conflict of interest

[Guest dadoldfart]

Could you please define conflict of interest according to RONR?

[hmtcastle]

Could you please define conflict of interest according to RONR?

The term "conflict of interest" does not appear in RONR.

If you have a more specific question, you're likely to receive a more specific answer. And probably more than one.

[Guest dadoldfart]

The term "conflict of interest" does not appear in RONR.

If you have a more specific question, you're likely to receive a more specific answer. And probably more than one.

Thank you Mr. Mt! That is what I thought.

[hmtcastle]

Thank you Mr. Mt! That is what I thought.

I hate when this happens.

It's like telling a little kid that there's nothing in RONR that prohibits her from running into the street to chase a lost ball.

You can't help but want to yell, "Wait! Come back!"

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Could you please define conflict of interest according to RONR?

The closest thing to "conflict of interest" in RONR would be "direct personal interest."

Why do you ask?

If you are indirectly asking, "Can such a conflicted person vote?",

the answer is a resounding YES.

[excerpt, page 394]

ABSTAINING FROM VOTING ON A QUESTION

OF DIRECT PERSONAL INTEREST. No member

should vote on a question in which he has a direct personal

or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the

organization. For example, if a motion proposes that the

organization enter into a contract with a commercial firm of

which a member of the organization is an officer and from

which contract he would derive personal pecuniary profit,

the member should abstain from voting on the motion.

However, no member can be compelled to refrain from

voting in such circumstances.

[Gary Novosielski]

The closest thing to "conflict of interest" in RONR would be "direct personal interest."

Why do you ask?

If you are indirectly asking, "Can such a conflicted person vote?",

the answer is a resounding YES.

Actually the answer is a sternly frowned-upon and grudgingly allowed Yes. But still a Yes.

[Tim Wynn]

Actually the answer is a sternly frowned-upon and grudgingly allowed Yes. But still a Yes.

So, it sounds like you grudgingly support Mr. Goldsworthy's statement.

[Gary Novosielski]

So, it sounds like you grudgingly support Mr. Goldsworthy's statement.

I thoroughly support Mr. Goldsworthy's statement (but move to strike the word "resounding").

[Tim Wynn]

I thoroughly support Mr. Goldsworthy's statement (but move to strike the word "resounding").

Well, you're overlooking the fact that everything Mr. Goldsworthy says is intended to resonate.

[Gary Novosielski]

Well, you're overlooking the fact that everything Mr. Goldsworthy says is intended to resonate.

And it might resonate even louder if somebody struck it.

[Tim Wynn]

And it might resonate even louder if somebody struck it.

Certainly, neither you nor Mr. Goldsworthy are suggesting that there are different levels of "Yes."

[Dan Honemann]

I thoroughly support Mr. Goldsworthy's statement (but move to strike the word "resounding").

The emphasis here ought not be placed on the right to vote.

The rule prohibiting a member from voting on a question in which he "has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization" is every bit as strong as the rule that prohibits the presiding officer (or the member parliamentarian) from participating in debate or voting (with some exceptions) on pending questions.

They all have the right to vote. None of them should.

[Gary Novosielski]

Certainly, neither you nor Mr. Goldsworthy are suggesting that there are different levels of "Yes."

Well, according to the restraining order, apparently there are.

[hmtcastle]

The rule prohibiting a member from voting on a question in which he "has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization" is every bit as strong as the rule that prohibits the presiding officer (or the member parliamentarian) from participating in debate or voting (with some exceptions) on pending questions.

Except that these rules prohibit no such thing (in the sense that most people understand what "prohibit" means).

So perhaps "every bit as strong" is another way of saying "every bit as weak".

[Dan Honemann]

Except that these rules prohibit no such thing (in the sense that most people understand what "prohibit" means).

So perhaps "every bit as strong" is another way of saying "every bit as weak".

You may put it that way if you wish. The point is, these rules are of equivalent force, and none of them should be regarded as being meaningless.

[hmtcastle]

You may put it that way if you wish. The point is, these rules are of equivalent force, and none of them should be regarded as being meaningless.

I certainly don't regard them as meaningless and I think people should do what they should do. And I also don't think people should look for a loophole that lets them do what they can do but shouldn't do. But, alas, some will.

