How to Phrase a Motion which offers a choice

[Guest Randall]

Our organization will be meeting to decide from between two companies, which one with be awarded a contract. I know that the vote will be presented to the Assembly as: "All those in favor of Company A"; ...."All those in favor of Company B", but I don't know what the proper wording of such a motion would be. I must also admit that I don't even know if there is a proper name for this type of main motion, one which offers a choice between two alternatives. TIA

[jstackpo]

Unfortunately, there is also the third possibility that neither A nor B is favored by a majority of the voters. 

Try this way:  "I move to accept A"  Then "I move to amend the main motion by striking out A and inserting B". Vote on whether to amend the main motion.    Then vote on the main motion as amended.

The amendment makes the A vs. B choice straight forward.  The vote on the resulting main motion decides whether the A vs. B winner is acceptable to a majority.   See RONR pp. 130 ff. for a host of other details, sample motions and conditions.

A main motion to select A or B is usually applied to elections, where "none of the above" (defeating both) is not an option.

[Guest Randall]

My mistake in the presentation of my question.

The vote will be taken by roll call, and because the vote may be close and their may be some abstentions, AND our voting requirement is based on the affirmative vote of a majority of the members present, yes, neither company may be awarded this contract at this meeting. If helpful, please consider that there may be approximately 150 voting members (out of a total of 349 voting members) at this meeting (quorum = 1/3 of membership). Hope this assists you to assist me. Thanks.

[Dan Honemann]

You have asked this question before, and have yet to say whether or not your organization has already determined in some fashion that a company must be awarded this contract. If so, you will be having an election by roll call, which should not be handled in the manner you describe in your initial post.

[Guest Randall]

Yes, one company or the other must be awarded the contract, but possibly, the outcome of this vote may not produce a winning company. And yes, I misstated the manner in which the vote would be taken in the original post, as it will be done by roll call, and not by the usual show of hands. My original presentation was indeed in error. So, Mr. H., if you please, how should this motion be stated? 

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

The question is not whether to award the contract, but to whom it will be awarded. Therefore, you have an election to fill the blank in the assumed motion, "That __________ be awarded the contract." Take nominations from the floor and then take your roll call vote, at which time members may vote for any nominated company or may abstain. If no company receives a majority of the members present, which is your custom rule, then vote again until someone does. A roll call vote is a laborious choice in this situation; you would save time using a ballot or rising vote.

[Guest Randall]

Thank you for your input, "Guest". Would such nominations from the floor (only two choices) require a second?

[Joshua Katz]

24 minutes ago, Guest Randall said:

Thank you for your input, "Guest". Would such nominations from the floor (only two choices) require a second?

Nominations do not require a second.

So far as I can tell, the usual procedure is for a nomination to be made, someone to yell "second," and the chair to say "Nominations do not require a second.  Mr. X has been nominated.  Are there further nominations?" and for someone to then nominate Mr. Y, and someone else to again yell "second," prompting the chair to, once again, say that nominations do not require a second, etc.  

But no, to answer the question, they don't require a second.

[Guest Randall]

Final question: The nominations clearly do not require a second, but once nominations are closed (only two competing companies) the motion "That ______ be awarded the contract" would indeed require a second, as would any other main motion, yes? TIA to all.

[Joshua Katz]

There should be no such motion, assuming, as you are, that it's proper to hold an election.  Since, by assumption, you've already decided that you're going to hire some company (I don't know how you know that only two companies will be nominated, but that's another story), and you're holding an election to decide which, the winner of the election is hired.  

 

[Dan Honemann]

Guest Randall, you say that "one company or the other must be awarded the contract."

When you say this, do you mean that you think this is so simply as a practical matter, or do you mean that your corporation at some time in the past, by the adoption of some sort of rule (bylaw or standing rule of some sort), has mandated that some company will always be employed by it to provide telecommunication services to your community? Or is there some other reason?

 

 

 

[Richard Brown]

Mr. Honemann just expressed my concern. I am not yet convinced that one company or the other must be awarded the contract in the sense that voting must continue until a winner is selected.

When guest Randall says one company must be selected, I think he is using the word must in the sense that there will be unpleasant repercussions, such as the possible loss of cable service, if no company is selected. This is quite different from a bylaw provision or some other controlling rule which requires the selection of a company by a certain date.

It may well be that the membership is willing to not select a new vendor at this meeting and is willing to risk possible adverse consequences until such time as a new vendor is selected and a contract entered into.

 

[Dan Honemann]

36 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Mr. Honemann just expressed my concern. I am not yet convinced that one company or the other must be awarded the contract in the sense that voting must continue until a winner is selected.

When guest Randall says one company must be selected, I think he is using the word must in the sense that there will be unpleasant repercussions, such as the possible loss of cable service, if no company is selected. This is quite different from a bylaw provision or some other controlling rule which requires the selection of a company by a certain date.

It may well be that the membership is willing to not select a new vendor at this meeting and is willing to risk possible adverse consequences until such time as a new vendor is selected and a contract entered into.

 

It may be that the board will be willing to fail to select a new vendor at its next meeting and face the consequences, but the question which we are being asked, and can deal with, is whether or not some motion needs to be made at this meeting that a vendor be selected. The answer to this question depends upon the answer to the question which you and I have been asking guest Randall to answer.

[Joshua Katz]

5 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

It may be that the board will be willing to fail to select a new vendor at its next meeting and face the consequences, but the question which we are being asked, and can deal with, is whether or not some motion needs to be made at this meeting that a vendor be selected. The answer to this question depends upon the answer to the question which you and I have been asking guest Randall to answer.

This is why I added so many qualifiers to my answer.  You may recall that I asked exactly these questions, as did you and others, on the previous thread on this topic, and never got an answer that seemed directly on-point.  So I decided, for the purpose of this answer, to assume that, in fact, the organization had bound itself to make this choice (while making that assumption explicit).  I can't think of any circumstance, though, where the proper course of action would be to hold an election, and then take up the question of whether or not to actually hire the company selected.  The reason an election is proper, by assumption, is supposed to be because they must hire a company.  If that's false, I don't think they should be holding an election at all - although the same outcome can come about, I suppose, by a motion to hire company X, followed by a motion to amend by striking out X to create blank.