Guest Dave Posted August 19, 2010 at 02:57 PM Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 at 02:57 PM What if the person/ or persons are in conflict for a fact (not perceived) and they will not step back on the subject. Is there something the President can do if he knows this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted August 19, 2010 at 03:21 PM Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 at 03:21 PM What if the person/ or persons are in conflict for a fact (not perceived) and they will not step back on the subject. Is there something the President can do if he knows this?What do you mean "they won't step back"?What do you want the president to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dave Posted August 19, 2010 at 03:44 PM Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 at 03:44 PM What do you mean "they won't step back"?What do you want the president to do?They continue to vote on the subject, and they put themselves on the commitee to deal with the subjects Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted August 19, 2010 at 03:50 PM Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 at 03:50 PM What if the person/ or persons are in conflict for a fact (not perceived) and they will not step back on the subject. Is there something the President can do if he knows this?No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted August 19, 2010 at 04:19 PM Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 at 04:19 PM While RONR notes that a member with a "personal or pecuniary interest not in common with other members" should abstain, they cannot be compelled to abstain.The President can do nothing since no rule is being broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted August 19, 2010 at 04:39 PM Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 at 04:39 PM They continue to vote on the subject, and they put themselves on the commitee to deal with the subjects How do they manage this? Are these Board members? Who is creating/appointing the committee, these members? Doesn't the committee report to a larger authority, such as... oh, I don't know.... the membership who then can vote as they see fit? How many of these "in-conflict" members are there voting? Enough to sway they vote? What can you do about it? Well, when are elections held again?Even if one or two members are "in conflict", it takes at least a majority (if not larger) to approve motions, so if this (I gather) small group of rabblerousers are really leaders of a majority of like-minded members, your problem may be bigger than you've let on. But only you can know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted August 19, 2010 at 08:02 PM Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 at 08:02 PM While RONR notes that a member with a "personal or pecuniary interest not in common with other members" should abstain, they cannot be compelled to abstain.The President can do nothing since no rule is being broken.I'm not too troubled that J.J. takes this position, since he also frequently maintains that a member can be censured for any reason or no reason at all. So, a member who routinely fails to refrain from voting on matters that he should refrain from voting on can be censured by the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted August 19, 2010 at 09:06 PM Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 at 09:06 PM I'm not too troubled that J.J. takes this position, since he also frequently maintains that a member can be censured for any reason or no reason at all. So, a member who routinely fails to refrain from voting on matters that he should refrain from voting on can be censured by the board.The President does not do the censuring. Of course, a member may be censured for any reason, but nothing in RONR requires the assembly to do it, nor would it imply that the member violated any rule. It also would not prevent the member from voting on the presumed conflict of interest (nor on the motion to censure). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted August 19, 2010 at 11:17 PM Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 at 11:17 PM No.George has this right, as usual. See RONR (10th ed.), p. 394, ll. 24, 25. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.