How does RONR prevent an abusive majority from using appeal of the chair to kill 2/3rd protections?

[Guest KelsoH]

Hi,

I am involved in a very political organization. At a meeting members who constitute a majority of the board moved motions that they 'know' require a 2/3rds to pass, but move them anyways knowing that even if the chair rules against them, that they can just overrule the chair with a majority vote on appeal.

Is there any mechanism in RONR to prevent a tyrannical majority from hurting the rights of the minority by overruling the chair via appeal so that they can make the matter they're addressing a majority vote instead of the 2/3rds vote that they don't have?

RONR seems to require a serious dedication to the rules, but the appeal mechanism of a chair's ruling seems to allow any majority to get whatever it wants if it absolutely has to. Thoughts?

[Larry Cisar]

Hi,

I am involved in a very political organization. At a meeting members who constitute a majority of the board moved motions that they 'know' require a 2/3rds to pass, but move them anyways knowing that even if the chair rules against them, that they can just overrule the chair with a majority vote on appeal.

Is there any mechanism in RONR to prevent a tyrannical majority from hurting the rights of the minority by overruling the chair via appeal so that they can make the matter they're addressing a majority vote instead of the 2/3rds vote that they don't have?

RONR seems to require a serious dedication to the rules, but the appeal mechanism of a chair's ruling seems to allow any majority to get whatever it wants if it absolutely has to. Thoughts?

If there is only one possible interpretation of a rule, then there is no appeal.

[hmtcastle]

Is there any mechanism in RONR to prevent a tyrannical majority from hurting the rights of the minority by overruling the chair via appeal so that they can make the matter they're addressing a majority vote instead of the 2/3rds vote that they don't have?

Rules don't enforce themselves. If the board is misbehaving, appeal to the general membership. If the general membership is misbehaving, appeal to the courts. The courts have serious mechanisms for enforcing the laws.

[jstackpo]

In other words, given the steps Mr. Mountcastle outlined, the anser is "No".

RONR can be viewed as a book of etiquette, for people to use to see how to behave, but only if they WANT to behave. If they don't want to behave, the book isn't going to help (with the possible exception of Chapter XX).

[David A Foulkes]

Hi,

I am involved in a very political organization. At a meeting members who constitute a majority of the board moved motions that they 'know' require a 2/3rds to pass, but move them anyways knowing that even if the chair rules against them, that they can just overrule the chair with a majority vote on appeal.

I'm a little confused.

If a motion is made that requires a 2/3 vote which it does not achieve, why is there a ruling by the chair? If the vote is not achieved, the motion is defeated not because the chair rules against but because the votes are not there to adopt it. There is no appeal of a lost vote.

So what is the chair ruling on?

Also, is this a meeting of the Board at which this happens?

[Dan Honemann]

I'm a little confused.

If a motion is made that requires a 2/3 vote which it does not achieve, why is there a ruling by the chair? If the vote is not achieved, the motion is defeated not because the chair rules against but because the votes are not there to adopt it. There is no appeal of a lost vote.

So what is the chair ruling on?

Also, is this a meeting of the Board at which this happens?

One assumes that when the chair announces that "there are less than two-thirds in the affirmative and the motion is lost", a member makes the point of order that the motion required only a majority vote for its adoption, following which an appeal is taken from the ruling of the chair that the point of order is not well taken.

We can't tell at this juncture whether or not reasonable minds might possibly differ on the question of the vote requirement.

[David A Foulkes]

One assumes that when the chair announces that "there are less than two-thirds in the affirmative and the motion is lost", a member makes the point of order that the motion required only a majority vote for its adoption, following which an appeal is taken from the ruling of the chair that the point of order is not well taken.

At a meeting members who constitute a majority of the board moved motions that they 'know' require a 2/3rds to pass,

But the "facts" as we have them now suggests this majority of the board "knows" the required vote is 2/3. I would also think that, if there is anything that clearly states that fact, such as RONR or a bylaw, then it is not actually a "ruling" (ie parliamentary opinion) of the chair in this regard.

