Membership Rights

[joneuman]

A meeting was held and several people were denied the right to debate and vote because they had not paid dues for this school year; they had, however, paid dues last year, and according to the membership cards themselves, those memberships do not expire until September 30. Does this invalidate the action taken at the meeting, and if so, how do they proceed?

[Josh Martin]

A meeting was held and several people were denied the right to debate and vote because they had not paid dues for this school year; they had, however, paid dues last year, and according to the membership cards themselves, those memberships do not expire until September 30. Does this invalidate the action taken at the meeting, and if so, how do they proceed?

Nothing in RONR would prevent members from voting even if their memberships had expired. Delinquency in dues does not automatically deprive members of their rights unless the Bylaws provide for that. In this case, it seems clear that the members were improperly denied the right to vote. This would only invalidate those actions in which the members' votes could have affected the outcome. For instance, if there were five members denied the right to vote, and a motion passed by five votes, the action would be null and void. On the other hand, if a motion passed by an overwhelming margin, the motion would be unaffected. See Official Interpretation 2006-6.

The proper way to handle this would be to have the chair rule the affected motions null and void at the next meeting, either at his own initiative or by prompting through a Point of Order. If necessary, the chair's ruling may be appealed. A majority vote is necessary to overturn the chair's ruling. After this is completed, members may move any affected motions anew at that meeting or a future meeting if they wish to do so.

If this was an honest mistake, that may be the end of the issue. If it is believed that this was done intentionally, it may be desirable to take disciplinary action against those responsible, whether or not the outcome of any motion may have been affected.

[Tim Wynn]

A meeting was held and several people were denied the right to debate and vote because they had not paid dues for this school year; they had, however, paid dues last year, and according to the membership cards themselves, those memberships do not expire until September 30. Does this invalidate the action taken at the meeting, and if so, how do they proceed?

A member does not lose the right to vote just because he has not paid his dues. See RONR(10th ed.), p. 393, l. 27 - p. 394, l. 4.

[Rob Elsman]

Nothing in RONR would prevent members from voting even if their memberships had expired. Delinquency in dues does not automatically deprive members of their rights unless the Bylaws provide for that. In this case, it seems clear that the members were improperly denied the right to vote. This would only invalidate those actions in which the members' votes could have affected the outcome. For instance, if there were five members denied the right to vote, and a motion passed by five votes, the action would be null and void. On the other hand, if a motion passed by an overwhelming margin, the motion would be unaffected. See Official Interpretation 2006-6.

The proper way to handle this would be to have the chair rule the affected motions null and void at the next meeting, either at his own initiative or by prompting through a Point of Order. If necessary, the chair's ruling may be appealed. A majority vote is necessary to overturn the chair's ruling. After this is completed, members may move any affected motions anew at that meeting or a future meeting if they wish to do so.

If this was an honest mistake, that may be the end of the issue. If it is believed that this was done intentionally, it may be desirable to take disciplinary action against those responsible, whether or not the outcome of any motion may have been affected.

It doesn't seem to me that RONR, Off. Interp. 2006-6 applies to this case, since it was a class of members, not an individual member, that was disenfranchised. My own sense is that a Point of Order would have had to have been made at the time, and whatever business was transacted stands.

[Josh Martin]

Mr. Elsman, did you mean to say something?

EDIT: Never mind, his post has been edited now.

[hmtcastle]

Mr. Elsman, did you mean to say something?

I sure hope so!

[Rob Elsman]

I sure hope so!

I'm sorry, I forgot and used invisible ink. Try reading again. Beg your pardon.

[joneuman]

It doesn't seem to me that RONR, Off. Interp. 2006-6 applies to this case, since it was a class of members, not an individual member, that was disenfranchised. My own sense is that a Point of Order would have had to have been made at the time, and whatever business was transacted stands.

I'm not sure I would classify them as a "class" but more as multiple individuals. Either way, my advice to them was to notice a motion to rescind for their next meeting (so they would only need a majority vote), but this question of their rights was also raised and I wanted to know for the future. Thanks as always.

[Josh Martin]

It doesn't seem to me that RONR, Off. Interp. 2006-6 applies to this case, since it was a class of members, not an individual member, that was disenfranchised. My own sense is that a Point of Order would have had to have been made at the time, and whatever business was transacted stands.

I think a violation of the rights of individual members is still a continuing breach, even if there happens to be more than one individual member and they share the same characteristic. Also, like Jo, I am skeptical of considering these members to constitute a "class" of members.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

... my advice to them was to notice a motion to rescind for their next meeting ...

... but this question of their rights was also raised and I wanted to know for the future.

Q. How can they "make motions", when they are not members (or if enough other current members think they are not members)?

That appears to be assuming too much to the good, and ignoring the possible down side (e.g., a point of order is raised, and is ruled so as to acknowledge their LOSS of membership).

