Sean Hunt Posted September 17, 2015 at 04:40 AM Report Share Posted September 17, 2015 at 04:40 AM Suppose that an assembly votes to adopt a special rule of order. Notice has been provided and the vote has 2/3rds voting in favour. Subsequently, it is discovered that the meeting is inquorate, and has been since before the vote was taken. At the next meeting, a motion to Ratify the amendment is introduced. What is the required threshold for adoption of the motion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted September 17, 2015 at 06:18 AM Report Share Posted September 17, 2015 at 06:18 AM I don't think ratifying is in order at all: I think the adoption procedure, including previous notice, must be followed. I have no idea why yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted September 17, 2015 at 11:42 AM Report Share Posted September 17, 2015 at 11:42 AM Suppose that an assembly votes to adopt a special rule of order. Notice has been provided and the vote has 2/3rds voting in favour. Subsequently, it is discovered that the meeting is inquorate, and has been since before the vote was taken. At the next meeting, a motion to Ratify the amendment is introduced. What is the required threshold for adoption of the motion?A 2/3 vote, if notice has been given, or a vote of a majority of the entire membership otherwise. A motion to Ratify has the same requirements for adoption as the action to be ratified. Additionally, I don't think the initial notice given will suffice for a motion to Ratify made at a later meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted September 17, 2015 at 12:27 PM Report Share Posted September 17, 2015 at 12:27 PM A 2/3 vote, if notice has been given, or a vote of a majority of the entire membership otherwise. A motion to Ratify has the same requirements for adoption as the action to be ratified. Additionally, I don't think the initial notice given will suffice for a motion to Ratify made at a later meeting. You and I are agreeing, in essence, yes? (I concede that yes, this will qualify as ratifying, not a new action, though I suspect that Josh Martin doesn't think it matters much, yes?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted September 17, 2015 at 12:49 PM Report Share Posted September 17, 2015 at 12:49 PM You and I are agreeing, in essence, yes? (I concede that yes, this will qualify as ratifying, not a new action, though I suspect that Josh Martin doesn't think it matters much, yes?)Yes, we essentially agree, and I don't think it matters much whether the motion is ratified or made anew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hunt Posted September 18, 2015 at 08:10 PM Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 at 08:10 PM I don't either, but you could imagine a situation where it would (say, the bylaws prescribe a higher voting threshold for expenditures above a certain amount, and an officer spends that money without authorization). Is there anything other than common sense to back this up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted September 19, 2015 at 01:36 AM Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 at 01:36 AM Is there anything other than common sense to back this up? I think so, but I still don't know what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted September 19, 2015 at 01:39 AM Report Share Posted September 19, 2015 at 01:39 AM ... A motion to Ratify has the same requirements for adoption as the action to be ratified. .... Where do you see this, please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted September 20, 2015 at 02:01 AM Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 at 02:01 AM A motion to Ratify has the same requirements for adoption as the action to be ratified. Where do you see this, please? Where do you see anything other than this, please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted September 20, 2015 at 05:14 AM Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 at 05:14 AM Where do you see anything other than this, please? Tinted p. 25. Per #65, p. 24. Oh by the way, you communist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted September 20, 2015 at 05:15 AM Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 at 05:15 AM (O I'm gonna win this one!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted September 20, 2015 at 09:32 AM Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 at 09:32 AM Not with tossing out wrong numbers (such as 65) your not, and besides, what about that "except as explained on pages 103-4"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted September 20, 2015 at 02:22 PM Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 at 02:22 PM Let's call it #69, then, because that's its name, and I don't see how p. 103 - 4 apply, so if you do, kindly point it out (lines 27 - 28, about a "parliamentary right of members," only prescribe a 2/3 vote). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted September 20, 2015 at 02:26 PM Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 at 02:26 PM Let's call it #69, then, because that's its name, and I don't see how p. 103 - 4 apply, so if you do, kindly point it out (lines 27 - 28, about a "parliamentary right of members," only prescribe a 2/3 vote). What, exactly, is the motion to ratify proposing to ratify? