Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Minority'.
Found 3 results
Under traditional circumstances, I am aware that an appeal from the decision of the chair requires a majority vote. However, one of RONR's fundamental concepts is that a majority cannot infringe on a right that protects a minority larger than the existing minority (I phrased that weirdly but I'm sure you understand which concept I'm referring to). Using those two ideas, what would occur in the following scenario? A motion to limit debate is made and a member raises a point of order that the vote to limit debate requires a majority vote. The chair (correctly) rules that the point is not well taken and the member who raised the point of order appeals from the decision of the chair. Would this appeal require a majority vote? I would think it requires a 2/3 vote to pass the appeal or whatever the vote required to pass the motion in question would be. On a slightly related note, in a scenario like above, when RONR clearly has the answer to the question that is being appealed why is it up to the membership to decide a matter of parliamentary procedure rather than simply consulting RONR?
I am aware that one of the fundamental rights of RONR is protection of the minority, hence the use of 2/3 votes for motions like previous question and limit debate. My question arises when a 2/3 vote is equal to majority, such as when the assembly consists of only 6 voting members. In that case, a majority would be able to hinder the minority of rights like debate, because they also have 2/3 and could therefore pass motions like previous question. Does Robert's Rules mention anything about this scenario? Would it ever make sense to require a 5/6 vote when the assembly consists of 6 voting members?
I have a question about the Minutes which seems a bit odd. Say I have an issue with a proposed set of Minutes. What if I claim that a motion was incorrectly recorded. I can offer a correction, but what if the majority of members disagree with me. Thus, I cannot accept approval of the Minutes if I honestly believe that the Minutes are not accurate. How would the final "approval" of the Minutes be acceptable if a small group of members back me up and we do not agree with the Minutes as they are presented? I ask this because RONR states that no vote is supposed to occur on the actual approval of the Minutes. This seems to be a situation where "majority rules" and unanimous consent will not take place. The majority wishes the Minutes to be approved as they are, but a majority disagrees (and let's assume that the 'minority' makes up more than 1/3 of the membership.) What would happen to ensure the Minutes are actually approved?