ASPA -- 2/3 or majority vote with all members present

[Trina]

Related to the recent thread dealing with the a meeting with all members present, and the effect that 100% attendance has on notice requirements...

If the entire membership is present, and a motion is made (without prior notice) to amend something previously adopted, is the vote threshold for adoption still two-thirds? Or is majority vote now adequate (since all the members are now aware of the pending motion, which awareness could be considered the purpose of giving notice).

[note -- I'm talking about a motion to ASPA where previous notice is not required by any rule of the society]

[Dan Honemann]

Related to the recent thread dealing with the a meeting with all members present, and the effect that 100% attendance has on notice requirements...

If the entire membership is present, and a motion is made (without prior notice) to amend something previously adopted, is the vote threshold for adoption still two-thirds? Or is majority vote now adequate (since all the members are now aware of the pending motion, which awareness could be considered the purpose of giving notice).

[note -- I'm talking about a motion to ASPA where previous notice is not required by any rule of the society]

The vote required for adoption of a motion doesn't change as a consequence of the number of members present.

[alanh49]

The vote required for adoption of a motion doesn't change as a consequence of the number of members present.

So a vote of a majority of the members present would adopt a motion to ASPA in that case since it would also be a majority of the entire membership.

[Trina]

So a vote of a majority of the members present would adopt a motion to ASPA in that case since it would also be a majority of the entire membership.

Well yes; however, my original question was about majority vote in the usual RONR sense -- majority of those present and voting. Apparently that would not be adequate, even with all members present (and thereby receiving on-the-spot notice).

[Guest Edgar]

Well yes; however, my original question was about majority vote in the usual RONR sense -- majority of those present and voting. Apparently that would not be adequate, even with all members present (and thereby receiving on-the-spot notice).

There's a difference between on-the-spot notice and previous notice.

[Trina]

There's a difference between on-the-spot notice and previous notice.

I don't disagree with your statement.

I'm trying to get a better understanding of the differences between on-the-spot notice and previous notice.

[Guest Guest]

Where does RONR discuss on the spot notice Trina?

[jstackpo]

RONR doesn't. We are wandering around in virgin territory.

[Sean Hunt]

Is the rule requiring a two-thirds or MotM vote when previous notice was not given a rule protecting absentees or a rule protecting a minority?

[Dan Honemann]

Is the rule requiring a two-thirds or MotM vote when previous notice was not given a rule protecting absentees or a rule protecting a minority?

As was pointed out in Official Interpretation 2006-18, “a rule requiring a two-thirds vote (or any other fraction) of members present and voting (or of all members present) affords no protection at all to absentees; it affords protection only to a certain fraction of the members present at the time the vote is taken.”

A rule requiring the vote of a majority of the entire membership for adoption of a motion protects absentees only if a majority of the entire membership is not present.

But whether a rule does or does not protect absentees has nothing whatsoever to do with the question asked in this thread. The question asked is "If the entire membership is present, and a motion is made (without prior notice) to amend something previously adopted, is the vote threshold for adoption still two-thirds?" The answer is that the vote threshold for adoption remains unchanged. The vote required for adoption of any motion remains the same regardless of how many (or what percentage) of the members happen to be present at the time the vote is taken. It's really that simple.

[Guest Glen Hall]

On the motion to Rescind or Amend something previously adopted -

RONR(11th ed), p.306, ll.24-30 :

In an assembly, except when applied to a constitution, bylaws, or special rules of order, require (a) a two-thirds vote, (

a majority vote when notice of intent to make the motion, stating the complete substance of the proposed change, has been given at a the previous meeting within a quarterly time interval or in the call of the present meeting, or © a vote of a majority of the entire membership -- any one of which will suffice.

So the answer - "..the vote threshold for adoption remains unchanged. The vote required for adoption of any motion remains the same regardless of how many (or what percentage) of the members happen to be present at the time the vote is taken," - seems confusing in the context of this discussion. According to how I understand this passage in RONR, the vote required IS different depending on whether or not notice was given, which appears to negate the statement, "The vote required for adoption of any motion remains the same regardless of how many (or what percentage) of the members happen to be present at the time the vote is taken," since, if the number of members present does not equal or exceed a majority of the membership, no action can be taking on the motion.

In the context of this particular meeting, since the entire membership is present, action can be taken by a majority vote of this assembled group.

[Guest Glen Hall]

Sorry, forgot to turn off the emoticons. Should be "(" and "(-c-)" instead of the emoticon and the copyright sign.

Glen

[Trina]

On the motion to Rescind or Amend something previously adopted -

RONR(11th ed), p.306, ll.24-30 :

In an assembly, except when applied to a constitution, bylaws, or special rules of order, require (a) a two-thirds vote, (

a majority vote when notice of intent to make the motion, stating the complete substance of the proposed change, has been given at a the previous meeting within a quarterly time interval or in the call of the present meeting, or © a vote of a majority of the entire membership -- any one of which will suffice.

So the answer - "..the vote threshold for adoption remains unchanged. The vote required for adoption of any motion remains the same regardless of how many (or what percentage) of the members happen to be present at the time the vote is taken," - seems confusing in the context of this discussion. According to how I understand this passage in RONR, the vote required IS different depending on whether or not notice was given, which appears to negate the statement, "The vote required for adoption of any motion remains the same regardless of how many (or what percentage) of the members happen to be present at the time the vote is taken," since, if the number of members present does not equal or exceed a majority of the membership, no action can be taking on the motion.

As long as quorum is reached, action can certainly be taken (by two-thirds vote without notice OR by majority vote with notice).

In the context of this particular meeting, since the entire membership is present, action can be taken by a majority vote of this assembled group.

Apparently not, according to Mr. Honemann's answer. Suppose that there are 31 members, and all of them show up at the meeting. True, if 16 or more vote in favor of the motion to ASPA, the motion passes. However, if only 20 members choose to vote (11 abstain), and 14 out of those 20 vote in favor (this is a majority vote, and would be clearly adequate to adopt an ordinary main motion at the meeting), the motion to ASPA would fail.

At least, that is how I understood Mr. Honemann's response.

[Guest Glen Hall]

Members / post #13 - you are correct. A counted vote in the affirmative of the majority of the membership eligible to vote at the time the vote is taken (RONR p. 403) is the number needed to adopt in this case.

Thank you,

Glen