Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Privileges of Member Emeritus


Guest Ruth

Recommended Posts

If a member is Member Emeritus, without voting rights, can they make a motion on an issue?

If your organization has a class of membership with limited rights, it is up to your organization to define what rights the membership has. When RONR speaks of members, it refers to members with full voting rights. Check your bylaws to see what rights are associated with Member Emeritus. If you can't find anything on the subject in the bylaws, it probably doesn't exist.

RONR speaks of "Honorary Membership," which must be authorized in the bylaws if it is to exist in an organization. This title carries with it the right to attend meetings and to speak but not to make motions or to vote.

If they did make a motion with a recommendation and it carried and was voted on, is this illegal?

If a person without the right to make a motion does so and the motion is adopted, the motion is valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a member is Member Emeritus, without voting rights, can they make a motion on an issue? If they did make a motion with a recommendation and it carried and was voted on, is this illegal?

Unless your bylaws say otherwise, "member emeritus" is an honorary title, rather than a class of membership. "Rights carried with the honor include the right to attend meetings and to speak, but not to make motions or vote unless the person is also a regular member, or unless the bylaws provide full membership rights." [p447]

-Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they did make a motion with a recommendation and it carried and was voted on, is this illegal?

If a person without the right to make a motion does so and the motion is adopted, the motion is valid.

In general, once a motion is before the assembly for debate, it is the property of the assembly. Thus, it no longer matters if an unqualified person made the motion in the first place, or if no one seconded it, or if the chair didn't use the proper ceremony to present the question to the assembly -- all that stuff is water under the bridge, and doesn't affect the validity of the assembly's further processing of the motion it now holds in its collective hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a person without the right to make a motion does so and the motion is adopted, the motion is valid.

Interesting. I would have thought a motion made by someone who did not possess the right to make motions would be invalid, and any vote or action coming out of the adoption of the motion would be null and void. I wouldn't mind a citation on this, please and thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. I would have thought a motion made by someone who did not possess the right to make motions would be invalid, and any vote or action coming out of the adoption of the motion would be null and void. I wouldn't mind a citation on this, please and thank you.

Lack of a p. 244 violation? Notice that p. 255 (fundamental principles of parliamentary law) lists the limitation of the right to vote to members who are present at a legal meeting; the right to make motions is not similarly described there as involving a FPPL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lack of a p. 244 violation? Notice that p. 255 (fundamental principles of parliamentary law) lists the limitation of the right to vote to members who are present at a legal meeting; the right to make motions is not similarly described there as involving a FPPL.

So.... you're saying that since there is no FPPL against a non-motion-making-allowed-member making a motion, if the assembly goes along with it (ie unanimous consent) and no one raises a Point of Order, then there is no nullness or voidosity to the situation? I'm not arguing against the point, just trying to be clear on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So.... you're saying that since there is no FPPL against a non-motion-making-allowed-member making a motion, if the assembly goes along with it (ie unanimous consent) and no one raises a Point of Order, then there is no nullness or voidosity to the situation? I'm not arguing against the point, just trying to be clear on it.

I agree with the position that an adopted motion moved by a person who was not entitled to make the motion stands nevertheless. I would point to the section a little earlier [p243] regarding "TIMELINESS REQUIREMENT FOR A POINT OF ORDER." It is the responsibility of the members of assembly to note the infraction and raise a timely point of order or to waive that right.

-Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So.... you're saying that since there is no FPPL against a non-motion-making-allowed-member making a motion, if the assembly goes along with it (ie unanimous consent) and no one raises a Point of Order, then there is no nullness or voidosity to the situation? I'm not arguing against the point, just trying to be clear on it.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the members should intentionally ignore the rule against a non-member making a motion (or however you choose to phrase that rule) and, certainly, a point of order should be raised at the time. It's just that, once done, it's not a big deal. No more significant than the lack of a required second once debate begins and not practically different from a non-member asking a member to make the motion. I could even imagine a situation where the rules would be suspended to permit a respected member of the community to make a ceremonial motion.

The assembly can always exclude non-members from the meeting and avoid the problem altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. I would have thought a motion made by someone who did not possess the right to make motions would be invalid, and any vote or action coming out of the adoption of the motion would be null and void. I wouldn't mind a citation on this, please and thank you.

For the most part, flaws in procedure become irrelevant once business has moved on. This is important, to prevent an organization from unraveling, since there are always members looking for loopholes to invalidate past actions. Imagine the nightmares parliamentarians would encounter if every motion that failed to follow the letter of parliamentary procedure was null and void.

The best citation is probably p. 243, l. 24-27 (a page which Mr. Fish has referenced), along with the pages cited by Trina. Also, p. 284, l. 25-26 (which contains a rule mentioned by Trina), because it illustrates that the assembly owns the motion, as a result of the chair stating it, not by it being moved.

Possibly p. 42, l. 33 - p. 43, l. 1, just because it points out that the assembly is voting on the question as put by the chair (subject to a point of order), not as moved. It was indeed the assembly that did the doing, not this nonmember.

As a note, the minutes should reflect the name of the mover... even though it's Jane Nonmember.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...