For example, a motion of Previous Question requires a 2/3 vote. If the motion fails, can there really be a Point of Order raised as to the actual required voting threshold (ie, "it's only a majority vote")? This seems less a "ruling" by the chair and more a simple statement of parliamentary fact.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

At a meeting members who constitute a majority

of the board moved motions that they 'know' require a 2/3rds to pass, but move them anyways knowing that even if the chair rules against them, that they can just overrule the chair with a majority

vote on appeal.

Is there any mechanism in RONR to prevent a tyrannical majority

from hurting the rights of the minority by overruling the chair via appeal so that they can make the matter they're addressing a majority

vote instead of the 2/3rds vote that they don't have?

RONR seems to require a serious dedication to the rules, but the appeal mechanism of a chair's ruling seems to allow any majority

to get whatever it wants if it absolutely has to.

"... majority ... majority ... majority ...".

In reply, "No," there is no mechanism in RONR to prevent a "tyrannical" majority from hurting the rights of the minority, by overruling the chair via appeal.

It is assumed that the MAJORITY is sane and rational, plus the fact that a QUORUM is present, so that a good representative number of members are making all these decisions.

Your "safety" factor is a sufficient, representative quorum. It isn't a minority who is making all these decisions, but a majority, with enough of them (the quorum's worth) present so as to be representative of the true will of the organization.

And, to cover the other side of the coin, you wouldn't want a SMALLER percentage of the membership making key decisions, and thus trump the will of the majority.

"Thar lie dragons."

[Tim Wynn]

But the "facts" as we have them now suggests this majority of the board "knows" the required vote is 2/3. I would also think that, if there is anything that clearly states that fact, such as RONR or a bylaw, then it is not actually a "ruling" (ie parliamentary opinion) of the chair in this regard.

A ruling is different than a parliamentary opinion.

For example, a motion of Previous Question requires a 2/3 vote. If the motion fails, can there really be a Point of Order raised as to the actual required voting threshold (ie, "it's only a majority vote")? This seems less a "ruling" by the chair and more a simple statement of parliamentary fact.

It's a ruling. The chair has the duty of making rulings on questions of parliamentary law. See the first sentence of section 24.

The chair is forced to make a "ruling," when a point of order is made. See the first sentence of section 23.

[David A Foulkes]

See the first sentence of section 23.

"When a member thinks the rules of the assembly are being violated....."

So, even if the rules aren't being violated? It's not enough that chair pulls out the parliamentary authority (as properly adopted in the bylaws) and says "No, you're wrong. See, right here on page.........?" and quotes chapter and verse, it doesn't matter? In the face of indisputable, unambiguous, no-other-interpretation-possible proof, the window is opened and out flies RONR just like that?

[Tim Wynn]

"When a member thinks the rules of the assembly are being violated....."

So, even if the rules aren't being violated? It's not enough that chair pulls out the parliamentary authority (as properly adopted in the bylaws) and says "No, you're wrong. See, right here on page.........?" and quotes chapter and verse, it doesn't matter? In the face of indisputable, unambiguous, no-other-interpretation-possible proof, the window is opened and out flies RONR just like that?

David,

Say you're in a committee meeting, of which you're a member, and you move to reconsider a vote from the previous meeting, which you did not attend. The chair whips out RONR p. 304, 30-31 and says, "You weren't here. You didn't vote on the prevailing side. You can't move to reconsider. That's a fact, not a ruling, so you can't appeal."

How, then, would you cite p. 319, l. 5-9, if you're not allowed to make a point of order or appeal?

The rules don't assume everyone knows everything; they just strive to protect the right to fair participation in the deliberative process.

