Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

proxy vote on amendments


Guest Denis Hanson

Recommended Posts

At a meeting, two of the 7 voters, on a previously circulated motion, are voting by proxy. The motion is ambiguous as to what a no vote would mean. The motion is amended to a clear IF ... THEN... format. When the vote is taken how do you include the votes of the proxies, if at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See FAQ #10.

Somewhat succinct.

If a proxy was given to vote in a specific way on a specific motion and the motion is amended, and the "answers to any questions concerning the correct use of proxies cannot be found in the provisions of the bylaws which require or authorize their use", does this mean the proxies are no longer valid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somewhat succinct.

If a proxy was given to vote in a specific way on a specific motion and the motion is amended, and the "answers to any questions concerning the correct use of proxies cannot be found in the provisions of the bylaws which require or authorize their use", does this mean the proxies are no longer valid?

If the bylaws do not provide for proxy voting, it's not just that the proxies are no longer valid, they never were.

So, do your bylaws provide for proxy voting? If so, then " the answers to any questions concerning the correct use of proxies, the extent of the power conferred by a proxy, the duration, revocability, or transferability of proxies, and so forth, must be found in the provisions of the law or bylaws which require or authorize their use." (See where that's leading? Hint: not here) :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a proxy was given to vote in a specific way on a specific motion and the motion is amended, does this mean the proxies are no longer valid?

I'm afraid that's more of an existential question than a parliamentary one. Namely, does the term "specific motion" refer to a proposed/pending motion regardless of any changes made along the way or only to that motion in its original form?

Or, more existentially, how much can a thing change and still be the thing? What Kant might have called the Ding an sich.

If your mother tells you you can't date Heather, and if Heather then changes her name to Tiffany, can you date Tiffany?

All that having been said, I think succinct is better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid that's more of an existential question than a parliamentary one. Namely, does the term "specific motion" refer to a proposed/pending motion regardless of any changes made along the way or only to that motion in its original form?

Or, more existentially, how much can a thing change and still be the thing? What Kant might have called the Ding an sich.

If your mother tells you you can't date Heather, and if Heather then changes her name to Tiffany, can you date Tiffany?

All that having been said, I think succinct is better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I must say I expected more from this forum than childish replies like the one about having met both Heather and Tiffany.

In the instance that I was involved in a notice of motion was circulated before a meeting; a certain member could not attend and signed over a proxy (allowed by our bylaws) to someone who would be attending and instructed them to vote no on the motion. At the meeting I explained that the motion was ambiguous (I have taught logic in one form or another at the post-secondary level for over 4 decades) and moved an amendment so that the motion now read in an IF ... THEN ... format. A no vote before (on the ambiguous motion) could have been interpreted differently than a no vote in the amended motion. Should the proxy vote still be registered? I think not as we are not privy to the thoughts of the person who signed it over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have taught logic in one form or another at the post-secondary level for over 4 decades

Then you should know that the argument ad hominem cuts both ways.

Should the proxy vote still be registered?

You do realize that RONR, and therefore this forum, has little to say about proxies.

That said, I don't think "being privy to thoughts" has anything to do with logic or proxies.

If I authorize you to vote no on "the motion", it comes down to just what is meant by "the motion". Narrowly defined, it's the motion as "circulated before a meeting". Broadly defined, it's the motion as it ends up being put to a vote.

This seems to be entirely between the grantor of the proxy and the holder of the proxy.

As The Wrathful One said in a recent post:

If this is a matter of serious concern, talk to a lawyer. The usefulness of this forum has been exhausted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the instance that I was involved in a notice of motion was circulated before a meeting; a certain member could not attend and signed over a proxy (allowed by our bylaws) to someone who would be attending and instructed them to vote no on the motion. At the meeting I explained that the motion was ambiguous (I have taught logic in one form or another at the post-secondary level for over 4 decades) and moved an amendment so that the motion now read in an IF ... THEN ... format. A no vote before (on the ambiguous motion) could have been interpreted differently than a no vote in the amended motion. Should the proxy vote still be registered? I think not as we are not privy to the thoughts of the person who signed it over.

And therein lies the problem with proxies. But it's your bylaws that allows them. Just sayin'...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should the proxy vote still be registered?

If you had read FAQ #10, which Mr. Mountcastle directed to you in the first reply, it would be clear that the answer to this question is beyond the scope of RONR and this forum. Pay particular attention to the final sentence of FAQ #10.

Your subsequent replies suggest to me that your organization has rules authorizing proxies but does not have answers to this particular question. This means that it will be up to your organization to interpret its own Bylaws, based upon the limited rules contained within them, in order to answer this question. The Principles of Interpretation in RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 570-573 may be of assistance. In the future, your organization may wish to further clarify questions such as this one in the organization's Bylaws

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I must say I expected more from this forum than childish replies like the one about having met both Heather and Tiffany.

No rule in RONR prevents you from saying that. But I must say that I expected more from someone with decades in the logic biz than to try to blame this forum for being unable, or unwilling, to accept responsibility for trying to decipher his poorly written bylaws.

Next, I suppose you'll want your money back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have a superior rule which allows for proxies? -- Ask THAT document for answers.

***

Analogy:

It's like asking the Pope for advice on birth control devices. --- "Sure, sure, Your Holiness. It's against Church canon law. But this brand from Johnson & Johnson, do you think this estrogen patch is safe and effective?"

It is like going to your mosque's Imam and asking, "Assuming the Qu'an were to allow alcoholic consumption, then according to the Qu'an, what is the best tasting beer?"

You are trying to get an answer, i.e., "how to", from an authority that says "No way!" to the very notion.

:wacko:

***

If you were asking a question about Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR 10th edition 2000), then you've gotten your answer several times over. -- All forms of absentee voting is forbidden as a violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law. And proxy voting is a form of absentee voting.

*****

Hey, you know logic!

S1. All X is forbidden.

S2. All Y is X.

C. Therefore Y is forbidden.

where X = absentee voting.

where Y = proxy voting.

(I could draw you a Venn diagram. But the editing tools on this Q&A Forum web site are so primitive!) :rolleyes:

*****

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...