Conflict of Interest Vote

[Guest docukost]

RONR states that a member with a direct personal interest should abstain from voting, but he cannot be compelled to refrain from voting.

Can anyone explain the logic behind this? When RONR was written, what did he assume would happen if the member insisted on voting for his direct personal interest? We are having a huge debate, need some help in explaining why this is worded in this way.

[George Mervosh]

I don't know the history, but the right to vote, being the basic right of a member (RONR, p. 3) can only be taken away via the disciplinary process in the society's bylaws, or the disciplinary process in RONR.

There's just no other way to remove such a basic right of membership.

I'll bet this hasn't changed in 95 years either.

[George Mervosh]

Oh, and why is this such a concern for your group? What's behind your question, or is it just theoretical?

[Chris Harrison]

I don't know the history, but the right to vote, being the basic right of a member (RONR, p. 3) can only be taken away via the disciplinary process in the society's bylaws, or the disciplinary process in RONR.

There's just no other way to remove such a basic right of membership.

I'll bet this hasn't changed in 95 years either.

I was looking through my copy of Parliamentary Law to see if the General had anything to say on the subject but couldn't find anything to speak of besides that members have a right to "vote on all questions before the Society" which is on page 330. Sadly, unlike the CD version of RONR there is no way to do a keyword search and the indices were no help.

[hmtcastle]

what did he assume would happen if the member insisted on voting for his direct personal interest?

I don't think "he" assumed anything would necessarily happen (though, of course, a single vote can sometimes make a difference). It's just a statement of how a member should act, putting the interests of the organization ahead of his own personal gain. I suppose if a member does this repeatedly, the assembly is free to impose some sort of disciplinary sanction against him.

And, of course, the member might honestly think that a particular question is not a matter of direct personal interest, even if others disagree. But, as noted, the right to vote is fundamental.

I think it's more like an admonition not to, say, take the last piece of cake. You can, but perhaps you shouldn't.

[Rev Ed]

I would also assume that the intention was to allow the organization to determine exactly what a "direct interest" is in every specific situation. Also, the organization would be allowed to create its own rules regarding what happens when there is a conflict of interest. For example, several cities that I know of require city councillors and/or the mayor to declare any conflict that may occur at a specific meeting and to excuse themselves while the issue is before the council.

Organizations are free to do something similar.

[hmtcastle]

I would also assume that the intention was to allow the organization to determine exactly what a "direct interest" is in every specific situation.

I don't think so. Even if the organization determines it to be a direct interest, the member is free to exercise his right to vote. This is all about the member, not the organization.

[Rev Ed]

I don't think so. Even if the organization determines it to be a direct interest, the member is free to exercise his right to vote. This is all about the member, not the organization.

You are missing my point - some organizations have rules - either established in their by-laws or required by statute - regarding how conflict of interest issues are handled.

Personally, I would like to see RONR change the rule so that a direct conflict (at least) would require a member to excuse himself (or herself) from debate and voitng on the issue. However, each organization can create its own rules regarding this.

[hmtcastle]

You are missing my point - some organizations have rules - either established in their by-laws or required by statute - regarding how conflict of interest issues are handled.

Some organizations have all kinds of rules. We're concerned with the rules in RONR and you spoke of RONR's "intent".

If RONR were to prohibit a member from voting when there was a conflict of interest it would either have to define "conflict of interest" or authorize the assembly make that determination. And I don't think it's going to deprive a member of his fundamental right to vote on the whim of a majority. RONR wisely leaves the decision of whether to vote or not up to the member and, I trust, will continue to do so.

[Guest docukost]

Oh, and why is this such a concern for your group? What's behind your question, or is it just theoretical?

We are voting to replace the Property Manager with a Property Management Company based on job performance. The Property Manager is also a member of the Board.

[George Mervosh]

We are voting to replace the Property Manager with a Property Management Company based on job performance. The Property Manager is also a member of the Board.

Ah, well that's a as bad as making an Executive Director a board member. Your problem, with all due respect, is not with RONR, but with bad bylaws, which is what I suspected, since no society gets this upset about that rule except when facing a similar situation.

Edit - Ok, perhaps "bad bylaws" is a tad harsh.

[Guest Docukost]

Ah, well that's a as bad as making an Executive Director a board member. Your problem, with all due respect, is not with RONR, but with bad bylaws, which is what I suspected, since no society gets this upset about that rule except when facing a similar situation.

Edit - Ok, perhaps "bad bylaws" is a tad harsh.

Bad is accurate, no offense taken! Changing these things takes an act of Congress (well maybe not that bad)

[Josh Martin]

You are missing my point - some organizations have rules - either established in their by-laws or required by statute - regarding how conflict of interest issues are handled... However, each organization can create its own rules regarding this.

Okay, as long as we're clear that such rules need to be in a document at least on the level of the Bylaws to be enforceable.