Willie Watson Posted February 22, 2017 at 11:23 AM Report Share Posted February 22, 2017 at 11:23 AM An interesting thing happened at our regularly scheduled meeting last month that I would like to have a comment on. Our program Committee introduced a main motion during its committee report. The motion was a purposed standing rule which had application only outside of our meetings and could possibly inflame passions. The committee also stated that the proposed standing rule was to be adopted by a 2/3 vote. I then raised a point of order, primarily that a standing rule according to RONR was to be adopted by only a majority vote (with a few exceptions noted therein that the proposed standing rule did not quality for). My point of order was sustained by the chair. So I have a three part question: (1) In your opinion was the decision to sustain my point of order correct, 2) could some member have moved to suspend the rules so that a 2/3 vote adopted the proposed standing rule, and 3)If the proposed standing rule was adopted by a 2/3 vote and we wanted to rescind it next year, then what would be the vote needed to rescind it? Thank you very much for your patience and input! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted February 22, 2017 at 11:52 AM Report Share Posted February 22, 2017 at 11:52 AM Assuming your Standing Rule was indeed some sort of administrative rule (p. 18): (1) your point was well taken and correctly sustained (more accurately, "ruled on") by the chair; (2) yes, he could have but it would have required a 2/3 vote to suspend the rule, so there might not be much point to it; (3) majority would do it (with notice, see p. 305ff.), it make no difference what vote was required for the initial adoption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willie Watson Posted February 22, 2017 at 12:25 PM Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2017 at 12:25 PM Can one of you guys then explain why if we suspend the rules and adopt the proposed standing rule by a 2/3 vote, then why something greater than a 2/3 vote is not required to rescind it later. I am reading the last paragraph in RONR, p. 1i and here is the quote “Another important principle is that, as a protection against instability—arising, for example, from such factors as slight variations in attendance—the requirements for changing a previous action are greater than those for taking the action in the first place. “ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted February 22, 2017 at 12:40 PM Report Share Posted February 22, 2017 at 12:40 PM I suppose one response is that since the standing rule didn't need or require a 2/3 adoption threshold in the first place, there is no call to require a threshold that is higher still to rescind it. This discussion is a fine example of how one can go right off the rails when departing from RONR's standard rules. You (nothing personal!) adopted a not-standard rule (requiring 2/3 for a Standing Rule), even though only on a temporary basis, so you have to live with the consequences of how to rescind it. You departed from the rule-book; you have to take it from there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted February 22, 2017 at 02:08 PM Report Share Posted February 22, 2017 at 02:08 PM 1 hour ago, Willie Watson said: Can one of you guys then explain why if we suspend the rules and adopt the proposed standing rule by a 2/3 vote, then why something greater than a 2/3 vote is not required to rescind it later. I am reading the last paragraph in RONR, p. 1i and here is the quote “Another important principle is that, as a protection against instability—arising, for example, from such factors as slight variations in attendance—the requirements for changing a previous action are greater than those for taking the action in the first place. “ Suspension of the rules to require a two-thirds vote for the adoption of a standing rule which otherwise would require only a majority vote for its adoption does not change the character of the rule being adopted in any respect. It's still a standing rule, and suspension of the rules in order to require a two-thirds vote for its adoption does not also somehow suspend the rules required for its subsequent rescission or amendment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willie Watson Posted February 22, 2017 at 02:40 PM Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2017 at 02:40 PM Well said and thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts