recusal question

[Guest Ike]

I chair a board that governs a sport.  At a recent contest we had three board members in attendance, two of them competed against each other and a third served on the jury.  Let's call the two competitors "Janet" and "Bill" and let's call the juror "Alice".

Bill saw Janet do something that was against the rules, complained to Alice, and Alice assigned a penalty to Janet, which ended up putting Bill ahead in the standings.  

There was an outcry about the rule violation by people who saw it as a minor violation and believed Alice and Bill acted unethically to defeat Janet, who is a stronger competitor.  Alice and Bill defended themselves by saying that Janet was breaking the rules and got what she deserved.

At our recent board meeting a fourth member made a motion to reverse the jury's decision, taking away the penalty points that were assigned to Janet.  This motion was narrowly adopted which restored Janet's scores and put her ahead in the standings over Bill.

Our Bylaws say that a motion is only adopted if it receives an affirmative vote by a majority of members "present".  Not "present and voting" but just "present".  This detail became important because of how it affected Janet's willingness to recuse herself.  She refused to do so because this would mean she would essentially be counted as a "no" vote as would Bill and Alice, regardless of whether they recused themselves or not.  Naturally, Alice and Bill voted as well, but they could have abstained without changing the results.

The motion narrowly passed.  In the aftermath, Janet's supporters feel that justice is served while Bill and Alice's supporters say that Janet should have recused herself.

Questions:

RONR talks about "personal and pecuniary interest".  In this situation, do all three have a "personal" interest?  Or just Janet?

Should the chair ask members to recuse themselves?  I know a chair can't "compel" them to do so, but is a suggestion reasonable?

How common is the "majority of members present" language?  I feel like we should change it to "majority of members present and voting".  Why would Bylaws not use "present and voting"?  It seems like a better idea to me.

There are some members who feel this was not an orderly motion at all because the board should not be modifying the standings.  I don't agree with that because the motion didn't contradict the Articles, Bylaws, or statutes.  I was asked how we could prevent this sort of motion in the future.  I responded that someone could make a motion that the board will not entertain such motions in the future, but I'm not sure that even makes sense.  Thoughts?

Ike

[J. J.]

No member can be compelled to abstain from voting, unless under a disciplinary suspension or if the bylaws so provide (45:1-45:3).

Without judging the appropriateness of the initial process or if 'Alice's' decision can be reversed by the board, Janice could vote in the matter.  It may have been advisable for her to abstain, but she could not be compelled to do do so.

[Tom Coronite]

On 11/16/2021 at 12:32 AM, Guest Ike said:

How common is the "majority of members present" language?  I feel like we should change it to "majority of members present and voting".  Why would Bylaws not use "present and voting"?  It seems like a better idea to me.

 

I don't think it's a question of which is better. Each option has its merits, depending on the situation and the wishes of the society in question. It's not without merit, for example, for a society to incorporate a higher threshold (such as majority of those present) for matters they believe to be of extra importance.

[Rob Elsman]

The term "majority of members present" is not fair to members who wish to abstain, since their abstentions will be counted the same as if they had voted in the negative.  The duty of members to express their judgments by voting only extends to cases where they have formed a judgment.  To count an abstention as, in effect, a negative vote misrepresents the members' inability to form a judgment.