Voting Members

[ggarland]

We are trying to update our by-laws. We want put in an age requirement (16 years of age) for voting as well as an attendance requirement (2 of the previous four business meetings, and 2 regular meetings in each of the previous 3 months).

How should new members be handled? Should they immediately have voting privileges, or should they be required to meet the requirements before being allowed to vote?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

We are trying to update our by-laws. We want put in an age requirement (16 years of age) for voting as well as an attendance requirement (2 of the previous four business meetings, and 2 regular meetings in each of the previous 3 months).

How should new members be handled? Should they immediately have voting privileges, or should they be required to meet the requirements before being allowed to vote?

You question is one of philosophy, or management, rather than on the subject of parliamentary procedure.

There are advantages and disadvantages to everything.

It does not matter, as far as Robert's Rules goes. - Whatever you (decide to) put into your bylaws, that shall be the rule. No rule in Robert's Rules will overrule your customized bylaws.

Robert's Rules is simple in that regard: You are a 100%-fully empowered member as soon as you satisfy the bylaws' definition of "member".

No wait minimums. No meeting minimums. No age minimums.

Any limit will be your own unique limit.

[hmtcastle]

We want put in . . . an attendance requirement (2 of the previous four business meetings, and 2 regular meetings in each of the previous 3 months).

Then you'd better figure out how you're going to define "attendance".

Can you arrive late? How late?

Can you leave early? How early?

If you sleep through the entire meeting does it count as "attendance"?

[David A Foulkes]

We are trying to update our by-laws. We want put in an age requirement (16 years of age) for voting as well as an attendance requirement (2 of the previous four business meetings, and 2 regular meetings in each of the previous 3 months).

How should new members be handled? Should they immediately have voting privileges, or should they be required to meet the requirements before being allowed to vote?

So, a new member wouldn't be able to vote until (at the very least) the third regular meeting in the third month following their acceptance, assuming they attend enough meetings along the way? Wow.

[hmtcastle]

So, a new member wouldn't be able to vote until (at the very least) the third regular meeting in the third month following their acceptance, assuming they attend enough meetings along the way?

I didn't read it as the attendance requirements being related to the new member restrictions but who knows. There's no limit to how absurd bylaws can be.

[David A Foulkes]

I didn't read it as the attendance requirements being related to the new member restrictions but who knows. There's no limit to how absurd bylaws can be.

As we see here.

[Josh Martin]

How should new members be handled? Should they immediately have voting privileges, or should they be required to meet the requirements before being allowed to vote?

It depends entirely on the exact wording of the rule in question. So the assembly is free to do whatever it likes, but just be clear. As noted, keep in mind that there are difficulties involved with defining "attendance."

So, a new member wouldn't be able to vote until (at the very least) the third regular meeting in the third month following their acceptance, assuming they attend enough meetings along the way? Wow.

That's what he's asking, Mr. Foulkes. That may or may not be the case depending on how the rule is written.

[Guest dan]

We are trying to update our by-laws. We want put in an age requirement (16 years of age) for voting as well as an attendance requirement (2 of the previous four business meetings, and 2 regular meetings in each of the previous 3 months).

How should new members be handled? Should they immediately have voting privileges, or should they be required to meet the requirements before being allowed to vote?

They're your bylaws. You tell us.

[Josh Martin]

They're your bylaws. You tell us.

They're not their Bylaws yet.

[Guest JDStackpole]

And if they are wise, they won't ever be.

[David A Foulkes]

Here's one problem. A member goes one month without making it to two of those regular meetings and they can't vote again for three months. They're still a member, although they are (temporarily) not a voting member. Happens to enough members and maybe you can't get a quorum. Maybe you have enough members conscientious enough to attend (or maybe they feel the undue pressure of being "forced" to attend under penalty of having their voting rights taken away from them), so quorum isn't an issue. What if someone has a valid excuse, like they were in a car crash and in the hospital for a month? You're going to penalize them for that? So you put a "just cause" clause in there somewhere and now you're trying to figure that out. Good luck.

Brother Gary - if you need to "make" members attend meetings, you've got another problem you're not dealing with.

IMHO.

[Josh Martin]

They're still a member, although they are (temporarily) not a voting member. Happens to enough members and maybe you can't get a quorum.

Unless the quorum is defined as a set number of members, that shouldn't be a problem. I don't deny that there are other problems with rules regarding attendance.

[ggarland]

Thank you for all of the replies this gives us a lot to consider.

In re-reading my original post I noticed a grave typo. I stated: "We want put in an age requirement ..... ". I should have said, we want to put in an age requirement. I am very sorry for the mistake. I was typing in a hurry and didn't proofread close enough. Isn't is amazing how one little two letter word can completely change the meaning of what you intended to say?

In changing the by-laws, our problem is not that we don't have enough members attending to conduct a business meeting, but rather, whenever a major vote is going to be taken, (such as elections) members who haven't been seen for extended periods (sometimes years) will be "recruited" to come and vote so that the vote can be swung one direction or the other. We are trying to prevent members voting who have not been around, and have no idea what is actually taking place, from coming in just to vote and then not coming back until the same scenario comes about.

We would prefer not to have any restrictions, but we have seen this same situation several times by the same group where they would call people and encourage them to vote for or against a candidate so they can get their way. This is discouraging to other members who attend faithfully, and are working hard.

[hmtcastle]

In re-reading my original post I noticed a grave typo. I stated: "We want put in an age requirement ..... ". I should have said, we want to put in an age requirement. I am very sorry for the mistake. I was typing in a hurry and didn't proofread close enough. Isn't is amazing how one little two letter word can completely change the meaning of what you intended to say?

That typo (which was hardly "grave") made no difference at all.

we have seen this same situation several times by the same group where they would call people and encourage them to vote for or against a candidate so they can get their way.

The solution is not to restrict the right to vote. The solution is to call up your people and get them to come out and vote your way. It's called electioneering and it's the American way.