Does a 'majority of all', in every case, moot a two-thirds voting requirement?

[Guest Jim]

I am wondering if there is an answer within RONR to address the potential for instability around close decisions, where a meeting often manages to achieve attendance by a majority within a membership.

 

This can be the case for a board of directors more than a membership as a whole.

 

Taking the case of a board of 11 where we suppose a totality meets ...

 

Can 6 of 11 suffice to suspend rules (and take other actions) that would have required a vote of 2/3, except that the 6 can succeed on the grounds that they constitute a "majority of the board"?

 

In other words, where 54% of a board manages to deny rights to the other 46%?

 

By the same token, in a vote that went 6 to 5, can the next meeting see one equivocal member from the prevailing side reversing their vote to join the other 5 in reversing a policy that stands to be reversed yet again, at each successive meeting, with the other 10 powerless to stop such endless reversals based on the vote of a single individual?

[jstackpo]

"Can 6 of 11 suffice..."     No.  2/3 is the minimum supermajority needed to "suspend the rules and...".  Where did you get the notion that a majority could do so?

 

"By the same token,..."  Yes, provided that the equivocal member, or any other member, gives notice of the intent to amend or rescind (if that is what you mean by "reverse") the previously adopted policy.  With notice, a majority vote does the trick.  And without notice a majority of the entire board is sufficient also.    Has this actually happened to you?    Amending something previously adopted" - p. 305 - is not the same critter as "suspend the Rules", p. 260.  It is hardly "the same token".

[Edgar Guest]

Can 6 of 11 suffice to suspend rules (and take other actions) that would have required a vote of 2/3, except that the 6 can succeed on the grounds that they constitute a "majority of the board"?

 

If a two-thirds vote is required then a two-thirds vote is required. But if the affirmative vote of a majority of the entire membership is an option, then that's an option. (Note that a two-thirds vote is only the vote of two-thirds of the members present and voting, not two-thirds of the entire membership.)

 

In other words, where 54% of a board manages to deny rights to the other 46%?

 

No one's rights are being denied.

 

By the same token, in a vote that went 6 to 5, can the next meeting see one equivocal member from the prevailing side reversing their vote to join the other 5 in reversing a policy that stands to be reversed yet again, at each successive meeting, with the other 10 powerless to stop such endless reversals based on the vote of a single individual?

 

Who are "the other 10"? And how are they "powerless"?

[Edgar Guest]

Who are "the other 10"? And how are they "powerless"?

 

Okay, I see who "the other 10". They're the five members who always vote one way and the five members who always vote the other way. So Member #11 is the "swing" vote. And so, yes, it's up to him if it comes down to a majority of the entire membership.

[Timothy]

I don't believe they are "powerless." On option is to find a compromise that more than a majority will support, so the joker who keeps changing his mind no longer has an opportunity to do so.

[g40]

The "other 10" are not powerless. If those on the initial "losing side" (5 members) do not want this to be back and forth - then they could vote with the previous majority at the next vote. Depending on the nature of the motion approved 6-5, if the motion is carried out (the gazebo is painted purple and orange), then a motion to rescind/reconsider is out of order.

[Guest Jim]

No one's rights are being denied.

 

As one example, I would have thought that for 6 out of 11 to have the power to close debate and call the question, despite that up to another 5 still desired to debate the question, represented a denial of rights to a significant minority.

 

 

 

"Can 6 of 11 suffice..."     No.  2/3 is the minimum supermajority needed to "suspend the rules and...".  Where did you get the notion that a majority could do so?

 

I am still learning. I had not realized that a vote of the majority of the entire membership can satisfy some but not all of the cases that otherwise require a 2/3 vote.

 

"By the same token,..."  Yes, provided that the equivocal member, or any other member, gives notice of the intent to amend or rescind (if that is what you mean by "reverse") the previously adopted policy.  With notice, a majority vote does the trick.  And without notice a majority of the entire board is sufficient also.    Has this actually happened to you?    Amending something previously adopted" - p. 305 - is not the same critter as "suspend the Rules", p. 260.  It is hardly "the same token".

 

 

Yes it has happened that a board on which I served reversed itself. This was on the basis of 19 of 37 directors passing a resolution where, at the following meeting of the board, one of the 18 who had not been in favour of the original resolution enlisted one of the original 19 to vote in the other direction.

 

I would have thought that a requirement for a 2/3 vote would have helped protect the organization against changing course as a result of as little as a single vote. But I cannot very well blame rules of order for what, in a worst case scenario, can be the case of a decision too quickly made in the first case or too easily changed in the second.

 

[jstackpo]

Well, the fundamental rule (since people got together to make decisions non-violently) is that a majority of the members of an association make the decisions.  ("Suspend the rules and..." is an exception.  Calling for the previous question is another. There are others where a 2/3 vote is always required.)  See preface page li.

 

The 2/3 vote rules, in effect, apply when the full membership of an association isn't at the meeting, but a (presumably) representative quorum is present. Then it does require more effort than just a majority of those present and voting to change your mind about something.  The "more effort" can take the form of a 2/3 vote requirement or of a previous notice.  Of course, if "enough" members (but not all) show up it may be possible to obtain a majority of the membership to vote for an issue. (There are probably exceptions to all this, but it is too late at night (or too early) to look them all up now.)

 

See  "tinted page" 44 for a list of motions generally requiring 2/3 vote.

[Timothy]

 

I would have thought that a requirement for a 2/3 vote would have helped protect the organization against changing course as a result of as little as a single vote. But I cannot very well blame rules of order for what, in a worst case scenario, can be the case of a decision too quickly made in the first case or too easily changed in the second.

 

 

I've been one of those people who has changed his mind on an issue after the vote was taken. While I can understand people not liking it that a decision they supported is reversed, but at the time, I was glad I wasn't stuck with a decision that I had made without enough information. As long as the majority is in favor of reversing the decision, I don't see a problem.

[Edgar Guest]

As one example, I would have thought that for 6 out of 11 to have the power to close debate and call the question, despite that up to another 5 still desired to debate the question, represented a denial of rights to a significant minority.

 

The motion calling the previous question requires a two-thirds vote. A majority of the entire membership is not an option in this instance (for the very reasons you suggest). See p.200 l.26 - p.201 l.2.

[Gary Novosielski]

You can't just "reverse" your vote and overturn a decision that has been made.