Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Changing Voting Thresholds for Ratification


Sean Hunt

Recommended Posts

In two recent threads, we have discussed the intricacies of the motion to ratify. We have discussed both the [url=http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/26348-ratification-of-difficult-motions/]voting threshold of ratification and also the [url=http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/26105-improper-notice-for-special-meeting/]types of irregularities over which ratification can paper. Here, I attempt to go further down into the rabbit hole of corner cases.

As mentioned in the latter thread, it seems to me, based on this discussion, that the motion to ratify can be applied to any action which the assembly could have done at the time, had all applicable procedural requirements (by which I mean notice, voting threshold, and any other similar requirements the assembly may have) been met. I will assume for this discussion that this is the case and will ignore Mr. Gerber's suggestion that the action must be related to the assembly in some fashion---not because I disagree, but because I do not wish to side-track the discussion.

This question relates to when the motion to ratify and the motion to be ratified had different procedural requirements.

  1. Suppose that the action to be ratified, at the time, required a two-thirds vote. Later, the assembly amends its own requirement to reduce it to a majority vote. What vote is required to ratify?
  2. Suppose that the action to be ratified, at the time, required a majority vote. Later, the assembly amends its own requirement to increase it to a two-thirds vote. What vote is required to ratify?
  3. Suppose that the action to be ratified, at the time, required a two-thirds vote. Later, the parent assembly amend the requirement to reduce it to a majority vote. What vote is required to ratify?
  4. Suppose that the action to be ratified, at the time, required a majority vote. Later, the parent assembly amends the requirement to increase it to a two-thirds vote. What vote is required to ratify?

In questions 3 and 4, assume that the voting threshold is imposed by the parent assembly and that the assembly in question has no power to amend the threshold.

After some careful thought, I feel like the answers are as follows:

  1. Majority vote.
  2. Two-thirds vote.
  3. Two-thirds vote.
  4. Two-thirds vote.

The reason for answers 2 and 4 originates with the fact that the assembly is now under rules preventing it from taking the action in question with less than a two-thirds vote. While a ratification is not, strictly speaking, taking an action, it does not feel right to me like it should be easier to do than it would be to perform the action again. The reason for answers 1 and 3 is more complicated. In answer 1, the assembly decided, at some point, to change its rules and lower the voting threshold for that decision. This is an action that the assembly could presumably have taken at any time, including prior to the original action. As such, that decision should be respected. But for number 3, at the time of the action, the assembly lacked that power. That power was only later granted to it by an external entity, and thus, the decision cannot be ratified except in accordance with the more stringent requirements in place at the time.

More precisely, I would say that:

  1. The requirements in place at the time of the ratification must be complied with; and
  2. Any procedural requirements in place at the time of the action must be complied with except those that:
    1. The assembly had the power to amend at the time of the action; and
    2. The assembly amended in between the action and the ratification.

In rare cases, this may lead to a situation where a motion cannot be ratified due to action of a parent assembly changing the procedural requirements in such a way as to make them contradictory. This is sufficiently unlikely that I would not like to rule on that situation, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears to me that the initial post in this topic attempts to apply the rule set forth in the sentence on page 125, lines 6-8, which applies to the third bullet point at the bottom of page 124, to the two bullet points preceding it. The same sort of confusion occurs in some of the responses posted in the two topics to which reference is made. 

In any event, since we are not informed as to what "the motion to be ratified" was, or, more importantly, the reason why its initial disposition was invalid and cannot become valid until approved by the assembly, I don't see how there can be any meaningful response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The requirement will ALWAYS be the current threshold.

Example:

If the rule in 1876 was "X requires a 3/4ths vote",

then, whatever X is, in 2015, the vote threshold necessary for X to be ratified will be the 2015 rule's requirement.

• You are not ratifying the "old vote threshold".

• You are ratifying an action which cannot be directly executed by today's assembly.

If today's assembly could take direct action (on "X"), then "ratification" is the dead-wrong parliamentary tool for the job. The assembly would go ahead and do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, potzbie said:

The requirement will ALWAYS be the current threshold.

Example:

If the rule in 1876 was "X requires a 3/4ths vote",

then, whatever X is, in 2015, the vote threshold necessary for X to be ratified will be the 2015 rule's requirement.

• You are not ratifying the "old vote threshold".

• You are ratifying an action which cannot be directly executed by today's assembly.

If today's assembly could take direct action (on "X"), then "ratification" is the dead-wrong parliamentary tool for the job. The assembly would go ahead and do it.

The second line from the bottom strikes me as correct, but I have no idea how it leads to the stated conclusion.  Since the action cannot be directly executed today, it seems to me that the threshold for ratification ought to be what it was earlier (although I also do not agree with the claim that it is in order to ratify what 2 drunks, unrelated to the organization, do in a bar).  Why would you think the opposite follows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one example I am thinking of, for "X":

• The treasurer has changed banks (i.e., opened a new checking account, while closing the old checking account),

in direct violation  of a standing rule, which says that the changing of banks requires a two-thirds vote of the board.

