one should not have too narrow a reading of the phrase "not common to other members of the organization."

Setting aside the question of a separate board and membership for a moment, suppose there is an assembly of 1,000 members and two or three of them are officers of an organization that the society intends to enter into a contract with and from which each of those members would derive pecuniary profit. Technically, the interest of each of these persons is "common to other members of the organization" (and the assembly). I do not think it would be unreasonable to think, however, that such persons should abstain from voting on this question. I think the same principles apply if the other members who share the interest are members of the same organization, but not members of the same assembly. There is no bright-line rule.

So I maintain that whether a person has "a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization" is a highly fact-dependent question and will require a review of the totality of the facts and circumstances in a particular case. As a result, I don't think the answer to this question really matters, because the fact remains that "Whether this constitutes "a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization" to the degree that the member should abstain is ultimately a question for the member to decide for himself, at least so far as RONR is concerned."

Edited April 6, 2021 at 05:20 PM by Josh Martin

[Atul Kapur]

2 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

Mr Kapur (if I summarize him correctly) argues that it is only the boardmembership and in this case only the city council.

I am not equating a board of an organisation with a city council, so my answer may be different if we were discussing an independent organization and its executive board. In this case, the citizens of the city are not in a position to directly rescind or amend a decision made by the city council.

One area of commonality is that at a meeting of a board or of a city council, the person is participating and voting in their capacity as a member of the board/council, not as a member of the larger organization/general population (in fact, board members may not even be members of the larger organization). Depending on the governing documents, they probably have different responsibilities in that role.