Members Not In Good Standing

[Guest Lee]

Greetings All,

Tomorrow my organization has officer elections. We have many members not in good standing. There is a question as to whether these members not in good standing are permitted to participate in the discussions during elections and if they're permitted to express their views as to who should be elected.

I currently do not have my RONR at hand. Would these members not in good standing be permitted to participate in the discussion when deciding who should be elected to office?

Please provide your advisement.

Thanks,

Lee

[Rob Elsman]

Greetings All,

Tomorrow my organization has officer elections. We have many members not in good standing. There is a question as to whether these members not in good standing are permitted to participate in the discussions during elections and if they're permitted to express their views as to who should be elected.

I currently do not have my RONR at hand. Would these members not in good standing be permitted to participate in the discussion when deciding who should be elected to office?

Please provide your advisement.

Thanks,

Lee

Are you saying the members who are not in good standing are in arrears with their dues?

[hmtcastle]

We have many members not in good standing.

And by that you mean . . . what?

[Guest Lee]

Are you saying the members who are not in good standing are in arrears with their dues?

Some are in arrears with their dues. Some have not met other provisions set forth by our bylaws.

Lee

[Rob Elsman]

Some are in arrears with their dues. Some have not met other provisions set forth by our bylaws.

Lee

Those who are in arrears with their dues can attend, speak in debate, and vote until they are formally dropped from the membership rolls as a result of the operation of some rule in the bylaws or a disciplinary action. RONR (10th ed.), pp. 393, 394.

I don't understand what you mean about the others who "...have not met other provisions set forth by our bylaws."

[Kim Goldsworthy]

We have many members not in good standing.

There is a question as to whether these members not in good standing are permitted to participate in the discussions during elections and if they're permitted to express their views as to who should be elected.

Would these members not in good standing be permitted to participate in the discussion when deciding who should be elected to office?

Q. Per your own rules, what happens when a person is not in good standing?

For starters, is the term defined? Do you know what "good standing" is?

What evidence (what rule) do you have which implies that a member who is "not in good standing" loses any right(s) of membership?

RONR (10th ed. 2000) never defines the term.

So the term could mean anything to any number of organizations.

So "good standing" in one organization won't necessarily match what another organization considers "good standing" for its membership.

Sometimes, the implication is, "Dues are unpaid."

Sometimes, the implication is, "The member is suspended or expelled."

Sometimes, the implication is, "The member owes money to the organization (other than dues, like a fine, or re-compensation).

What is your implication?

[Guest Lee]

Those who are in arrears with their dues can attend, speak in debate, and vote until they are formally dropped from the membership rolls as a result of the operation of some rule in the bylaws or a disciplinary action. RONR (10th ed.), pp. 393, 394.

I don't understand what you mean about the others who "...have not met other provisions set forth by our bylaws."

Rob,

my organization's Constituition, By-Laws and Rules state that a member is deemed "in good standing" so long as the meet the requirements of 5 criteria. If they do not meet all 5 criteria, they are then deemed "not in good standing". If they are "not in good standing" they are not permitted to vote, but I was just wondering if they are also not permitted to speak.

Lee

[Rob Elsman]

Rob,

my organization's Constituition, By-Laws and Rules state that a member is deemed "in good standing" so long as the meet the requirements of 5 criteria. If they do not meet all 5 criteria, they are then deemed "not in good standing". If they are "not in good standing" they are not permitted to vote, but I was just wondering if they are also not permitted to speak.

Lee

I would imagine that your question goes beyond the scope of this forum, since the crux of it has more to do with your organization's bylaws than anything RONR says.

[David A Foulkes]

Rob,

my organization's Constituition, By-Laws and Rules state that a member is deemed "in good standing" so long as the meet the requirements of 5 criteria. If they do not meet all 5 criteria, they are then deemed "not in good standing". If they are "not in good standing" they are not permitted to vote, but I was just wondering if they are also not permitted to speak.

Lee

I think you'll need to determine this for yourselves. If you have defined what "not in good standing" means, you also need to define what the "punishment" for that is. If your bylaws say that the right to vote is suspended while not "in good standing" but does not address the right to debate, then that right is probably not suspended. Although, your organization needs to figure that out, not RONR>

[Gary Novosielski]

Greetings All,

Tomorrow my organization has officer elections. We have many members not in good standing. There is a question as to whether these members not in good standing are permitted to participate in the discussions during elections and if they're permitted to express their views as to who should be elected.

