Bylaws vs Robert's Rules

[Guest bwhite]

A motion was made and seconded to “move the previous question” (concerning the children’s library location). The resulting vote was a strong majority in favor. The Chairman declared the motion to have failed due to not obtaining a 2/3 vote per Robert’s Rules of Order.

I believe our Bylaws, not Robert’s Rules, govern this issue and the motion actually passed by simple majority vote because our bylaws state “A majority of the members present is required for a motion to pass”.

This statement constitutes our Bylaw’s Article IX F “regulation of procedure” and Robert’s Rules of Order “contrary provision” pertaining to the votes necessary for “a motion” to pass, therefore, our Bylaws, not Robert’s Rules of Order apply to this vote.

This is not the only place in our Bylaws where the “regulation of procedure” is used pertaining to voting, for instance election of a new minister under our Bylaws requires a ¾ affirmative vote.

Am I right and if so, what wording would you recommend to amend our Bylaws so they would not be contrary to and take precedence over Robert’s Rules concerning requiring a 2/3 vote to “move the previous question”?

[hmtcastle]

A motion was made and seconded to “move the previous question” (concerning the children’s library location). The resulting vote was a strong majority in favor. The Chairman declared the motion to have failed due to not obtaining a 2/3 vote per Robert’s Rules of Order.

I believe our Bylaws, not Robert’s Rules, govern this issue and the motion actually passed by simple majority vote because our bylaws state “A majority of the members present is required for a motion to pass”.

This statement constitutes our Bylaw’s Article IX F “regulation of procedure” and Robert’s Rules of Order “contrary provision” pertaining to the votes necessary for “a motion” to pass, therefore, our Bylaws, not Robert’s Rules of Order apply to this vote.

This is not the only place in our Bylaws where the “regulation of procedure” is used pertaining to voting, for instance election of a new minister under our Bylaws requires a ¾ affirmative vote.

Am I right and if so, what wording would you recommend to amend our Bylaws so they would not be contrary to and take precedence over Robert’s Rules concerning requiring a 2/3 vote to “move the previous question”?

It's up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws. Your rule that “A majority of the members present is required for a motion to pass” would appear to eliminate the requirement for a two-thirds vote at any time. But that's just one possible interpretation and, if valid, it's an unwise rule. There are many instances in RONR when a two-thirds vote is required, and for good reason. RONR describes it as "a compromise between the rights of the individual and the rights of the assembly (p.388).

See also FAQ #11.

Note, too, that your rule is more restrictive than RONR's "majority vote" which is the vote of a majority of those present and voting, not just present.

In short, you've decided to go against the long-standing and wide-accepted principles of parliamentary procedure. That's fine. You're just unlikely to find much support for that on this forum.

[Gary Novosielski]

The motion for the Previous Question does require a 2/3 vote in RONR. But all it does is cut off debate. It has no effect on whether the motion passes.

If the motion for the Previous Question fails, debate continues until everyone's done, or some other rule or time limit ends the debate. Eventually, however and whenever the motion is finally worded, and debate is concluded, that is when you vote on the motion itself.

That second vote is the one that only requires a majority.

If the chair stated that because the motion for the Previous Question failed, the entire motion itself failed, that's not correct. All that happens in that case is that debate continues. And that's the reason why it requires a 2/3 vote, because it protects the right of the minority to convince others of their point of view.

It is possible--even likely--that your bylaws language was intended only to apply to main motions, but it's up to your membership to interpret what they are supposed to mean.

[Guest bwhite]

The motion for the Previous Question does require a 2/3 vote in RONR. But all it does is cut off debate. It has no effect on whether the motion passes.

If the motion for the Previous Question fails, debate continues until everyone's done, or some other rule or time limit ends the debate. Eventually, however and whenever the motion is finally worded, and debate is concluded, that is when you vote on the motion itself.

That second vote is the one that only requires a majority.

If the chair stated that because the motion for the Previous Question failed, the entire motion itself failed, that's not correct. All that happens in that case is that debate continues. An that's the reason why it requires a 2/3 vote, because it protects the right of the minority to convince others of their point of view.

It is possible--even likely--that your bylaws language was intended only to apply to main motions, but it's up to your membership to interpret what they are supposed to mean.

[Guest bwhite]

I agree our bylaws as written do not agree with principles, but leave no room for interpretation, ie; applies to some motions, but doesn't apply to what specific motions. That is why I requested suggested wording to eliminate this "contrary provision" in our bylaws. Right now, I don't think we are allowed to go beyone our bylaws for further guidance from Robert's. If we don't fix this, some will pick and choose which motions it applies to. Thanks

[Gary Novosielski]

I agree our bylaws as written do not agree with principles, but leave no room for interpretation, ie; applies to some motions, but doesn't apply to what specific motions. That is why I requested suggested wording to eliminate this "contrary provision" in our bylaws. Right now, I don't think we are allowed to go beyone our bylaws for further guidance from Robert's. If we don't fix this, some will pick and choose which motions it applies to. Thanks

You can simply move to strike that entire sentence from the bylaws. It's not needed at all, as long as you do have another section where you adopt RONR as your parliamentary authority. Then motions will automatically require a majority vote, except for the ones that don't. And it also takes care of your "majority of members present" wording, as RONR only requires a "majority"--understood to mean a majority of those present and voting.