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted September 20, 2015 at 02:38 PM Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 at 02:38 PM What, exactly, is the motion to ratify proposing to ratify? Specifically, as far as this thread is concerned, a special rule of order adopted when a quorum was not present; but, more generally, anything hanging in the air without support, which Josh mentioned in post 3 and that I questioned in post 8. Why ask now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted September 20, 2015 at 03:00 PM Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 at 03:00 PM Well, if the bylaws adopt RONR (as they should), (a) on on page 103 will be applicable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted September 20, 2015 at 10:26 PM Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 at 10:26 PM Well, if the bylaws adopt RONR (as they should), (a) on on page 103 will be applicable. If I'm taking the second statement in post 3, which I've been questioning here, too generally, please just say so and that'll be that. For example, if a church's bylaws require a 3/4 vote to hire a pastor, and they do it, and it's later shown that the meeting was inquorate, does p. 103 (a) say that a later motion to ratify the hiring requires a 3/4 vote? I don't see that, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted September 20, 2015 at 10:48 PM Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 at 10:48 PM If I'm taking the second statement in post 3, which I've been questioning here, too generally, please just say so and that'll be that. For example, if a church's bylaws require a 3/4 vote to hire a pastor, and they do it, and it's later shown that the meeting was inquorate, does p. 103 (a) say that a later motion to ratify the hiring requires a 3/4 vote? I don't see that, do you? I see it, since the vote on ratifying the motion to hire the pastor is a vote to hire the pastor. And a vote to ratify the adoption of a special rule of order is a vote to adopt the special rule of order. Et cetera, et cetera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted September 20, 2015 at 10:54 PM Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 at 10:54 PM I don't see that, do you? I see it . . . I see it too! I wonder if Mr. Tesser sees it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hunt Posted September 21, 2015 at 10:57 PM Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 at 10:57 PM I had not thought to apply the SDCs of main motions to the motion to ratify, because of the italicized name. Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted October 6, 2015 at 05:32 AM Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 at 05:32 AM If I'm taking the second statement in post 3, which I've been questioning here, too generally, please just say so and that'll be that. For example, if a church's bylaws require a 3/4 vote to hire a pastor, and they do it, and it's later shown that the meeting was inquorate, does p. 103 (a) say that a later motion to ratify the hiring requires a 3/4 vote? I don't see that, do you? "An assembly can ratify only such actions of its officers, committees, delegates, or subordinate bodies as it would have had the right to authorize in advance." If the assembly would not have had the right to hire a pastor with less than a 3/4 vote, then it cannot ratify hiring a pastor with less than a 3/4 vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted October 6, 2015 at 09:55 AM Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 at 09:55 AM "An assembly can ratify only such actions of its officers, committees, delegates, or subordinate bodies as it would have had the right to authorize in advance."If the assembly would not have had the right to hire a pastor with less than a 3/4 vote, then it cannot ratify hiring a pastor with less than a 3/4 vote. I agree with the second sentence, but I'm quite sure that the first sentence has nothing to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hunt Posted October 8, 2015 at 01:15 PM Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2015 at 01:15 PM This is amusing: It seems we are all agreed on the substantive aspect of the question but nobody can agree as to why it is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted October 8, 2015 at 03:11 PM Report Share Posted October 8, 2015 at 03:11 PM This is amusing: It seems we are all agreed on the substantive aspect of the question but nobody can agree as to why it is correct. Can you think of any difference in effect between ratifying the action taken at the quorumless meeting at which the motion creating the special rule of order was adopted and simply adopting another motion creating the same special rule of order? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted October 9, 2015 at 06:00 AM Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 at 06:00 AM I agree with the second sentence, but I'm quite sure that the first sentence has nothing to do with it. Actually, I agree, but I thought I might get away with the fallacy. I see I didn't. What about justifying it via the rule protecting minorities of a certain size. Can you think of any difference in effect between ratifying the action taken at the quorumless meeting at which the motion creating the special rule of order was adopted and simply adopting another motion creating the same special rule of order? No, the effect is identical, but there are cases where two different parliamentary methods of skinning a particular cat exist, with different voting thresholds. I don't think it would be a bad idea to include in the description of Ratify an explicit statement of what perhaps ought to be obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.