Question Motive

[Guest Fred S]

The rules state that during debate on a motion one may not question the motives of a member. How strict is that. Say your not for profit organization is going to make a $5000 purchase. The organization conflict of interest policy prevents a member from engaging in conduct for personal gain. Member A rises and makes the motion to buy the widgets for $5000 from XYZ Inc. It is seconded. The motion is now being debated. Member B knows that Member A’s spouse owns XYZ Inc. Is Member B permitted to raise the fact that such a motion if approved would violate the conflict of interest policy? Is this questioning motive or just pointing out a policy violation? Seems absurd if a member knows an action would violate policy one could not raise that in debate. 

[Joshua Katz]

If the motion would violate the policy, a point of order should be raised. If the point of order get to an appeal, where debate is in order, this sort of information will be germane to the debate.

I'm not sure it's true that the motion, if approved, would violate the conflict of interest policy, though. The policy prevents a member, A, from doing something (arguably at least). But it doesn't stop the assembly from doing something. If A is in violation of the policy, that was probably true, it seems to me, from the moment A made the motion, not when it is approved. All of the terms are pretty vague, though.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 7/25/2023 at 7:46 PM, Guest Fred S said:

The rules state that during debate on a motion one may not question the motives of a member. How strict is that. Say your not for profit organization is going to make a $5000 purchase. The organization conflict of interest policy prevents a member from engaging in conduct for personal gain. Member A rises and makes the motion to buy the widgets for $5000 from XYZ Inc. It is seconded. The motion is now being debated. Member B knows that Member A’s spouse owns XYZ Inc. Is Member B permitted to raise the fact that such a motion if approved would violate the conflict of interest policy? Is this questioning motive or just pointing out a policy violation? Seems absurd if a member knows an action would violate policy one could not raise that in debate. 

Your local policy is something you will have to interpret yourselves.  All that Robert's Rules have to say about "conflict of interest" is in FAQ#9:

Isn't it true that a member who has a conflict of interest with respect to a motion cannot vote on the motion?

Under the rules in RONR, no member can be compelled to refrain from voting simply because it is perceived that he or she may have some “conflict of interest” with respect to the motion under consideration. If a member has a direct personal or pecuniary (monetary) interest in a motion under consideration not common to other members, the rule in RONR is that the member should not vote on such a motion, but even then he or she cannot be compelled to refrain from voting. [RONR (12th ed.) 45:4.]

And as you can see, this pertains only to voting and has nothing to say about moving, seconding, debating, amending, or other actions pertaining to the question.

But I think it's fair game to correct someone for failing to observe a policy without implying any impure motivation. Although we presume that Member A.'s character is unassailable, it is still possible that through the most innocent of oversights the requirements of the conflict policy have not been complied with.

The difference is that whether a policy has been followed or not is an objective fact that can be observed and verified.  The motivations of a member cannot be known with certainty without reading the thoughts of that member.  

Edited July 26, 2023 at 12:41 AM by Gary Novosielski

[rulesasker]

Even without a policy, couldn't a member speak against the propriety of the society entering into a potentially or apparently self-dealing act without attacking the member's motives? It's very easy for someone not to intend any harm in these situations, but it is still totally proper to do things "above board".

[Gary Novosielski]

On 7/25/2023 at 9:56 PM, rulesasker said:

Even without a policy, couldn't a member speak against the propriety of the society entering into a potentially or apparently self-dealing act without attacking the member's motives? It's very easy for someone not to intend any harm in these situations, but it is still totally proper to do things "above board".

Absolutely.  Being critical of ideas, proposals, and such are absolutely proper matters for debate.  You can criticize an idea for some act without attacking the person.

Unfortunately, there are some folks who feel that if you speak against their idea, you are attacking them personally.  These people need to get over it. 🙂

But seriously as long as they're not using this as a tactic (Shocking, I know.) this can usually be handled by sticking to the rules of decorum, being respectful, and requiring respect in return.  It might takes less work that you may think to turn a monthly shouting match into a deliberative group that debates in a lively manner but lives with the outcome of majority votes gracefully, whether they lose or win.

But along the way you will meet those who believe that a properly functioning democracy means they get everything they want.  They need to read RONR more than most.

Edited July 26, 2023 at 05:03 AM by Gary Novosielski

[Josh Martin]

On 7/25/2023 at 6:46 PM, Guest Fred S said:

The rules state that during debate on a motion one may not question the motives of a member. How strict is that.

Very.

"When a question is pending, a member can condemn the nature or likely consequences of the proposed measure in strong terms, but he must avoid personalities, and under no circumstances can he attack or question the motives of another member. The measure, not the member, is the subject of debate." RONR (12th ed.) 43:21

On 7/25/2023 at 6:46 PM, Guest Fred S said:

Say your not for profit organization is going to make a $5000 purchase. The organization conflict of interest policy prevents a member from engaging in conduct for personal gain. Member A rises and makes the motion to buy the widgets for $5000 from XYZ Inc. It is seconded. The motion is now being debated. Member B knows that Member A’s spouse owns XYZ Inc. Is Member B permitted to raise the fact that such a motion if approved would violate the conflict of interest policy? Is this questioning motive or just pointing out a policy violation? Seems absurd if a member knows an action would violate policy one could not raise that in debate. 