Which, I think, brings us back to whoever it was that described RONR as a book of etiquette.

[Tim Wynn]

The emphasis here ought not be placed on the right to vote.

The rule prohibiting a member from voting on a question in which he "has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization" is every bit as strong as the rule that prohibits the presiding officer (or the member parliamentarian) from participating in debate or voting (with some exceptions) on pending questions.

They all have the right to vote. None of them should.

Mr. Honemann's post has made me think (and isn't that the point) that if a member votes when he has a such an interest, and if a Point of Order were raised to the fact that he should not vote, the chair should rule the point "well taken."

Furthermore, if any attempt were made to prevent him from voting or to not count his vote, and if a Point of Order were raised in regards to this action being out of order, the chair should rule it "well taken," also.

So, it seems that the rule in RONR is essentially saying, "No member can be compelled to refrain from violating this rule." It does seem to have more bite when it's thought of that way.

[Gary Novosielski]

Mr. Honemann's post has made me think (and isn't that the point) that if a member votes when he has a such an interest, and if a Point of Order were raised to the fact that he should not vote, the chair should rule the point "well taken."

Furthermore, if any attempt were made to prevent him from voting or to not count his vote, and if a Point of Order were raised in regards to this action being out of order, the chair should rule it "well taken," also.

So, it seems that the rule in RONR is essentially saying, "No member can be compelled to refrain from violating this rule." It does seem to have more bite when it's thought of that way.

I think the first case would require the chair to rule it NOT well taken. A member cannot be deprived of the basic rights of membership just because another member wants it so.

And members have the right to do things that aren't right.

[hmtcastle]

It does seem to have more bite when it's thought of that way.

It's more bark than bite but if the bark is coming from a 700-pound dog, the bark may be enough.

[Tim Wynn]

I think the first case would require the chair to rule it NOT well taken.

A rule IS being broken, though. There's just nothing to do about it. The chair can't pretend (or rule) that it isn't being broken.

A member cannot be deprived of the basic rights of membership just because another member wants it so.

And members have the right to do things that aren't right.

Just because you have a right to break a rule, and just because nobody can stop you, doesn't mean you're not breaking a rule.

[Tim Wynn]

It's more bark than bite but if the bark is coming from a 700-pound dog, the bark may be enough.

Okay, it has more bark that way.

[Gary Novosielski]

A rule IS being broken, though. There's just nothing to do about it. The chair can't pretend (or rule) that it isn't being broken.

Just because you have a right to break a rule, and just because nobody can stop you, doesn't mean you're not breaking a rule.

Strictly speaking, the "prohibition" on such things is not a rule in the sense that it can be enforced by the chair. When push comes to shove between the inappropriateness of voting and the basic right to vote, the right to vote prevails, as distasteful as that may be. And that's how the chair has to rule.

Neither the member nor the society can be compelled to follow the "shoulds" in RONR.

[Gary c Tesser]

[snip]

Neither the member nor the society can be compelled to follow the "shoulds" in RONR.

I don't quite agree, though in nitpicking, not in principle. Some of the "should's" in RONR really are just plain enforceable rules. (Pace, Mr Mt, I'm still working on that list of them!)

[Tim Wynn]

Strictly speaking, the "prohibition" on such things is not a rule in the sense that it can be enforced by the chair.

Obviously, I'm not arguing that it can be enforced.

When push comes to shove between the in appropriateness of voting and the basic right to vote, the right to vote prevails, as distasteful as that may be.

No argument there.

And that's how the chair has to rule.

When ruling on whether or not a member should abstain, I don't think the chair needs to take into consideration whether or not the rule can be enforced. He may want to say, "The point is well taken, however the member cannot be compelled to abstain."

Neither the member nor the society can be compelled to follow the "shoulds" in RONR.

Let's take one "should" at a time. Some of those "shoulds" that don't encroach on fundamental rights can be enforced.

[Josh Martin]

Obviously, I'm not arguing that it can be enforced.

Well, it can't be enforced in the sense that a member cannot be prohibited from exercising his right to vote. But a member who habitually violates this rule might find himself the target of disciplinary action.