participation of absent members vs non-members

[Trina]

This recent thread:

suggested that an absentee member could be allowed to preside over a meeting (by suspending the rules).

Using this mechanism, can absentee members be permitted to participate in meetings to exactly the same extent that non-members can be allowed to participate? Specifically, could the rules be suspended to allow absentees to make motions and to participate in debate (but not to vote)?

One thing that seems problematic is that it's fine to pick and choose among non-members. For example, the assembly can suspend the rules to allow Mr. Jones to participate in debate, while not allowing Mr. Smith to enter the meeting room. Doing any similar picking and choosing with absentee members would seem to be a clear violation of rights.

And even if a particular absent member is not actively excluded, if he/she is simply unaware that some other absentee member is being allowed significant participation in a meeting without being physically present, doesn't that smell like a violation of the rights of the truly absent absentee?

With reference to the cited thread, suppose the absentee chair customarily made motions and participated in debate (small board rules), and continued this practice while presiding telephonically (after the hypothetical suspension of the rules) -- wouldn't this be unfair to other members who were absent at the same meeting? Why should the member who happens to be chair be given this singular privilege?

[Josh Martin]

Using this mechanism, can absentee members be permitted to participate in meetings to exactly the same extent that non-members can be allowed to participate? Specifically, could the rules be suspended to allow absentees to make motions and to participate in debate (but not to vote)?

Yes, the rules may be suspended to allow absentee members to make motions or participate in debate.

One thing that seems problematic is that it's fine to pick and choose among non-members. For example, the assembly can suspend the rules to allow Mr. Jones to participate in debate, while not allowing Mr. Smith to enter the meeting room. Doing any similar picking and choosing with absentee members would seem to be a clear violation of rights.

And even if a particular absent member is not actively excluded, if he/she is simply unaware that some other absentee member is being allowed significant participation in a meeting without being physically present, doesn't that smell like a violation of the rights of the truly absent absentee?

With reference to the cited thread, suppose the absentee chair customarily made motions and participated in debate (small board rules), and continued this practice while presiding telephonically (after the hypothetical suspension of the rules) -- wouldn't this be unfair to other members who were absent at the same meeting? Why should the member who happens to be chair be given this singular privilege?

It is not a violation of rights. Unless the assembly's rules provide for absentee participation (in which case no suspension would be necessary), no member has the right to speak in debate or make motions when he is not present. The absentee members are being granted the privilege to make motions or speak in debate while absent. Now, while I agree that there are ethical concerns with this sort of "picking and choosing," it does not violate any parliamentary rule. As your concerns suggest, however, if an assembly does desire for members to participate by absentee means, it would be advisable for the assembly to adopt rules on the matter rather than handling it by Suspend the Rules, in order to ensure fairness.

[Trina]

....

It is not a violation of rights. Unless the assembly's rules provide for absentee participation (in which case no suspension would be necessary), no member has the right to speak in debate or make motions when he is not present. The absentee members are being granted the privilege to make motions or speak in debate while absent....

Thank you, that makes sense. Although it looks like a violation of rights in a colloquial sense, it is not actually a violation of the basic rights of an individual member, or of fundamental principles of parliamentary law (as described in RONR) to give additional privileges to a selected subset of absent members.

As a further (somewhat) related question, does p. 255 ll. 25-28 mean all members must be treated absolutely equally with regard to the right to attend meetings, make motions, speak in debate, and vote? Or just that the rules may not be suspended 'so as to deny' one of these rights to a particular member? As an example, suppose an assembly tries to suspend the rules so that people who have been members for less than a year only get to speak once, and only for 5 minutes, when entering debate on a question (while the more senior members are allowed the default 2 opportunities of 10 minutes each). That seems like a violation of the rights of those newer members, but the right to participate in debate isn't actually being denied, just limited.

[STA]

As an example, suppose an assembly tries to suspend the rules so that people who have been members for less than a year only get to speak once, and only for 5 minutes, when entering debate on a question (while the more senior members are allowed the default 2 opportunities of 10 minutes each). That seems like a violation of the rights of those newer members, but the right to participate in debate isn't actually being denied, just limited.

Adopting special rules, or suspending the rules, to add specified privileges for some members in certain circumstances may be problematic, but "limiting" basic rights of some members is clearly a violation.

[hmtcastle]

. . . but the right to participate in debate isn't actually being denied, just limited.

Do you really want to start down that slippery slope?

[Trina]

Do you really want to start down that slippery slope?

Well, I don't think it's a good idea (but then, I didn't think an unequal extension of privileges to absent members was a good idea either). I was trying to get a clearer idea if the language in RONR is properly interpreted so that 'deny' on p. 255 also encompasses limitations (not outright denial) of the fundamental rights of an individual member.

[hmtcastle]

Well, I don't think it's a good idea (but then, I didn't think an unequal extension of privileges to absent members was a good idea either). I was trying to get a clearer idea if the language in RONR is properly interpreted so that 'deny' on p. 255 also encompasses limitations (not outright denial) of the fundamental rights of an individual member.

"Limitation" smells like denial to me.

I think the key phrase on p.255 is on lines 25-26: "any particular member". And I think that any rule limiting (i.e. denying) the rights of a particular class of member (e.g. new members) needs to be in the most fundamental governing document (e.g. the bylaws).

[Josh Martin]

As a further (somewhat) related question, does p. 255 ll. 25-28 mean all members must be treated absolutely equally with regard to the right to attend meetings, make motions, speak in debate, and vote? Or just that the rules may not be suspended 'so as to deny ' one of these rights to a particular member? As an example, suppose an assembly tries to suspend the rules so that people who have been members for less than a year only get to speak once, and only for 5 minutes, when entering debate on a question (while the more senior members are allowed the default 2 opportunities of 10 minutes each). That seems like a violation of the rights of those newer members, but the right to participate in debate isn't actually being denied, just limited.

Well, with regard to the right to attend meetings, make motions, and vote, members must certainly be treated equally. Limitations on debate, however, do not always need to be uniformly applied to all members. See RONR, 10th ed., pg. 188, lines 21-27; pg. 620, line 21 - pg. 621, line 5 for some examples. The key part of the citation is not the word "deny" but the words "particular member." A motion to limit Mr. A to two minutes would be as improper as a motion to prevent Mr. A from speaking at all.

I'm on the fence about whether the motion to Limit Debate you've suggested would be in order. My gut tells me no. I'm also somewhat persuaded by Mr. Mountcastle's "particular class of members" argument.

[Dan Honemann]

Well, with regard to the right to attend meetings, make motions, and vote, members must certainly be treated equally. Limitations on debate, however, do not always need to be uniformly applied to all members. See RONR, 10th ed., pg. 188, lines 21-27; pg. 620, line 21 - pg. 621, line 5 for some examples. The key part of the citation is not the word "deny" but the words "particular member." A motion to limit Mr. A to two minutes would be as improper as a motion to prevent Mr. A from speaking at all.

I'm on the fence about whether the motion to Limit Debate you've suggested would be in order. My gut tells me no. I'm also somewhat persuaded by Mr. Mountcastle's "particular class of members" argument.

Your gut is doing fine.

A motion to limit people who have been members for less than a year to one speech of 5 minutes (while the more senior members are allowed the default 2 opportunities of 10 minutes each) would be out of order, as would be a motion to deny such members the right to debate.