Tim Wynn Posted June 22, 2010 at 01:33 AM Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 at 01:33 AM Does everyone think the Right of Abstention (p. 394, l. 6) is a basic right of an individual member, the violation of which would create a continuing breach (p. 244, l. 21)... or am I on an island here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. J! Posted June 22, 2010 at 03:25 AM Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 at 03:25 AM Does everyone think the Right of Abstention (p. 394, l. 6) is a basic right of an individual member, the violation of which would create a continuing breach (p. 244, l. 21)... or am I on an island here? How would this right be violated? If members were told they must vote, or if an abstention was incorrectly counted as a vote, neither of these improper things would create a continuing breach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted June 22, 2010 at 03:28 AM Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 at 03:28 AM But a point of order could (and should) be raised at the moment these possible rule violations took place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted June 22, 2010 at 03:40 AM Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 at 03:40 AM Does everyone think the Right of Abstention (p. 394, l. 6) is a basic right of an individual member, the violation of which would create a continuing breach (p. 244, l. 21)... or am I on an island here? I don't see how violating the right to abstain could be a continuing breach. Enjoying the sun, sand, and solitude Mr. Crusoe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted June 22, 2010 at 05:05 AM Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 at 05:05 AM A special rule of order was created that states no member shall abstain from voting. This means a member without an opinion is forced to make one up or vote without one. I guess an analogy could be made to a special rule that members must attend meetings, or must speak in debate, or must make motions. Perhaps forcing members to exercise "basic rights" is not a violation of those rights, but it seems dangerous. It would seem to blur the line between "basic right" and rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted June 22, 2010 at 05:06 AM Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 at 05:06 AM Enjoying the sun, sand, and solitude Mr. Crusoe? I am at the moment... it's not too populated out here, though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted June 22, 2010 at 06:27 AM Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 at 06:27 AM A special rule of order was created that states no member shall abstain from voting. This means a member without an opinion is forced to make one up or vote without one. I guess an analogy could be made to a special rule that members must attend meetings, or must speak in debate, or must make motions. Perhaps forcing members to exercise "basic rights" is not a violation of those rights, but it seems dangerous. It would seem to blur the line between "basic right" and rule.'...the rules may not be suspended so as to deny any particular member the right to attend meetings, make motions, speak in debate, and vote...' (RONR p. 255 ll. 25-28, emphasis added)A special rule that 'no member' may abstain isn't the same as a rule targeting a 'particular member' -- perhaps the latter would come closer to violating a basic right of an individual member in the manner described in p. 244(e). I'm not sure how you force a particular member not to abstain, but perhaps that's just showing a failure of imagination on my part...I'm not sure if the list on p. 255 (attending meetings, making motions, speaking in debate, voting) is meant to be an exhaustive list of the basic rights of the individual member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted June 22, 2010 at 09:21 AM Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 at 09:21 AM Does everyone think the Right of Abstention is a basic right of an individual member, the violation of which would create a continuing breach?"Basic"? - No."Create a continuing breach"? - Yes, under RONR. But not under bylaws or superior rules which alter the default case.It is a popular (governmental and corporate) requirement that decisions of certain boards be (a.) a majority of the membership (note the lack of a qualifier!), or (b.) a majority of members present. (not "... present and voting," as RONR would have it).That means, REGARDLESS of abstentions.Thus, all abstentions turn into negative "votes" in effect, since the calculation is based on (a.) the number of affirmative votes; vs. (b.) the balance of all non-affirmative-voting members of that body.Anyone not voting will have his (non-opinion, non-action) "presence" or "membership" (depending on the rule being based on "being present" vs. absolute membership of the body) grouped together with the negative vote when doing the calculation.***Beware of the homeowner associations whom we see post problems often about their board including instructions on their mail ballots which say, "Any ballot not returned will be counted as an affirmative vote." Now, THAT is a continuing breach waiting to happen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted June 22, 2010 at 10:14 AM Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 at 10:14 AM How would this right be violated? If members were told they must vote, or if an abstention was incorrectly counted as a vote, neither of these improper things would create a continuing breach.Maybe Kim has the key to Tim's question. If not submitting a ballot is counted as an affirmative vote, doesn't that violate the right to abstain, as well as muck up the tally (p. 402 - 3, &c)? ~~~~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted June 22, 2010 at 10:56 AM Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 at 10:56 AM If not submitting a ballot is counted as an affirmative vote, doesn't that violate the right to abstain, as well as muck up the tally (p. 402 - 3, &c)? ~~~~Sure does. So? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted June 22, 2010 at 03:28 PM Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 at 03:28 PM A special rule of order was created that states no member shall abstain from voting.The rule is null and void. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 394, lines 6-9; pg. 244, lines 4-8, 21-26) Such a rule would need to be in the Bylaws to be enforceable. This is quite unusual. We usually see assemblies try to prevent members from voting.As Mr. Goldsworthy notes, however, a special rule of order requiring a proportion of the members present is in order, and in such a case, an abstention has the same effect as a no vote.I guess an analogy could be made to a special rule that members must attend meetings, or must speak in debate, or must make motions.Such rules would need to be in the Bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Ralph Posted June 22, 2010 at 03:40 PM Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 at 03:40 PM ~~~~No, this isn't Wikipedia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted June 22, 2010 at 07:15 PM Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 at 07:15 PM I share your island.The basic right of the individual member to vote implies his right not to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted June 22, 2010 at 07:21 PM Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 at 07:21 PM The rule is null and void. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 394, lines 6-9; pg. 244, lines 4-8, 21-26) Such a rule would need to be in the Bylaws to be enforceable. This is quite unusual. We usually see assemblies try to prevent members from voting.As Mr. Goldsworthy notes, however, a special rule of order requiring a proportion of the members present is in order, and in such a case, an abstention has the same effect as a no vote.Such rules would need to be in the Bylaws.I agree. If RONR is the society's parliamentary authority, the main motion to adopt the rule is an improper main motion, RONR (10th ed.), p. 106, ll. 20-25, and its adoption is null and void, p. 244, ll. 10-11, since it breaches a basic right of an individual member embodied by reference in the bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted June 22, 2010 at 10:01 PM Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 at 10:01 PM The rule is null and void. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 394, lines 6-9; pg. 244, lines 4-8, 21-26) Such a rule would need to be in the Bylaws to be enforceable. This is quite unusual. We usually see assemblies try to prevent members from voting.As Mr. Goldsworthy notes, however, a special rule of order requiring a proportion of the members present is in order, and in such a case, an abstention has the same effect as a no vote.Such rules would need to be in the Bylaws.Please point to the citation in RONR that says "Any member may abstatain, unless the bylaws say otherwise?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted June 22, 2010 at 10:06 PM Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 at 10:06 PM Does everyone think the Right of Abstention (p. 394, l. 6) is a basic right of an individual member, the violation of which would create a continuing breach (p. 244, l. 21)... or am I on an island here? I believe that the right to abstain could not be suspended "in the face of a negative vote as large as the protected by the rule (p. 253, l. 9-10)." That would be a minority of one.That said, a special rule could remove that right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. J! Posted June 22, 2010 at 10:59 PM Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 at 10:59 PM Where page 394 says a member cannot be compelled to vote, this appears to me to be as much a practical observation as a statement of a right. In an ordinary voluntary membership society, how would a member who really didn't want to vote be made to do so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted June 22, 2010 at 11:34 PM Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 at 11:34 PM That said, a special rule could remove that right.I agree with Mr. Elsman that the right to vote carries with it the right to abstain. RONR also states that "Occasionally the bylaws of a society may impose specific duties on members beyond the mere payment of dues." (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 277, lines 27-28) It seems important that the word "bylaws" is used specifically rather than a more general term like "rules."In an ordinary voluntary membership society, how would a member who really didn't want to vote be made to do so?I don't think there is a method to truly force someone to vote, since it involves expressing an opinion. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 2, lines 4-5) Such a rule would likely be enforced by taking disciplinary action against those who violated it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted June 22, 2010 at 11:42 PM Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 at 11:42 PM I agree with Mr. Elsman that the right to vote carries with it the right to abstain. RONR also states that "Occasionally the bylaws of a society may impose specific duties on members beyond the mere payment of dues." (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 277, lines 27-28) It seems important that the word "bylaws" is used specifically rather than a more general term like "rules."I don't, especially since the right to vote is expressed separately from the right to abstain.As for enforcement, there could be disciplinary actions, or there could be a rule treating an abstention as a yes or a no vote. Such a rule need not be in the bylaws.Discussion of such a rule appeared in the Q and A section of NP, 1st Quarter, 2003, pp. 6-7. Mr. Balche was among the authors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest B J Posted June 23, 2010 at 07:07 PM Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 at 07:07 PM @ Kim Goldsworthy:Regarding your point, if it is the default rule under RONR that, absent some contrary rule, a majority is calculated based upon "members present AND voting" rather than simply members present, can you tell me what is the basis for the popular requirement you mention whereby some boards define a majority differently?I am involved in a situation where the by-laws and condo governance document are silent on this issue, but a recent vote on a special assessment counted abstentions essentially as "no" votes in exactly the way you described.Would this method of counting votes have to be the result of some statute, by-law, or adopted board rule, or could there be another source for this interpretation?Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted June 23, 2010 at 07:22 PM Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 at 07:22 PM Regarding your point, if it is the default rule under RONR that, absent some contrary rule, a majority is calculated based upon "members present AND voting" rather than simply members present, can you tell me what is the basis for the popular requirement you mention whereby some boards define a majority differently?Most likely, people saw other organizations which followed that requirement by rule or law and mistakenly thought that was how it works for all organizations.Would this method of counting votes have to be the result of some statute, by-law, or adopted board rule, or could there be another source for this interpretation?A rule which requires a proportion of members present would need to be in some applicable law, the Bylaws, or a special rule of order, which the board may not have the authority to adopt. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 465, lines 26-30) There is no other legitimate source for this interpretation if RONR is the organization's parliamentary authority. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 16, lines 14-16; pg. 17, lines 4-15) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted June 24, 2010 at 01:19 AM Report Share Posted June 24, 2010 at 01:19 AM ... if it is the default rule under RONR that, absent some contrary rule, a majority is calculated based upon "members present AND voting" rather than simply members present, can you tell me what is the basis for the popular requirement you mention whereby some boards define a majority differently?"Basis"?I don't know.Ask a lawyer why it is a popular practice among many (but not all) of the states in the U.S. that the states' corporations codes prefer their corporations to render decision based on (a.) warm bodies who happen to be present, instead of (b.) the RONR rule which is based on votes actually cast by voting members, who have opinions on the pending question, and who are physically present.Would this method of counting votes have to be the result of some statute, by-law, or adopted board rule, or could there be another source for this interpretation?• Yes, statute.• Yes, bylaws• No, not by adopted BOARD rule. (The general membership may compel its board to render its votes so, and yet choose to not impose that same rule upon themselves, i.e., the general membership. Boards, by default, cannot recreate parliamentary rules for itself.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.