Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Majority of Entire Membership as Vote Required


Dan Honemann

Recommended Posts

It seems to be clear that, if a proposed amendment to a pending main motion will, if adopted, change the vote required for adoption of the main motion, as amended, to the vote of a majority of the entire membership, the motion to amend is not in order if a majority of the entire membership is not present when the motion is made (RONR, 10th ed., p. 297, ll. 5-22; p. 576, ll. 23-27).

Suppose a majority of the entire membership is present at the time the motion to amend is made and stated by the chair (or it isn't but no point of order was made at that time), but later on, during consideration of the proposed amendment, a point of order is raised that a majority of the entire membership is not present. How do you, as the presiding officer, respond to this point of order?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

It seems to be clear that, if a proposed amendment to a pending main motion will, if adopted, change the vote required for adoption of the main motion, as amended, to the vote of a majority of the entire membership, the motion to amend is not in order if a majority of the entire membership is not present when the motion is made (RONR, 10th ed., p. 297, ll. 5-22; p. 576, ll. 23-27).

Suppose a majority of the entire membership is present at the time the motion to amend is made and stated by the chair (or it isn't but no point of order was made at that time), but later on, during consideration of the proposed amendment, a point of order is raised that a majority of the entire membership is not present. How do you, as the presiding officer, respond to this point of order?

I would rule the Point Not Well Taken because it only takes a majority vote to amend the pending motion. However, I would note that if adopted the amended motion would not be able to be adopted if a MEM is not present when the question is put. The members would either need to get a MEM there or temporarily dispose of the motion until they can get one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to be clear that, if a proposed amendment to a pending main motion will, if adopted, change the vote required for adoption of the main motion, as amended, to the vote of a majority of the entire membership, the motion to amend is not in order if a majority of the entire membership is not present when the motion is made (RONR, 10th ed., p. 297, ll. 5-22; p. 576, ll. 23-27).

Suppose a majority of the entire membership is present at the time the motion to amend is made and stated by the chair (or it isn't but no point of order was made at that time), but later on, during consideration of the proposed amendment, a point of order is raised that a majority of the entire membership is not present. How do you, as the presiding officer, respond to this point of order?

I am going to take a contrary position to my colleagues. The text at RONR p. 297, ll. 14-15, seems pretty clear that such an amendnent is not in order "whenever a majority of the entire membership is not in attendance at the time the vote is taken on a motion to rescind or amend a provision of the constitution or bylaws, or a special rule of order." (Emphasis added.) Although you id not say that the motion was an amendent to the constitution or bylaws, or a specail rule of order, it seem to me that the same principle applies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to be clear that, if a proposed amendment to a pending main motion will, if adopted, change the vote required for adoption of the main motion, as amended, to the vote of a majority of the entire membership, the motion to amend is not in order if a majority of the entire membership is not present when the motion is made (RONR, 10th ed., p. 297, ll. 5-22; p. 576, ll. 23-27).

Suppose a majority of the entire membership is present at the time the motion to amend is made and stated by the chair (or it isn't but no point of order was made at that time), but later on, during consideration of the proposed amendment, a point of order is raised that a majority of the entire membership is not present. How do you, as the presiding officer, respond to this point of order?

The point is not well taken, since the possibility exists that, by way of the adoption of secondary amendments, the adoption of the primary amendment will no longer have this effect on the main motion when it comes to a vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is not well taken, since the possibility exists that, by way of the adoption of secondary amendments, the adoption of the primary amendment will no longer have this effect on the main motion when it comes to a vote.

That possibility exists with any number of main motions and primary amendments; but it seems to me that any given main motion or amendment must stand on its own. You don't wait to see if maybe a subsequent amendment will render an otherwise out-of-order motion in order. Better to rule the motion out of order, and if sonmeoen can figure out a way to modify it to make it in order, they can always introduce the modified motion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That possibility exists with any number of main motions and primary amendments; but it seems to me that any given main motion or amendment must stand on its own. You don't wait to see if maybe a subsequent amendment will render an otherwise out-of-order motion in order. Better to rule the motion out of order, and if sonmeoen can figure out a way to modify it to make it in order, they can always introduce the modified motion.

But, doesn't the assembly have a right to modify an amendable motion that is in its control before it is disposed of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, doesn't the assembly have a right to modify an amendable motion that is in its control before it is disposed of?

