Agenda voted on, what vote is needed to set aside?

[Guest JimM]

Recently at a general membership meeting held via conference call (as allowed in the Constitution), an agenda was voted on by the Members in attendance at the beginning of the meeting (there were 51 members noted at the time).

Later in the meeting, the president tried to insert into the agenda, the opportunity for an officer to give a report, when there were other officers not given the same opportunity.

The parliamentarian present indicated that the motion to change the agenda required a two-thirds vote to change the agenda, or only a majority vote exceeding the origional number who passed the agenda in the first place. For instance, since there were 51 in attendance, and 26 were needed to vote in the agenda, then only 26 votes were needed to set aside the agenda and allow the change.

I cannot find this anywhere in RONR. All I see are general consent to set aside the agenda; a two-thirds majority to set aside the agenda; a lay the agenda on the table motion; or a making the intervening motion a special or general order.

Now, what happens if the number of people in attencance increases? What if the number of people decreases (still larger than a quorum)? If 26 was set in stone and the assembly increases to 75 in attendance, can 26 still set aside the agenda?

I thought, however, that once the agenda was voted on by the assembly, it became a special order and would still require a two-thirds vote of those in attendance at the time of the vote to set aside the agenda.

Citations from RONR 10TH are welcome.

JimM

[George Mervosh]

You are correct, and you likely found all of the citable material.

[jstackpo]

I'm not sure what George was reading but.... quoting JimM ...

"The parliamentarian present indicated that the motion to change the agenda required a two-thirds vote to change the agenda, or only a majority vote exceeding the origional number who passed the agenda in the first place."

The parliamentarian is correct in the first half of his/her sentence, but wrong in the second. Ignore that "or only ..." business. See pp 293 ff.

Quote:

"I thought, however, that once the agenda was voted on by the assembly, it became a special order and would still require a two-thirds vote of those in attendance at the time of the vote to set aside the agenda."

Not quite a correct statement.. It takes 2/3 of those present and voting (abstentions do NOT count, and it doesn't matter how many folks are in the room, as long as you have a quorum) to amend the agenda. p. 387 ff.

[George Mervosh]

"require a two-thirds vote"

Since he used proper terminology, I thought he understood the vote required, but maybe not after re-reading it.

[jstackpo]

It is yet another example of the ambiguity: "majority vote of the members present" -- NOT the proper RONR phrasing, on p. 387 ff.

Could mean the normal "majority vote" (of those present AND voting)

or

Could mean "vote of a majority of those present"

Hard to be sure.

[hmtcastle]

The parliamentarian present indicated that the motion to change the agenda required a two-thirds vote to change the agenda, or only a majority vote exceeding the origional number who passed the agenda in the first place.

I have to say that's the first time I've come across the "majority vote exceeding the original number" rule and I'd like to see the parliamentarian's reference.

[David A Foulkes]

I have to say that's the first time I've come across the "majority vote exceeding the original number" rule and I'd like to see the parliamentarian's reference.

I'd wager Mr. Elsman's morning donut it is a misinterpretation of p. 73 ll. 4-7.

[Guest JimM]

I have to say that's the first time I've come across the "majority vote exceeding the original number" rule and I'd like to see the parliamentarian's reference.

Me too.... It's not in her book (idiot's guide), but she seem to advise the president at this meeting that as long as the original number of those voting on the agenda voted to change the agenda, then it was ok to change the agenda. In her book, she does not list this method, nor does it make any sense since this is a motion to set aside the rules. It was my understanding that the rule it there to protect members who had business on the agenda and who may have had to leave from having their business dropped by the remaining members in a simple majority vote.

But, that is why I am double checking here.....

regard

JimM

[tctheatc]

I'd wager Mr. Elsman's morning donut it is a misinterpretation of p. 73 ll. 4-7.

Nice eye (as we say in the tower)

[hmtcastle]

Nice eye (as we say in the tower)

Well, maybe, if the misinterpretation was that the number of votes to change the agenda had to exceed the number of votes to adopt it. But now it appears that the wacky "rule" is that the votes to change only have to equal the votes to adopt.