***

While the treasurer might be lauded and applauded for doing so in a timely manner (to avoid the bankruptcy of the old "savings and loan" which would have tied up the organization's cash for weeks or months), still, this prudent, foresightful action was done in direct violation of an organizational rule.

Q. Shall the organization DISCIPLINE the treasurer -- despite his saving the financial integrity of the organization?

Q. Shall the organization praise the treasurer and RATIFY his action -- despite the direct violation of an organizational rule?

***

Ratification is usually applied when the targeted action itself is a done deal, and the organization wishes to absolve the guilty party of responsibility, or to make proper what was improper.

The targeted action is 100% completed, so the organization must choose to

(a.) officially confirm the status quo;

(b.) officially undo the status quo;

(c.) remain silent, tacitly allowing the old action to just stand as is, without official blessing of any kind.

***

Had the organization amended the "two thirds of the board" rule in the interim, to require a new vote threshold (e.g., majority? four-fifths?), and had the organization discovered the "unauthorized" action (namely, changing of the checking account to a different bank) after the amendment, then the organization would have had to RATIFY the action at the newest, enforceable vote threshold. -- Not at the old voting threshold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The assembly could have, by a 2/3 vote, authorized moving the account ahead of time.  Perhaps precisely 2/3 would have been willing to do so (4 out of the 6 members, none of whom ever miss a meeting).  Somehow, there was a meeting between then and now at which it was decided to change this threshold, but not to do anything about the moved account (why not?) and, at that meeting, they decided it requires a 5/6 vote.  There is, I think, more at stake here than you claim.  Perhaps there are service fees involved in the move - which the Treasurer will be responsible for if the action is not ratified.  So, you mean to tell me that the action now cannot be ratified for want of a 5th vote, and the Treasurer is personally liable for those expenses, even though the Treasurer could have, quite literally, called every member to get a feel for whether or not this emergency action was desired, gotten honest answers, and still be liable?  I find that hard to swallow.

On the other hand, perhaps we have some action that can only be taken within a limited time frame, that costs money, and that would require a 2/3 vote (the organization has customized rules for this situation, and it requires 2/3 of those present and voting, period).  For example, they're considering renting gerbil balls, at a cost of $3,000, for a picnic to be held before the next meeting.  Knowing that the vote doesn't exist to take this action (but a bare majority supports it), the members who want to do it just go ahead and rent them anyway.  The next meeting comes along, and they know a ratification vote will fail.  So, they decided to move, without notice, to amend that rule - since everyone's there, they have a majority of the entire membership and manage to amend the rule, and then immediately go ahead and ratify the action.  Do you mean to bless this sort of shenanigan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

So, [THE MAJORITY OF THE ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP] decided to move, without notice, to AMEND that [SPECIAL RULE OF ORDER]
since everyone's there, they have a majority of the entire membership, and manage to AMEND the rule,
and then immediately go ahead and RATIFY the action.

[...]

[Action 'X' had required 2/3 of those present and voting, per a special rule of order, not a standing rule, since a vote threshold is embedded in the rule.]

 

Review:

• The society first properly AMENDED the controlling rule.

• The society then properly RATIFIED 'X'.

***

Since the organization properly AMENDED the rule's vote threshold, then the parliamentary situation is proper.

A "majority of the entire membership" can ratify most anything.
A "majority of the entire membership" is the strictest (hardest to achieve) voting threshold in Robert's Rules of Order.
So, if a majority of the membership wishes X, then X shall be adopted, or ratified.

(Per your own scenario, no previous notice is required.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I realize that the scenario I described accords with the view you stated.  I'm asking if you think those results are reasonable.  To put a finer point on it, remember that the customized rules of the society specifically provided that it requires a 2/3 vote of those present and voting and explicitly excluded a majority of the entire membership from passing the motion to rent gerbil balls.  Now you've allowed a majority of the entire membership to ratify these gerbil balls, rented and used prior to the amendment.  

Let me lay my cards out - it seems you're making a statement without giving a citation to any authoritative text, and one I don't believe can be found in any such text.  I am fairly sure this question is unanswered in RONR, and I'm not familiar with anything in Parliamentary Law that implies an answer directly.  So, as far as I can tell, the way to derive an answer is to ask what best accords with fundamental principles.  Therefore, I'm asking you why you think your answer does, and, in particular, giving you two cases (one in each direction) that make it seem to me that your answer gives a result that contradicts the aims and principles of parliamentary law.  I wasn't asking for a ruling, but a defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Gödel Fan said:

On the other hand, perhaps we have some action that can only be taken within a limited time frame, that costs money, and that would require a 2/3 vote (the organization has customized rules for this situation, and it requires 2/3 of those present and voting, period).  For example, they're considering renting gerbil balls, at a cost of $3,000, for a picnic to be held before the next meeting.  Knowing that the vote doesn't exist to take this action (but a bare majority supports it), the members who want to do it just go ahead and rent them anyway.  The next meeting comes along, and they know a ratification vote will fail.  So, they decided to move, without notice, to amend that rule - since everyone's there, they have a majority of the entire membership and manage to amend the rule, and then immediately go ahead and ratify the action.  Do you mean to bless this sort of shenanigan?