I think you have it backwards.

Nothing can be moved legitimately until their status (individually or collectively) as true MEMBERS is settled.

Do that, and you'll know if Step #2 is even possible.

[Rob Elsman]

I think a violation of the rights of individual members is still a continuing breach, even if there happens to be more than one individual member and they share the same characteristic. Also, like Jo, I am skeptical of considering these members to constitute a "class" of members.

When I say a class of members, I'm referring to the original post, which says that "...several people were denied the right to debate and vote because they had not paid dues for this school year; they had, however, paid dues last year". The disenfranchisement applied, apparently, to any member who fell into this group, or class, without reference to any particular person.

[Josh Martin]

Q. How can they "make motions", when they are not members (or if enough other current members think they are not members)?

That appears to be assuming too much to the good, and ignoring the possible down side (e.g., a point of order is raised, and is ruled so as to acknowledge their LOSS of membership).

I think you have it backwards.

Nothing can be moved legitimately until their status (individually or collectively) as true MEMBERS is settled.

Do that, and you'll know if Step #2 is even possible.

I was under the impression that things have been cleared up since that meeting.

When I say a class of members, I'm referring to the original post, which says that "...several people were denied the right to debate and vote because they had not paid dues for this school year; they had, however, paid dues last year". The disenfranchisement applied, apparently, to any member who fell into this group, or class, without reference to any particular person.

So you are suggesting that disenfranchising a group of members rather than a particular member does not cause a continuing breach? I think that's reading a bit too much into the words "particular member" on pg. 255. I'd also note that the language on pg. 244 is more broad - this certainly seems to be a violation "of a rule protecting the basic right of an individual member."

[Tim Wynn]

When I say a class of members, I'm referring to the original post, which says that "...several people were denied the right to debate and vote because they had not paid dues for this school year; they had, however, paid dues last year". The disenfranchisement applied, apparently, to any member who fell into this group, or class, without reference to any particular person.

Reference or not, if any individual member was denied the right to vote, I'd say Official Interpretation 2006-6 applies.

[hmtcastle]

So you are suggesting that disenfranchising a group of members rather than a particular member does not cause a continuing breach? I think that's reading a bit too much into the words "particular member" on pg. 255. I'd also note that the language on pg. 244 is more broad - this certainly seems to be a violation "of a rule protecting the basic right of an individual member."

It's not that you can't sit at the lunch counter because you're black; it's that black people can't sit at the lunch counter and you just happen to be one of them. Nothing personal, of course.

[Rob Elsman]

I was under the impression that things have been cleared up since that meeting.

So you are suggesting that disenfranchising a group of members rather than a particular member does not cause a continuing breach? I think that's reading a bit too much into the words "particular member" on pg. 255. I'd also note that the language on pg. 244 is more broad - this certainly seems to be a violation "of a rule protecting the basic right of an individual member."

I understand what you're saying. I am not trying to say that what was done was proper. But, yes, I am saying that, since a Point of Order was not raised at that meeting, whatever business was transacted stands.

[J. J.]

I understand what you're saying. I am not trying to say that what was done was proper. But, yes, I am saying that, since a Point of Order was not raised at that meeting, whatever business was transacted stands.

Not necessarily, as the deprivation of the right vote is a basic right of an individual member. That constitutes a continuing breach (p. 244 e.).

The only question is, did this breach affect the result of any vote?

[joneuman]

Not necessarily, as the deprivation of the right vote is a basic right of an individual member. That constitutes a continuing breach (p. 244 e.).

The only question is, did this breach affect the result of any vote?

Yes ... maybe. The motion passed by fewer than those that were denied the right to participate. (Of course, there is no way to know if they all would have voted against it ... so guess I can't really accurately answer that question :-)

[J. J.]

Yes ... maybe. The motion passed by fewer than those that were denied the right to participate. (Of course, there is no way to know if they all would have voted against it ... so guess I can't really accurately answer that question :-)

If the motion was adopted, its adopted should be ruled null and void based on being an action being taken in violation of the basic right of an individual member (p. 244 e).

[Trina]

Yes ... maybe. The motion passed by fewer than those that were denied the right to participate. (Of course, there is no way to know if they all would have voted against it ... so guess I can't really accurately answer that question :-)

One does not need to determine how the excluded voters would have cast their votes. It is enough that their numbers exceed the margin by which the question was decided.

[Guest Nancy N.]

"Nothing in RONR would prevent members from voting even if their memberships had expired."

I don't think that's what Josh literally means.

[Josh Martin]

"Nothing in RONR would prevent members from voting even if their memberships had expired."

I don't think that's what Josh literally means.

No, obviously if someone's membership has truly expired they are no longer a member and cannot vote. I was simply using the same terminology as the poster for ease of understanding.