[David A Foulkes]

David,

Say you're in a committee meeting, of which you're a member, and you move to reconsider a vote from the previous meeting, which you did not attend. The chair whips out RONR p. 304, 30-31 and says, "You weren't here. You didn't vote on the prevailing side. You can't move to reconsider. That's a fact, not a ruling, so you can't appeal."

How, then, would you cite p. 319, l. 5-9, if you're not allowed to make a point of order or appeal?

The rules don't assume everyone knows everything; they just strive to protect the right to fair participation in the deliberative process.

But that's IN the book. Whether you want to consider this a contradiction within RONR itself, it is clearly stated in it and there is support for it. Perhaps p. 304 should state clearly that the citation as you provided should applies differently to standing and special committees. But there is nothing that supports a motion for Previous Question (yes, my example, I know) can pass with a majority vote. The "tyrannical majority" can't pull out a page to support that.

It has been noted here that when a society adopts RONR as it's parliamentary authority, it has (figuratively speaking in reality I suspect) also adopted 700 pages of additional bylaws.

So the "rule", as noted on page 570 lines 17-20, that an ambiguity in the bylaws must exist before interpretation is allowed, and if the meaning is clear, even in the face of a true unanimous vote by the membership, the meaning can not be changed and the bylaw can not be ignored, does not apply to RONR?

[Tim Wynn]

But that's IN the book. Whether you want to consider this a contradiction within RONR itself, it is clearly stated in it and there is support for it. Perhaps p. 304 should state clearly that the citation as you provided should applies differently to standing and special committees. But there is nothing that supports a motion for Previous Question (yes, my example, I know) can pass with a majority vote. The "tyrannical majority" can't pull out a page to support that.

It has been noted here that when a society adopts RONR as it's parliamentary authority, it has (figuratively speaking in reality I suspect) also adopted 700 pages of additional bylaws.

So the "rule", as noted on page 570 lines 17-20, that an ambiguity in the bylaws must exist before interpretation is allowed, and if the meaning is clear, even in the face of a true unanimous vote by the membership, the meaning can not be changed and the bylaw can not be ignored, does not apply to RONR?

Neither Point of Order nor Appeal relies on ambiguity. There is no ambiguity in the rules I cited in connection with Reconsider. That doesn't mean the chair can't get it wrong.

The rule of "ambiguity" applies to interpretation. Interpretation is a matter of converting something unclear into something understandable. Interpretation is not an essential part of making a ruling (whether by the chair or assembly).

So, if you mean a clear rule cannot be interpreted, you're right.

If you mean a ruling cannot be made based upon clear rules... you have some more contemplating to do.

[David A Foulkes]

The sound of hoofbeats you hear is me riding my zebra into the sunset, contemplatively thumbing through my quickly aging (and spine-broken) copy of RONR. (clip clop clip clop)

[Rob Elsman]

If there is only one possible interpretation of a rule, then there is no appeal.

Once again, the first answer is the best one.

I'm glad to hear from you, Mr. Cisar. I take your response to mean you're okay.

[Tim Wynn]

Just to be clear, the misuse of Appeal by a majority to subvert rules requiring a two-thirds vote is out of order and not supported by RONR. It makes no difference if the rules are contained in the bylaws or in the parliamentary authority.

As an example: a shovel is intended to be used for gardening and digging holes and such. However, if it's misused to commit a capital crime, the fault does not belong to the shovel. It's the fault of those doing the misusing.

The rules in RONR are not to be blamed for their misuse.

If this majority is truly a majority of the membership, it can adopt a special rule of order, at the meeting, that takes precedence over RONR, and RONR supports its right to do so. If it is not a majority of the membership, its actions on appeal are subject to the scrutiny of the majority of the entire membership.

[David A Foulkes]

If this majority is truly a majority of the membership, it can adopt a special rule of order, at the meeting, that takes precedence over RONR, and RONR supports its right to do so. If it is not a majority of the membership, its actions on appeal are subject to the scrutiny of the majority of the entire membership.

(he turns in his saddle looking over his shoulder and calls out.....)