Yes, but it seems to me that if the motion as made is out of order, the possibility that it might be amended to make it in order is irrelevant; it also might not be so amended. Likewise, if the motion is in order in the first place, but a proposed primamry amendment would cause it to be out of order, the fact that a secondary amendment might make it in order again is immaterial. If the main motion or amendment is ruled out of order, and someone can think of an alternate motion or amendment that would be in order, they can move it with the alternate wording.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not well taken.

I appeal

If the amendment to the main motion is adopted it will be impossible to adopt the main motion since there are not enought members present to do so.

You can't even suspend the rules in order to adopt the main motion as amended because in this case you need both a 2/3 vote and a majority of the entire membership to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to be clear that, if a proposed amendment to a pending main motion will, if adopted, change the vote required for adoption of the main motion, as amended, to the vote of a majority of the entire membership, the motion to amend is not in order if a majority of the entire membership is not present when the motion is made (RONR, 10th ed., p. 297, ll. 5-22; p. 576, ll. 23-27).

Suppose a majority of the entire membership is present at the time the motion to amend is made and stated by the chair (or it isn't but no point of order was made at that time), but later on, during consideration of the proposed amendment, a point of order is raised that a majority of the entire membership is not present. How do you, as the presiding officer, respond to this point of order?

Not well taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a majority of the entire membership is not present, the main motion, if so amended, cannot be adopted under existing circumstances without violating the rights of absentees, and hence the rule is as stated on pages 297 and 576.

As a consequence, there does seem to be something improper about continuing the consideration of a motion which, if adopted, will preclude adoption of the main motion under existing circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When debate ends, will it be in order, under the rules in RONR, for the presiding officer to put the question on the proposed amendment to a vote even although a majority of the entire membership is not present?

No.

In fact, that is the time a point of order should be made.

We don't know prior to that:

1) If a MEM will be present when the question is put, and,

2) If the original amendment is still in the same form when it's time to put the question, as Rob suggested.

A point of order prior to the question being put, is premature, in my opinion.

I do find it interesting that timeliness, according to what I just wrote, is at the end of something being considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

In fact, that is the time a point of order should be made.

We don't know prior to that:

1) If a MEM will be present when the question is put, and,

2) If the original amendment is still in the same form when it's time to put the question, as Rob suggested.

A point of order prior to the question being put, is premature, in my opinion.

I do find it interesting that timeliness, according to what I just wrote, is at the end of something being considered.

How can this be the proper standard when it is clearly not in order to make the motion to Amend at a time when a majority of the entire membership is not present?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They started considering it without a point of order being raised according to the initial question, so they're in the middle of it, and all I'm saying is I'm not inclined at that point in the scenario to rule it out of order since we don't know if those conditions will continue to exist until right before the question is put. If the point of order was raised immediately, before the question was being considered, of course, well taken.

That's my take on it, and I still think the assembly and the integrity of the rule is protected in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's my take on it, and I still think the assembly and the integrity of the rule is protected in the end.

So as I understand it, your position is that a point of order would be timely if raised immediatly when a motion requrining MEM is first made with MEM not pressnt, but if not made at that time, the only other time it could be raised is when the question (still requiring MEM) is put? An interesting take; a bifurcated timeliness requirement. I am not entirely convinced, but I can see some logic to that position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So as I understand it, your position is that a point of order would be timely if raised immediatly when a motion requrining MEM is first made with MEM not pressnt, but if not made at that time, the only other time it could be raised is when the question (still requiring MEM) is put? An interesting take; a bifurcated timeliness requirement. I am not entirely convinced, but I can see some logic to that position.

I agree. I think I understand the point which George is making; I think it's a good one, and I thank him for it.

Trouble is, I'm still having a bit of a problem with this. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When debate ends, will it be in order, under the rules in RONR, for the presiding officer to put the question on the proposed amendment to a vote even although a majority of the entire membership is not present?

Yes. Indeed, he must. Now that the question is in the control of the assembly, it is the right of the members on the winning side to have the question put, provided a quorum is still present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd hate to find out I should know the answer to this question, but I obviously don't. And if anyone wants to pursue this with a private email and take up no further space here, you can reach me through my profile page.