[Guest JimM]

Well, maybe, if the misinterpretation was that the number of votes to change the agenda had to exceed the number of votes to adopt it. But now it appears that the wacky "rule" is that the votes to change only have to equal the votes to adopt.

Mr Mountcastle,

Are you saying RONR provides that in order to change the agenda, "the vote would ONLY need to exceed the number of votes it took to adopt it?"

Or would it still need a two-thirds majority to pass?

The parliamentarian seemed to be focused on the number of people present at the start of the meeting, not how many were currently attending at the time the motion to suspend the rules occured.

[hmtcastle]

Are you saying RONR provides that in order to change the agenda, "the vote would ONLY need to exceed the number of votes it took to adopt it?"

Absolutely not. There is no voting requirement in RONR that is based on the absolute number of affirmative votes. A motion either requires a majority vote, a two-thirds vote, or the vote of a majority of the entire membership.

I was simply saying that a "rule" that says you can amend a previously adopted motion by a vote equal to the number of votes that adopted the original motion is even sillier than a "rule" that says you can amend a previously adopted motion with one more vote than adopted the original motion.

The parliamentarian seemed to be focused on the number of people present at the start of the meeting, not how many were currently attending at the time the motion to suspend the rules occured.

The number of members present is only relevant in terms of the quorum requirement. It has nothing to do with voting requirements. Neither does the number of votes a previous motion may have received.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Recently at a general membership meeting held via conference call (as allowed in the Constitution), an agenda was voted on by the Members in attendance at the beginning of the meeting (there were 51 members noted at the time).

Later in the meeting, the president tried to insert into the agenda, the opportunity for an officer to give a report, when there were other officers not given the same opportunity.

The parliamentarian present indicated that the motion to change the agenda required a two-thirds vote to change the agenda, or only a majority vote exceeding the origional number who passed the agenda in the first place. For instance, since there were 51 in attendance, and 26 were needed to vote in the agenda, then only 26 votes were needed to set aside the agenda and allow the change.

I cannot find this anywhere in RONR. All I see are general consent to set aside the agenda; a two-thirds majority to set aside the agenda; a lay the agenda on the table motion; or a making the intervening motion a special or general order.

Now, what happens if the number of people in attencance increases? What if the number of people decreases (still larger than a quorum)? If 26 was set in stone and the assembly increases to 75 in attendance, can 26 still set aside the agenda?

I thought, however, that once the agenda was voted on by the assembly, it became a special order and would still require a two-thirds vote of those in attendance at the time of the vote to set aside the agenda.

Citations from RONR 10TH are welcome.

JimM

Depending on whether this was truly an officer's report and what else was on the agenda, it might not have been necessary to amend or suspend the agenda at all. When no business is pending, a report can be received by majority vote (see RONR 10th ed., pp. 496495-496, which is specifically about committee reports; in my opinion, the same principle would apply to a legitimate report of an officer). Items on an agenda are not special orders unless they are specifically designated as such or a particular time is specified for them on the agenda.

[David A Foulkes]

The parliamentarian present indicated that the motion to change the agenda required a two-thirds vote to change the agenda, or only a majority vote exceeding the origional number who passed the agenda in the first place. For instance, since there were 51 in attendance, and 26 were needed to vote in the agenda, then only 26 votes were needed to set aside the agenda and allow the change.

Well, maybe, if the misinterpretation was that the number of votes to change the agenda had to exceed the number of votes to adopt it. But now it appears that the wacky "rule" is that the votes to change only have to equal the votes to adopt.

I didn't actually catch the contradiction in the initial post. First it's a majority vote exceeding the original number, and then it's "if it was 26 originally, then it shall be at least 26 to amend".

What can you expect from the idiot's guide to parliamentarianism?

[hmtcastle]

What can you expect from the idiot's guide to parliamentarianism?

Since it was written by "one of the few certified parliamentary experts in the country", one expects more (and, to be fair, I suspect the book is being misinterpreted).

[David A Foulkes]

Since it was written by "one of the few certified parliamentary experts in the country", one expects more (and, in truth, I suspect the book is being misinterpreted).

I sit corrected. It's a poor musician who blames his instrument, and thus I should not blame the book.

[Josh Martin]

What can you expect from the idiot's guide to parliamentarianism?