A motion that conflicts with a previously adopted motion is out of order. However, if the second motion is adopted, (having perhaps successfully survived an Appeal to a Point of Order) by the vote threshold required to (effectively) Rescind/Amend Something Previously Adopted, although that motion itself was not explicitly moved, the adoption of the second motion stands.

If this (tyrannical) majority is truly a majority of the entire membership, and a Point Of Order having been successfully Appealed regarding the voting threshold of a motion normally requiring a 2/3 vote changes it to a majority vote, has the assembly thus (effectively) adopted a Special Rule of Order in this regard that now stands? Does there need to be some more formal, explicit procedure, such as adopting a motion "to adopt a Special Rule Of Order changing the voting threshold of motion X from 2/3 to a majority vote?"

Or is the (effective) result of the successful Appeal enough to accomplish this? (my thinking on this last question is "yes", but....)

[Tim Wynn]

A motion that conflicts with a previously adopted motion is out of order. However, if the second motion is adopted, (having perhaps successfully survived an Appeal to a Point of Order) by the vote threshold required to (effectively) Rescind/Amend Something Previously Adopted, although that motion itself was not explicitly moved, the adoption of the second motion stands.

If this (tyrannical) majority is truly a majority of the entire membership, and a Point Of Order having been successfully Appealed regarding the voting threshold of a motion normally requiring a 2/3 vote changes it to a majority vote, has the assembly thus (effectively) adopted a Special Rule of Order in this regard that now stands? Does there need to be some more formal, explicit procedure, such as adopting a motion "to adopt a Special Rule Of Order changing the voting threshold of motion X from 2/3 to a majority vote?"

An appeal does not make or change a rule. It's a ruling on the situation, in accordance with the current rules, which remain unchanged. However, a ruling on a point of order or by appeal may create a precedent. See p. 294, l. 28-30.

Or is the (effective) result of the successful Appeal enough to accomplish this? (my thinking on this last question is "yes", but....)

No. If you want a special rule of order, you need to adopt one.

[Josh Martin]

Is there any mechanism in RONR to prevent a tyrannical majority from hurting the rights of the minority by overruling the chair via appeal so that they can make the matter they're addressing a majority vote instead of the 2/3rds vote that they don't have?

If there is only one reasonable interpretation of the rules in question, the chair should not permit an Appeal from his ruling. But ultimately, if a majority of the assembly has no regard for the rules, nothing in RONR is going to be of much help. One of the basic assumptions in RONR is that the members (or at least most of them - there are always a few troublemakers) want to play by the rules, and the intent of the book is to show them how. If that basic assumption does not apply to your assembly, there are going to be problems. If this is a subordinate board, it seems to me the next step is to take your case to the general membership. Perhaps it's time to replace the tyrannical majority with members who care about the rules. See FAQ #20.

So, even if the rules aren't being violated? It's not enough that chair pulls out the parliamentary authority (as properly adopted in the bylaws) and says "No, you're wrong. See, right here on page.........?" and quotes chapter and verse, it doesn't matter? In the face of indisputable, unambiguous, no-other-interpretation-possible proof, the window is opened and out flies RONR just like that?

Mr. Foulkes, it is ultimately the case that the assembly interprets its rules, by majority vote, even if the assembly is wrong. While RONR is an extraordinary work, it is still an inanimate object, and so disputes over it will always have to be settled by people. From what I've seen on this forum, the more common danger seems to be a rogue chair, so I think it is right that the final authority rests with the assembly, although there will be cases where this is unfortunate. It is entirely improper for a majority to use an Appeal to subvert rules, but ultimately, what is the chair going to do to stop them?

If this majority is truly a majority of the membership, it can adopt a special rule of order, at the meeting, that takes precedence over RONR, and RONR supports its right to do so.

Well, that may not be the case here. It's not clear whether this is a stand-alone board or if it is the board of a society, but if it is the latter, it may not have the authority to adopt its own rules.