Is there any specific amendment, or type of amendment, that would inherently modify the main motion's voting threshold to a majority of the entire membership? Or is it that the proposed amendment language would also include a proviso to the effect that "I move to amend the main motion to ......(proposed change)........ and, if adopted, that the main motion thus require a majority if the entire membership to adopt." ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd hate to find out I should know the answer to this question, but I obviously don't. And if anyone wants to pursue this with a private email and take up no further space here, you can reach me through my profile page.

Is there any specific amendment, or type of amendment, that would inherently modify the main motion's voting threshold to a majority of the entire membership? Or is it that the proposed amendment language would also include a proviso to the effect that "I move to amend the main motion to ......(proposed change)........ and, if adopted, that the main motion thus require a majority if the entire membership to adopt." ??

A special rule of order provides that every speech in debate shall be limited to 3 minutes. Notice has been given that a motion will be made to strike out “3” and insert “4”. While this motion to strike out “3” and insert “4” is pending, a motion is made to strike out “4” and insert “5”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to take a contrary position to my colleagues. The text at RONR p. 297, ll. 14-15, seems pretty clear that such an amendnent is not in order "whenever a majority of the entire membership is not in attendance at the time the vote is taken on a motion to rescind or amend a provision of the constitution or bylaws, or a special rule of order." (Emphasis added.)

But there is a difference here; when an amendment to bylaws or adopted rules is being considered, the bylaws or rules themselves are not pending. Only the amendment is pending, and is treated as a main motion (because it is), and not as a primary or secondary amendment to a main motion.


Never mind. Dan just made clear that this is a special rule of order being amended.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A special rule of order provides that every speech in debate shall be limited to 3 minutes. Notice has been given that a motion will be made to strike out “3” and insert “4”. While this motion to strike out “3” and insert “4” is pending, a motion is made to strike out “4” and insert “5”.

Thank you.

Now, what is the reason this amendment motion does not violate the scope of notice (to strike out 3 and insert 4)? I would have expected any time between 3 minutes and 4 minutes would be allowed, but not anything less than 3 or more than 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you.

Now, what is the reason this amendment motion does not violate the scope of notice (to strike out 3 and insert 4)? I would have expected any time between 3 minutes and 4 minutes would be allowed, but not anything less than 3 or more than 4.

It does violate scope of notice which is why the vote requirement went up. With Special Rules of Order it is 2/3 if notice was given and MEM if notice was not (bumping it to 5 destroyed the scope of notice).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. I think I understand the point which George is making; I think it's a good one, and I thank him for it.

Trouble is, I'm still having a bit of a problem with this. :)

To me, this situation seems to closely mirror the situation of debating a question when a quorum has disappeared (p. 338, l. 8-22). Some motions require a quorum and some don't. Some require MEM and some don't.

1. The presence of a quorum, once initially established, is presumed to continue. It seems reasonable for the same to apply to MEM.

2. If the chair notices the absence of a quorum, it is his duty to declare the fact, (1)before stating the question on a motion requiring a quorum, and (2)before taking any vote requiring a quorum. If we apply this to MEM, George's two-prong time table seems to make sense.

3. However, if a point of order is made concerning the lack of a quorum during debate on a motion, debate must not continue, even though it is possible for a quorum to appear in time for the vote. So, if we apply this to MEM, a point of order, concerning the lack of MEM during debate on a motion requiring it, should be ruled "well taken," even though a MEM could show up in time for the vote.

4. Since the motion was in order when it was moved, due to the fact that a MEM was present (or at least no point of order was made at that time), debate can be allowed to continue, until a point of order is made, so long as it does not interrupt a person speaking, but the known absence of a MEM must be declared before a vote is taken, which makes sense, because taking a vote that requires a MEM when a MEM is not present is surely a waste of time.

5. An amendment that raises the requirement to a MEM, though in order at the time it was moved, cannot be put to a vote in the absence of a MEM, since adoption would be tantamount to Postpone Indefinitely, as it would move the original motion out of the reach of the assembly.

To me, it seems logical to look at a MEM as the "quorum" for the consideration of motions that require a MEM. It must be present to make the motions and to put them to a vote, and debate can be allowed to continue without it, but only until a point of order is made.

So, in response to the original question in post #1... I would rule the point well taken. Consideration of the amendment is no longer in order. However, Postpone Indefinitely is in order, if that is the intention of the assembly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...