In my view, it is not appropriate for a member, at least so far as the rules in RONR are concerned, to allege in debate on a motion that a member is "engaging in conduct for personal gain." Rather, such matters would need to be addressed separately, through the organization's disciplinary procedures or formal disciplinary procedures in RONR (12th ed.).

With that said, however, I am not familiar with the organization's conflict of interest policy and do not know what it says concerning its enforcement. The organization's rules take precedence over RONR. To the extent that the organization's rules permit (or even require) members to point out potential violations of this policy when they are aware of them, that would take precedence over the rules in RONR on this subject.

I also think that it would be possible to delicately address this matter without alleging impropriety or ascribing motivations, but simply pointing out the facts and letting members draw their own conclusions on appropriate next steps. I do not think it would violate decorum to point out that Member A's spouse owns XYZ Inc. I do think it would violate decorum to allege that Member A is making the motion because his spouse owns XYZ Inc. The first statement is simply a statement of fact. The second statement ascribes motivations to Member A.

On 7/25/2023 at 6:55 PM, Joshua Katz said:

If the motion would violate the policy, a point of order should be raised. If the point of order get to an appeal, where debate is in order, this sort of information will be germane to the debate.

I'm not sure it's true that the motion, if approved, would violate the conflict of interest policy, though. The policy prevents a member, A, from doing something (arguably at least). But it doesn't stop the assembly from doing something. If A is in violation of the policy, that was probably true, it seems to me, from the moment A made the motion, not when it is approved. All of the terms are pretty vague, though.

I expect what the OP is trying to say is that it violates the conflict of interest policy for Member A to make the motion, and that it would violate the policy for Member A to vote in favor of the motion. I concur that adoption of the motion itself does not appear to be a violation of the policy.

On 7/25/2023 at 7:36 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

But I think it's fair game to correct someone for failing to observe a policy without implying any impure motivation. Although we presume that Member A.'s character is unassailable, it is still possible that through the most innocent of oversights the requirements of the conflict policy have not been complied with.

The difference is that whether a policy has been followed or not is an objective fact that can be observed and verified.  The motivations of a member cannot be known with certainty without reading the thoughts of that member. 

But we are told that the policy "prevents a member from engaging in conduct for personal gain."

I'm not certain how it's possible to point out an alleged violation of that policy without ascribing motivations to the member.

Of course, perhaps there's more to the policy than the summary we have been provided.

[Rob Elsman]

It is proper in debate for a speaker to make factual statements from which the members present may draw their own conclusions.  For example, let's say Mr. G made a motion to have all the club's cars taken down to Acme Garage to have their master break cylinders replaced.  Mr. G naturally speaks in favor of the motion, as would be expected.  Mr. O follows with a speech in opposition to the motion, noting that the maker of the motion owns the Acme Garage.  The members present are welcome to draw their own conclusions whether Mr. G is self-dealing by promoting his motion.  Mr. O simply lays out an important and relevant fact without violating the rules of decorum.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 7/26/2023 at 10:09 AM, Josh Martin said:

But we are told that the policy "prevents a member from engaging in conduct for personal gain."

I see your point.  If the policy is actually worded that poorly, that could cause trouble.  It's one thing to say a member may not vote on a contract with a business that they own, or even that such a business cannot enter a contract with the organization at all, but "conduct for personal gain" is probably going to be impossible to prove, short of a full-blown trial finding. 

I'd want to see the exact wording of that policy.  If it refers to actual personal gain, it's not going to be very useful. 

Edited July 26, 2023 at 08:31 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Atul Kapur]

On 7/26/2023 at 10:09 AM, Josh Martin said:

But we are told that the policy "prevents a member from engaging in conduct for personal gain."

I don't see that a policy can prevent any such thing. A special rule could prevent some aspects of this (for example, by saying that a member cannot make or vote on a motion that results in a personal gain), but the policy would be limited to saying what the penalty is for violating it.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 7/26/2023 at 5:13 PM, Atul Kapur said:

I don't see that a policy can prevent any such thing. A special rule could prevent some aspects of this (for example, by saying that a member cannot make or vote on a motion that results in a personal gain), but the policy would be limited to saying what the penalty is for violating it.

If we're treating policy as a synonym for standing rule, I agree.  A rule restricting a member's right to participate would need to be a Special Rule of Order and, whether called that or not, would be subject to the thresholds for passage and suspension of any SRO.

[Josh Martin]

On 7/26/2023 at 4:13 PM, Atul Kapur said:

I don't see that a policy can prevent any such thing. A special rule could prevent some aspects of this (for example, by saying that a member cannot make or vote on a motion that results in a personal gain), but the policy would be limited to saying what the penalty is for violating it.

I was simply using the OP's term. The term "policy" is not defined in RONR. Societies often use this term broadly to refer to rules aside from the bylaws. (Sometimes it's used even more broadly and refers even to rules found in the bylaws.)

As to the effectiveness of such a policy, I concur that certainly a standing rule would not be sufficient to prevent a member from taking any parliamentary action.

I'm not certain a special rule of order would actually be sufficient either. I would think a provision in the bylaws would be necessary to deprive a member of their rights, especially with regard to the right to vote.

Edited July 27, 2023 at 11:36 AM by Josh Martin