You fail to say what, exactly, happened at this meeting at which the association considered a motion to rent gerbil balls (why this penchant for silly facts?), which motion required (by special rule of order) a two-thirds vote for its adoption. All that you tell us is that "Knowing that the vote doesn't exist to take this action (but a bare majority supports it), the members who want to do it just go ahead and rent them anyway." I gather a motion was pending to rent gerbil balls. How, exactly, was this motion disposed of? Isn't this the action that you say was ratified by some sort of shenanigan at the next meeting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

You fail to say what, exactly, happened at this meeting at which the association considered a motion to rent gerbil balls (why this penchant for silly facts?), which motion required (by special rule of order) a two-thirds vote for its adoption. All that you tell us is that "Knowing that the vote doesn't exist to take this action (but a bare majority supports it), the members who want to do it just go ahead and rent them anyway." I gather a motion was pending to rent gerbil balls. How, exactly, was this motion disposed of? Isn't this the action that you say was ratified by some sort of shenanigan at the next meeting?

I was thinking, rather, that they never bring it up at a meeting, but, through politicking, know where the votes sit.  If you prefer, though, they could bring it up at a meeting, and it could fail, having received a majority but not 2/3.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gödel Fan said:

I was thinking, rather, that they never bring it up at a meeting, but, through politicking, know where the votes sit.  If you prefer, though, they could bring it up at a meeting, and it could fail, having received a majority but not 2/3.  

This is the problem. You seem to have no firm set of relevant facts in mind. You say "they're considering renting gerbil balls, at a cost of $3,000, for a picnic to be held before the next meeting", but now you say that this "consideration" isn't happening at a meeting.

And if the motion to rent the gerbil balls was considered at the meeting and, as you say, failed, obviously it's not this action by the assembly that needs to be ratified.

Apparently there is nothing that has previously been done by the assembly itself that has any relevance.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea how what you quote shows that there is no firm set of facts.  Today, there is no meeting.  The next meeting will take place in a month, and the picnic is next week.  Therefore, the picnic is before the next meeting.  Are you saying that ratification does not apply to actions taken by, say, the chair and treasurer outside of a meeting, if they spend funds for a "emergency" of some sort?  That seems to me to be the quintessential case of the sort of thing that needs ratification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Gödel Fan said:

I have no idea how what you quote shows that there is no firm set of facts.  Today, there is no meeting.  The next meeting will take place in a month, and the picnic is next week.  Therefore, the picnic is before the next meeting.  Are you saying that ratification does not apply to actions taken by, say, the chair and treasurer outside of a meeting, if they spend funds for a "emergency" of some sort?  That seems to me to be the quintessential case of the sort of thing that needs ratification.

No, I'm not saying this at all. I am saying that there is a difference between ratification of an action taken by an assembly that cannot become valid until ratified, and ratification of an action taken by officers, etc., in excess of their authority.

The two threads referred to in the initial post, and I believe the initial post here as well, deal with the former, whereas it now appears that you wish to deal instead with the latter. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was working off of the example given - a Treasurer moving banks - and then used the gerbil balls as an example that cuts in the other direction.  Since that example (banks) involved the actions of an officer in excess of authority, I assumed either that we were discussing that, or that we were working under the assumption that the answer would be the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gödel Fan said:

I was working off of the example given - a Treasurer moving banks - and then used the gerbil balls as an example that cuts in the other direction.  Since that example (banks) involved the actions of an officer in excess of authority, I assumed either that we were discussing that, or that we were working under the assumption that the answer would be the same.

Well, the example provided by potzbie of the Treasurer moving banks was gratuitously inserted, and certainly not responsive to my request for an example of his assertion that "If today's assembly could take direct action (on "X"), then "ratification" is the dead-wrong parliamentary tool for the job. The assembly would go ahead and do it", but it doesn't matter, I think I know what he meant. 

In any event, I think it clear that, if banks have been changed or gerbil balls have been leased, it will take only a majority vote to either commend or censure the officer or officers responsible for doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/31/2015 at 0:27 PM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

In any event, I think it clear that, if banks have been changed or gerbil balls have been leased, it will take only a majority vote to either commend or censure the officer or officers responsible for doing so.

Sure, the assembly can commend them -- and then, if there is an inadequate vote to adopt a motion to Ratify, send them the bill for those stupid gerbil balls. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

Sure, the assembly can commend them -- and then, if there is an inadequate vote to adopt a motion to Ratify, send them the bill for those stupid gerbil balls. :)

Yeah, maybe they really ought to pay for renting anything quite so silly, but I'm afraid that adoption of the motion to commend them for doing so makes ratification a done deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Perhaps the enthusiasm behind the commendation was due in part to the belief that they would be footing the bill.

Well, I suppose a motion to commend what the officer or officers did could be worded in such a way as to lead to such a belief, but the odds are against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...