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Robert's Rules is actually a very good third-party guide, as I understand it. It is written by Nancy Sylvester, PRP, CPP-T, the current Parliamentarian of the National Association of Parliamentarians. The original poster said that the Parliamentarian's bizarre idea did not come from that text.

Me too.... It's not in her book (idiot's guide),

[Guest JimM]

Depending on whether this was truly an officer's report and what else was on the agenda, it might not have been necessary to amend or suspend the agenda at all. When no business is pending, a report can be received by majority vote (see RONR 10th ed., pp. 496-496, which is specifically about committee reports; in my opinion, the same principle would apply to a legitimate report of an officer). Items on an agenda are not special orders unless they are specifically designated as such or a particular time is specified for them on the agenda.

You make a good point about receiving committee reports. However, in the effort of the president to control his meeting (yes, you read it right), he introduced this agenda at the beginning. It was adopted after his "meeting rules" were introduced and passed where the rules demanded that the meeting be limited to 20 minutes. The agenda passed subsequent to that. The president intentionally left off "officers" he does not like from the agenda, then, suddenly remembered one he wanted to have a report from. So, he called on the "officer" to give the report and several members objected since they passed his agenda and saw him trying to insert something he excluded while not giving other officer's the same privelage.

The parliamenatrain whispering over his shoulder "advised" him that all that was needed to set aside the rules was the same number that originally passed the agenda in the first place. I think she was intepreting "a majority of the entire membership" as meaning "a majority of the entire membership who was present at the time the meeting was called to order." We have nearly 900 members, and we had 51 members present at the start of the meeting (yes, a paltry showing, but we are a union and most are members because they are forced to pay agency fees even though the vast majority don't like the union (hence, the presidents attempt to control the meeting and not let those who care enough to attend to effect any change in his grip on the union).

He "ruled" the agenda could be changed not having a two-thirds majority required. The parliamentarian spoke saying that the agenda could be modified as long as there were at least as many "yes" votes as first adopted the agenda (at least that is how I remember it).

But, I can't find it anywhere in RONR that allows it. Pg 360 clearly states taht no change can be made in it except by two-thirds vote, a vote of the majority of the entire membership, or unanimous consent.

I think she misapplied the vote of the majority of the entire membership[\i] to something about the number of members approving it at the beginning of the meeting.

Thanks for all the help. From what I can tell, our agenda needed a two-thirds majority to set aside, as the next item on the agenda were motions in New Business.

[Josh Martin]

But, I can't find it anywhere in RONR that allows it. Pg 360 clearly states taht no change can be made in it except by two-thirds vote, a vote of the majority of the entire membership, or unanimous consent.

That's exactly right, but as Mr. Gerber states, a report may be accepted when no other business is pending, by majority vote. The fact that the President is a dictator and the other members let him get away with it doesn't change that.

[Gary Novosielski]

Me too.... It's not in her book (idiot's guide), ...

Well, there's another mystery solved. Possibly two.

[Guest JimM]

That's exactly right, but as Mr. Gerber states, a report may be accepted when no other business is pending, by majority vote. The fact that the President is a dictator and the other members let him get away with it doesn't change that.

Josh,

But, since the agenda has been adopted, doesn't that then indicate that other business is "pending", since the assembly already programed the order of business?

I hear what you are saying, but we are talking about deviating from the order of business now. If no agenda were set (adopted), and we were now just finished with some business, then nothing is technically pending. But that would not be true since the membership already voted on the next order of business (in the agenda).

Tell me where I'm misunderstanding the agenda if that is not true.

JimM

[Josh Martin]

But, since the agenda has been adopted, doesn't that then indicate that other business is "pending", since the assembly already programed the order of business?

Nothing is pending until the question has actually been stated by the chair. Of course, I see now that Mr. Gerber's citation refers to a situation in which reports are not provided for in the order of business, so I must admit I'm not entirely certain if it applies here. RONR doesn't really seem to have anticipated a situation in which an assembly creates an agenda or order of business which only permits some officers or committees to report.

I suppose I'm also wondering that since the assembly's problem really seems to be with the President, why take it out on some other officer? If the assembly doesn't like the President's agenda it is free to amend it by majority vote when it is pending.

