Motion by nonvoting member

[PBix]

Our bylaws distinguish between full members and limited members.  The bylaws specify that limited members have the right to attend meetings and have the privilege of debate, but cannot vote.  Full members can attend meetings, have the privilege of debate, and can vote.

Our bylaws do not state whether a limited member can move a motion, such as motion to amend.  In the absence of any express provision on this point, can a person who has the privilege of debate, but who cannot vote, move a motion?

 

 

[Shmuel Gerber]

It might help if you could quote in full, rather than paraphrase, what the bylaws say about the different classes of membership.

[Phil D]

RONR does not tell you whether a person who has the privilege of debate, but who cannot vote, is allowed to move a motion.

That is because RONR 1.4 defines a member as a person who has the full ability to participate in the proceedings of the deliberative assembly. A member is a person who has the four basic rights: to attend, to make motions, to debate, and to vote. The rights are freestanding. The right to make a motion is not inherent to the right to vote or to the right to debate. 

1.4 goes on to acknowledge that "Some organized societies define additional classes of 'membership' that do not entail all of these rights."

At the risk of impertinently relying on your paraphrasing of the bylaws, rather than their actual text, I tend to say that your limited members don't get to raise motions, because that right has not been conferred on them by the bylaws in your summation. 

However, it sounds like there's a bit of sloppy drafting in the bylaws that creates an ambiguity. The bylaws don't say that full members can raise motions. Thus, either they have that right despite the silence of the bylaws or they don't have that right and you have created a deliberative assembly that cannot actually raise any motions. The former invites questions about whether the limited members have the same unspoken rights, as you are well aware. The latter seems patently absurd, but bylaws need conform to neither reason nor RONR.