I currently do not have my RONR at hand. Would these members not in good standing be permitted to participate in the discussion when deciding who should be elected to office?

Please provide your advisement.

Thanks,

Lee

On page 6, RONR talks about the nature of an assembly of a permanent society, and says:

Such an assembly's membership is limited to persons who are recorded on the rolls of the society as voting members in good standing.

Therefore, persons not in good standing on the rolls are not considered members of the assembly, though they may still be members of the society in other contexts.

As non-members of the assembly, they have no right to make motions, speak in debate, vote, or for that matter even attend the meeting of the assembly. But the assembly is free to allow non-members or other guests to attend or to speak.

So the answer to your question is that (the voting members of) the assembly may decide that these persons may attend and participate in discussion, may attend but not participate, or may not attend at all.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

My organization's Constituition, By-Laws and Rules state that a member is deemed "in good standing" so long as the meet the requirements of 5 criteria.

If they do not meet all 5 criteria, they are then deemed "not in good standing".

If they are "not in good standing" they are not permitted to vote.

But I was just wondering if they are also not permitted to speak.

Using only logic, they probably can "speak", since no rule (not even your own rule!) says otherwise.

Is someone in your organization asserting, "Hey! Since a member in bad standing can't vote, then he can't speak, either!"?

I would say that that assertion is a bit of a stretch.

[hmtcastle]

If they are "not in good standing" they are not permitted to vote, but I was just wondering if they are also not permitted to speak.

Generally speaking, if one right is taken away, all other rights remain.

[David A Foulkes]

I would that assertion a bit of a stretch.

(I smell a spoiler alert. Gary?)

[Rob Elsman]

On page 6, RONR talks about the nature of an assembly of a permanent society, and says:

Therefore, persons not in good standing on the rolls are not considered members of the assembly, though they may still be members of the society in other contexts.

As non-members of the assembly, they have no right to make motions, speak in debate, vote, or for that matter even attend the meeting of the assembly. But the assembly is free to allow non-members or other guests to attend or to speak.

So the answer to your question is that (the voting members of) the assembly may decide that these persons may attend and participate in discussion, may attend but not participate, or may not attend at all.

On the other hand, some would claim that principle of bylaws interpretation #6 on p. 572 should be applied, meaning that the specific suspension of one basic right of membership implies that the others are still intact.

[David A Foulkes]

On the other hand, some would claim that principle of bylaws interpretation #6 on p. 572 should be applied, meaning that the specific suspension of one basic right of membership implies that the others are still intact.

And this quote from the OP earlier would seem to support that position:

If they are "not in good standing" they are not permitted to vote, but I was just wondering if they are also not permitted to speak.

It would seem the right to vote has been explicitly restricted, while the right to speak (debate) has (apparently) not.

[Gary Novosielski]

On the other hand, some would claim that principle of bylaws interpretation #6 on p. 572 should be applied, meaning that the specific suspension of one basic right of membership implies that the others are still intact.

I might claim that too.

But I think it would depend on how much interpretation had to be done. Certainly if the bylaws have customized rules denying certain rights and not others, or referring to different classes of suspension or degrees of good standing, then a lot of interpretation will go into it, unless the rules are remarkably clear and consistent.

But if the bylaws are silent beyond simply specifying a number of qualifications which, if not met, cause members to lose the status of voting member in good standing, then it might require almost no interpretation.

There may be technical differences that would be interesting to debate, but the effect is substantially the same:

Ultimately, it is up to the assembly to decide if these members may speak, either by interpreting the bylaws as allowing it (using page 572 for support) or not allowing it (using page 6 for support) or by allowing some middle ground, using, say, page 93 for support, or by raising a point of order, and appealing (or not) the chair's ruling.

It's pretty much a majority vote no matter how you slice it.

[Guest Lee]

Thank you everyone! This has been a tremendous help. All in all, my organization needs to better define these terms.

Lee

[Tim Wynn]

Thank you everyone! This has been a tremendous help. All in all, my organization needs to better define these terms.

Lee

Yes, your organization should decide what it wants the bylaws to say and make them say that. Start the process right away.

[Gary c Tesser]

Aren't they splendid? And all this (especially acknowledging the minority view) without me or Dr Stackpole this time.