[Guest Guest]

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Robert's Rules is actually a very good third-party guide, as I understand it. It is written by Nancy Sylvester, PRP, CPP-T, the current Parliamentarian of the National Association of Parliamentarians. The original poster said that the Parliamentarian's bizarre idea did not come from that text.

As the original poster, what I am saying is that I cited her book when the issue came up, and she had listed four ways to set aside the agenda, none of which were the parliamentarian advice she was not giving the president.

I enjoy her book and rely on it regurlarly; I've recommended it. I was simply stumped at where she was now coming up with a "new" parliamentary mechanism to set aside the rules, which I could not find in RONR afterwards.

I understand the issue is moot for this occurance, but the president will now use this a precedence to do it again -- we pass an agenda, and he uses a simple majority to change it when it suits him.

You may recall, a few month ago, I asked for advice regarding this president EXCLUDING motions from EB members he didn't like from being placed on the proposed agenda at all. Then, he and his small majority would pass an agenda void of any minority proposed agenda items, which had the effect of never ever letting a minority member make a motion from the "floor". But, if one of the small majority members suddenly had an idea, and tried to make a motion outside the agenda, it would be allowed as only the small majority would allow it not in accordance with the order of the day approved. The minority member's business never makes it to the table (minutes) because those motions are never allowed to be made (by not putting it in the minutes, the EB can create the illusion the minority members are not even brining any business before the board). The Members voted to have the EB minutes published, and this was a way that business expected by the members is prevented and made invisible (they don't want to have to vote is down, so they just don't let the motion to be made at all as if nobody ever even attempted to bring that business before the board). It's dirty politics, in my opinion, but that is how this parliamentary matter will be used again and again.

Thanks again all.

JimM

[Josh Martin]

Then, he and his small majority would pass an agenda void of any minority proposed agenda items, which had the effect of never ever letting a minority member make a motion from the "floor".

Motions not on the agenda may be made from the floor, under New Business, after all motions on the agenda have been completed. It's not the agenda which prevents the minority from making motions, it's the chairman's misapplication of the rules.

I believe I do recall the board you're speaking of, and I believe my advice at the time (which still stands), is that you need new board members. Knowing the rules is of little help if a majority of the board has no desire to follow them. See FAQ #20.

[Guest JimM]

Motions not on the agenda may be made from the floor, under New Business, after all motions on the agenda have been completed. It's not the agenda which prevents the minority from making motions, it's the chairman's misapplication of the rules.

Bingo! By getting the agenda approved by the small majority of the board up front, no motions from the "floor" can be entertained until all the agenda items are first handled, but then the small majority quickly moves to adjourn, leaving the minority members never getting their motions before the assembly, and never getting the minutes to reflect those motions ever being made/handled.

I believe I do recall the board you're speaking of, and I believe my advice at the time (which still stands), is that you need new board members. Knowing the rules is of little help if a majority of the board has no desire to follow them. See FAQ #20.

Unfortunately, our Constitution is a bit more restrictive, and requires a petition of 25% of the entire membership (~250) in an organization where only the President himself has access to the membership roster and email list (we are nation-wide and don't meeting physically anywhere). Additionally, there is a requirement that to remove an officer, he first must be found guilty of an offense at a trial board, where the small majority act as the trial board thus dismissing any charges that may come from any member against the president. This president has denied circulating petitions from members to their fellow membership, leaving members helpless to contact other members in a meaniful (good faith) manner.

The 12 member EB is up for re/election all at the same time (we don't have staggered terms, yet, anyway), so the next opporutnity to effect any change is at the next 3 year election (we are mid-term now). The current president was elected VP and became chair after the elected president resigned in total fustration to the antics of the small majority EB who were hell set against any effort to allow the general membership any say in their organization. The worse part, because we are a labor union, is that our members may have the option to be a member of the organizaion, they are mandated to pay the union dues/agency fees regardless.

I'm all for union, but not unions who's leadership believes the members get to participate only every three years during an election (our constitution states the EB conducts business of the union between membership meetings....)

Thanks again,

JimM

On another note: The "unique security code" is a bear to break sometimes. I've struck out 8 times in a row trying to match the image ;-\