Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Does a non voting member count towards quarum


Guest P. Sterle

Recommended Posts

Our bylaws say that Member at Large doesn't get a vote. Do they still count towards quarum? And if mal holds dual positions in which the other gets a vote, do they get one vote, or none?

Generally speaking, the quorum is based on the number of voting members present. Your rules may vary.

And each member has only one vote, regardless of how many offices he may hold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So president wouldn't count towards quorum, and would the officer holding two positions get no vote since they are supposed to be impartial, or do they get one because vp service gets a vote. (her second office)

Why wouldn't the president count? Can't he vote? The term "non-voting member" refers to members who don't have the right to vote (something that's foreign to RONR), not to members who choose not to vote or who, because of their office, shouldn't vote (but could if they chose to).

Only the president (and parliamentarian) is supposed to appear impartial. See FAQ #1. If the president also holds another office (though it's hard to believe he's also the vice-president), he's still the president and, so, should still appear to be impartial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the executive council MAL is only to be the voice of the chapter, and as per bylaws doesn't get a vote. But should they get a vote since they also hold a voting office?

You'll have to follow your own rules. In RONR-Land, all members are voting members.

I suppose it may depend on which particular hat this person is wearing at any given time. If he's acting as "the voice of the chapter", he wears one hat. If he's acting in some other capacity, he wears another hat. Generally, one wears one hat at a time but, again, your rules may vary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the executive council MAL is only to be the voice of the chapter, and as per bylaws doesn't get a vote. But should they get a vote since they also hold a voting office?

This is a question of Bylaws interpretation that you will have to decide for yourselves. See RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 570-573 for some Principles of Interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the executive council MAL is only to be the voice of the chapter, and as per bylaws doesn't get a vote. But should they get a vote since they also hold a voting office?

I deleted a previous response, since I agree that this is primarily a matter of bylaws interpretation.

However, I'm going to try again, as I think the odds still are that the person holding both positions gets to vote. If John Smith is elected or appointed to a non-voting position (member at large), and the same John Smith is also elected or appointed to a voting position, how is that voting member to be deprived of his right to vote? That is one of the most basic rights of membership, if not the most basic. Suppose he was a voting member, and only later ended up being elected/appointed to the MAL position; would he suddenly lose his right to vote?

Anyway, the bylaws are yours (the organization's) to interpret; I just don't think it's a 50/50 thing as to which way the result is likely to fall.

As for Mr. Mountcastle's suggestion about wearing different hats, I can't imagine how that would play out in practice during a meeting. However, that may be a failure of imagination on my part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If John Smith is elected or appointed to a non-voting position (member at large), and the same John Smith is also elected or appointed to a voting position, how is that voting member to be deprived of his right to vote?

Well, one possibility, however unlikely, is if one position prohibits him from voting while the other merely says he can. At the risk of continuing the hat metaphor, think of the "prohibit" hat as covering up the "can" hat.

Alternatively, if one position simply doesn't provide the right to vote while the other does, then the person can vote. Think of that as a small hat resting on the brim of a larger hat.

I think we all agree it's up to the bylaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, one possibility, however unlikely, is if one position prohibits him from voting while the other merely says he can. At the risk of continuing the hat metaphor, think of the "prohibit" hat as covering up the "can" hat.

Alternatively, if one position simply doesn't provide the right to vote while the other does, then the person can vote. Think of that as a small hat resting on the brim of a larger hat.

I think we all agree it's up to the bylaws.

The problem I'm having is that I can't see how the right to vote can ever be consigned to the 'merely' category. If a member has a right to vote, even if that right is stated very undramatically by the bylaws, the right to vote is a big deal.

I agree that bylaws could be written in such a way as to deprive the dual-office-holder of the right to vote. In just seems that that would be an unlikely set of bylaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So president wouldn't count towards quorum, and would the officer holding two positions get no vote since they are supposed to be impartial, or do they get one because vp service gets a vote. (her second office)

In the executive council MAL is only to be the voice of the chapter, and as per bylaws doesn't get a vote. But should they get a vote since they also hold a voting office?

Couple questions here:

1. Why wouldn't the president count? (I don't think that was answered clearly, and I'm just curious)

2. The Member At Large - is she the VP of your local chapter, but MAL to the Exec Council? That is, is she not the VP at the Exec Council meetings? Is she just the (non-voting) MAL there, leaving her vote-enabled VP hat back at the chapter hall?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem I'm having is that I can't see how the right to vote can ever be consigned to the 'merely' category.

The "merely" referred to "can" (as opposed to "must") but I suppose it was an unfortunate choice. I, too, think the right to vote is a pretty big deal. I only meant to suggest that, if holding one office somehow prohibited it (however unlikely), that would trump the other office which said (not merely) that you can vote.

A weaker example is the member parliamentarian who, as a member has a right to vote (that's one hat) but, as the parliamentarian, doesn't (usually) exercise that right (that's the other hat).

The greater conflict would be if one office said you can't and the other said you must but that's a scenario that's so unlikely as to be virtually non-existent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple questions here:

1. Why wouldn't the president count? (I don't think that was answered clearly, and I'm just curious)

2. The Member At Large - is she the VP of your local chapter, but MAL to the Exec Council? That is, is she not the VP at the Exec Council meetings? Is she just the (non-voting) MAL there, leaving her vote-enabled VP hat back at the chapter hall?

I was mistaken, I can see why president would count.

And in the executive council MAL does not get a vote, however at active meeting which consists of all offices and all members, MAL does get a vote. The bylaws state clearly that MAL does not get a vote on exec council. But her second office does and our parlamentairian doesn't know Roberts rules.

Also, we have president, executive vp(who is second in charge) and then three ither vice president, each covering one special area. So MAL is not parlamenatarian or a vice president

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But her second office does and our parlamentairian doesn't know Roberts rules.

Well, that's not really relevant, as this comes down to interpreting your Bylaws. RONR doesn't have non-voting members, so this problem doesn't arise and RONR does not provide a solution for it. It's up to your organization to solve this problem, after a careful reading of your Bylaws (and perhaps some assistance with interpretation from RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 570-573).

Although now that you have seen Mr. Mountcastle and Trina's take on the subject, at least you'll know some of the arguments which are likely to come up on both sides when this thing comes to a head. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...