;-)

[Chris Harrison]

I agree our bylaws as written do not agree with principles, but leave no room for interpretation, ie; applies to some motions, but doesn't apply to what specific motions. That is why I requested suggested wording to eliminate this "contrary provision" in our bylaws. Right now, I don't think we are allowed to go beyone our bylaws for further guidance from Robert's. If we don't fix this, some will pick and choose which motions it applies to. Thanks

Of course you will have to look at the bylaws in their entirety to make sure there are no other snafus but striking “A majority of the members present is required for a motion to pass” from the bylaws might solve the problem. The sample bylaws on RONR pp. 565-570 never issues a blanket statement regarding the voting requirement for a motion being adopted like yours does. Also, using the RONR recommended language located on p. 569 might be helpful:

The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the Society in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the Society may adopt.

[Trina]

A motion was made and seconded to “move the previous question” (concerning the children’s library location). The resulting vote was a strong majority in favor. The Chairman declared the motion to have failed due to not obtaining a 2/3 vote per Robert’s Rules of Order.

...

Just out of curiosity, did debate on the motion about library location continue, after the chair stated that the vote on moving the previous question failed? As Mr. Novosielski pointed out, moving the previous question is only a motion to stop debate. What was the final outcome on the main motion?

[Guest guest]

BUT--If the Society's rules specify a particular threshold. the Society's rules OUGHT to prevail.

RONR OUGHT to be referred to when the Bylaws and rules do not address the matter.

I believe also that if the point of order is not raised at the time of the Chair's determination, either a call for division or stipulation of the rules, this is a moot issue.

Did the Chair err?

[Guest Victor]

A motion was made and seconded to “move the previous question” (concerning the children’s library location). The resulting vote was a strong majority in favor. The Chairman declared the motion to have failed due to not obtaining a 2/3 vote per Robert’s Rules of Order.

I believe our Bylaws, not Robert’s Rules, govern this issue and the motion actually passed by simple majority vote because our bylaws state “A majority of the members present is required for a motion to pass”.

This statement constitutes our Bylaw’s Article IX F “regulation of procedure” and Robert’s Rules of Order “contrary provision” pertaining to the votes necessary for “a motion” to pass, therefore, our Bylaws, not Robert’s Rules of Order apply to this vote.

This is not the only place in our Bylaws where the “regulation of procedure” is used pertaining to voting, for instance election of a new minister under our Bylaws requires a ¾ affirmative vote.

Am I right and if so, what wording would you recommend to amend our Bylaws so they would not be contrary to and take precedence over Robert’s Rules concerning requiring a 2/3 vote to “move the previous question”?

My personal belief is that RONR prevail when common sense fails. [A positions stated in the early pages of RONR]. Given this position, you shouldn't interpret your bylaws to be in conflict with Robert's. Rather, you shoule interpret Robert's te be in conflict with your bylaws, therefore not applicible as your predecessors crafted bylaws tho state a particular preference.

If you still wish to follow Robert's and not the present bylaws, find the applicable chapters that state "2/3rds" and "simple majority" and ammend to read as specified.

One might also consider waiting until RONR Ed. 11 is released to be up-to-date.

BTW, why is it RONR X Edition and not "as amended"? Did the editors lack a quorum, or could they not obtain a super-majority?

[J. J.]

BUT--If the Society's rules specify a particular threshold. the Society's rules OUGHT to prevail.

RONR OUGHT to be referred to when the Bylaws and rules do not address the matter.

I believe also that if the point of order is not raised at the time of the Chair's determination, either a call for division or stipulation of the rules, this is a moot issue.

Did the Chair err?

The assembly did err, but permitting the 2/3 requirement to stand at the time, but it is too late to do anything about it (p. 244).

[Guest bwhite]

The sequence of events is. During regular business meeting motion concerning library was moved, seconded, discussed at length, question was called and seconded, voted on, failed due to lack of 2/3s of those voting, then tabled till special meeting could be called in two weeks. During special meeting, original motion was taken off the table, chairman asked if there was and discussion before a vote, thus continuing to breach, point of order was called, chairman ruled against it, discussion continued, question called, seconded and passed by large uncounted majority of those who raised hands, discussion halted, ballot vote was taken on original motion which passed 57 for, 53 against, 1 not marked and one marked abstained, motion declared passed.

It appears the forum’s consensus is that our bylaws rule on the number of votes required to “move the question” but is a mute point because the point of order was not appealed and the original motion proceeded to conclusion without further challenge. I understand also that we should consider improving the wording of our bylaws concerning voting to be more consistent with the principles of Robert’s rules. Thanks to all who helped with this question. bwhite

[J. J.]

The sequence of events is. During regular business meeting motion concerning library was moved, seconded, discussed at length, question was called and seconded, voted on, failed due to lack of 2/3s of those voting, then tabled till special meeting could be called in two weeks. During special meeting, original motion was taken off the table, chairman asked if there was and discussion before a vote, thus continuing to breach, point of order was called, chairman ruled against it, discussion continued, question called, seconded and passed by large uncounted majority of those who raised hands, discussion halted, ballot vote was taken on original motion which passed 57 for, 53 against, 1 not marked and one marked abstained, motion declared passed.

It appears the forum’s consensus is that our bylaws rule on the number of votes required to “move the question” but is a mute point because the point of order was not appealed and the original motion proceeded to conclusion without further challenge. I understand also that we should consider improving the wording of our bylaws concerning voting to be more consistent with the principles of Robert’s rules. Thanks to all who helped with this question. bwhite

There was no continuing breach. The action was validly taken.

[Josh Martin]

If you still wish to follow Robert's and not the present bylaws, find the applicable chapters that state "2/3rds" and "simple majority" and ammend to read as specified.

Or they could just delete the rule in question and then RONR would be controlling.

One might also consider waiting until RONR Ed. 11 is released to be up-to-date.

The differences between the 10th and 11th editions are unlikely to be ground-breaking. I certainly doubt they would affect this issue.

BTW, why is it RONR X Edition and not "as amended"?

Because that's the terminology used in the publishing industry.