ex-officio member

[L. Thorson]

Our bylaws provide that the Executive Director is an ex-officio member of the Board of Directors but without the right to vote. It is a practice of the Presiding Officer to often permit non-board members to address the Board subject to there being no objection by any member of the board. Does the Executive Director have the right to object to the appearance of a non-board member? Or if the non-board member remarks are considered not germane to the question, can the Executive director as an ex-offico member raise a point of order?

[Rob Elsman]

Our bylaws provide that the Executive Director is an ex-officio member of the Board of Directors but without the right to vote. It is a practice of the Presiding Officer to often permit non-board members to address the Board subject to there being no objection by any member of the board. Does the Executive Director have the right to object to the appearance of a non-board member? Or if the non-board member remarks are considered not germane to the question, can the Executive director as an ex-offico member raise a point of order?

As far as the rules in RONR go, a member ex officio enjoys all the rights and privileges of other members, including the right to make motions, speak in debate, and vote. Since the bylaws have deviated from this general rule, it will be necessary to interpret the bylaws to find the correct answers to your questions.

[hmtcastle]

Does the Executive Director have the right to object to the appearance of a non-board member? Or if the non-board member remarks are considered not germane to the question, can the Executive director as an ex-offico member raise a point of order?

Many on this forum would say that if only the right to vote is removed, all other membership rights remain. But, as Mr. Elsman suggested, this is one you're going to have to resolve for yourselves.

[Robert B Fish]

Many on this forum would say that if only the right to vote is removed, all other membership rights remain.

Also, note that the NAP Parliamentary Review Committee also agrees that when bylaws say the right to vote is removed the other rights of members remain. (Q&A28, 2009).

Further, use of the bylaws interpretation principles [p570ff] will likely lead your organization to the same conclusion, especially when considering principle #6 [p572].

While it may be tempting to say the organization must interpret its own bylaws -- and indeed them must [p570 -- IMO, this question is clear enough to tell them my opinion and the reasoning to back it up!

-Bob

[Gary c Tesser]

Also, note that the NAP Parliamentary Review Committee also agrees that when bylaws say the right to vote is removed the other rights of members remain. (Q&A28, 2009).

Further, use of the bylaws interpretation principles [p570ff] will likely lead your organization to the same conclusion, especially when considering principle #6 [p572].

While it may be tempting to say the organization must interpret its own bylaws -- and indeed them must [p570 -- IMO, this question is clear enough to tell them my opinion and the reasoning to back it up!

-Bob

Oh, Bob, our first quarrel.

[Josh Martin]

Also, note that the NAP Parliamentary Review Committee also agrees that when bylaws say the right to vote is removed the other rights of members remain. (Q&A28, 2009).

Further, use of the bylaws interpretation principles [p570ff] will likely lead your organization to the same conclusion, especially when considering principle #6 [p572].

While it may be tempting to say the organization must interpret its own bylaws -- and indeed them must [p570 -- IMO, this question is clear enough to tell them my opinion and the reasoning to back it up!

-Bob

Although one should be careful not to apply Q&A #28 too widely. In cases of "non-voting members," then depending on how the Bylaws are written, it is likely POI #6 or POI #8 that will be of the most interest.

[Tim Wynn]

Our bylaws provide that the Executive Director is an ex-officio member of the Board of Directors but without the right to vote. It is a practice of the Presiding Officer to often permit non-board members to address the Board subject to there being no objection by any member of the board. Does the Executive Director have the right to object to the appearance of a non-board member? Or if the non-board member remarks are considered not germane to the question, can the Executive director as an ex-offico member raise a point of order?

Unanimous consent is a method by which the normal forms of handling a motion are skipped. If the executive director has the right to debate, this would be a suppression of that right.

RONR(10th ed.), p. 52, l. 9 says, "If any member objects, the chair must state the question on the motion..." This would allow for debate.

However, here's the problem with a nonvoting member. Page 3, line 14-16 states, "Whenever the term member is used in this book, it refers to full participating membership in the assembly unless otherwise specified. Such members are also described as voting members when it is necessary to make a distinction." So, since it is not otherwise specified, one can reread p. 52, l. 9 to mean any full participating member, or any voting member.

[Tim Wynn]

Unanimous consent is a method by which the normal forms of handling a motion are skipped. If the executive director has the right to debate, this would be a suppression of that right.

RONR(10th ed.), p. 52, l. 9 says, "If any member objects, the chair must state the question on the motion..." This would allow for debate.

However, here's the problem with a nonvoting member. Page 3, line 14-16 states, "Whenever the term member is used in this book, it refers to full participating membership in the assembly unless otherwise specified. Such members are also described as voting members when it is necessary to make a distinction." So, since it is not otherwise specified, one can reread p. 52, l. 9 to mean any full participating member, or any voting member.

Comparing RONR(10th ed.), p. 334, l. 3-5 with p. 20, l. 6-9, the book can be seen to use the terms "members" and "voting members" interchangeably.

[Rob Elsman]

Although one should be careful not to apply Q&A #28 too widely. In cases of "non-voting members," then depending on how the Bylaws are written, it is likely POI #6 or POI #8 that will be of the most interest.

In my opinion, one should be most careful not to apply Q&A #28 at all. The vast majority of ordinary societies that successfully use RONR as their parliamentary manual have no access to Q&A #28, no knowledge of it, and no interest in it. That's just as it should be. RONR is designed to stand on its own two feet. One needs nothing more than an ordinary education and a good heart to interpret its contents accurately and completely. There is no Rosetta Stone for breaking the secret key to the book. The NAP doesn't have one, and neither does anyone else.

[hmtcastle]

One needs nothing more than an ordinary education and a good heart to interpret its contents accurately and completely.

I'm afraid an ordinary education ain't what it used to be.

And it ain't good enough.

[Josh Martin]

In my opinion, one should be most careful not to apply Q&A #28 at all.

I'd be okay with that as well.