proper vote or not

[Guest steve]

At our vfw post the executive committee and membership okayed a member and his wife to run bar bingo at the post once a week. This went well,but soon complaints about the members' wife helping and playing at the same time started. Next at a membership meeting a motion was made and seconded and won by one vote that she could not help and play at the same time. I thought this would require a win by a two thirds majority to be a legal vote?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

At our vfw post the executive committee and membership okayed a member and his wife to run bar bingo at the post once a week.

This went well, but soon complaints about the members' wife helping and playing at the same time started.

Next at a membership meeting

a motion was made and seconded and won by one vote that she could not help and play at the same time.

I thought this would require a win by a two thirds majority to be a legal vote?

Perhaps NOT.

To adopt a new STANDING RULE only requires a MAJORITY VOTE.

And, from your description, a policy like,

"That the employees/workers/staff [whatever you call them] not play bingo during their shift,"

would not require anything fancy like a two-thirds vote.

[Josh Martin]

I thought this would require a win by a two thirds majority to be a legal vote?

I see no reason why the motion would require a 2/3 vote, unless perhaps it conflicts with an existing rule of the assembly. Why do you think it needs a 2/3 vote?

[Guest steve]

I THOUGHT IT WOULD REQUIRE A TWO THIRDS MAJORITY VOTE AS IT TAKES TWO THIRDS TO REMOVE SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN VOTED INTO OFFICE TO REMOVE THEM. IN THIS CASE THE PEOPLE WERE VOTED ON AND APPROVED TO RUN THE BINGO BY BOTH THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND MEMBERSHIP, THOUGHT THAT WOULD ENTITLE THEM TO THE SAME TWO THIRDS REQUIREMENTTO REMOVE THEM FROM THE JOB.q

[tctheatc]

perhaps it depends on how the subject is introduced. It could be approached as amending something previously adopted. It could be introduced as a new standing rule, that a worker (any worker) cannot also play. It could be introduced as a main motion that Ms X not be allowed to play.

[Thomas Ralph]

And please don't post all in caps. It's the same as shouting.

[David A Foulkes]

I thought it would require a two thirds majority vote as it takes two thirds to remove someone who has been voted into office to remove them.

Well, they aren't in office, are they? And you aren't removing the wife from any position. I suspect it was simply a main motion to allow this couple to run the bingo game. Of course, without the exact wording of the motion, we can't be sure. But I'd guess that a motion to restrict any "staff" (or whatever wording might be appropriate) from playing bingo while "on duty" would just be a good old-fashioned main motion, requiring a majority vote. This does sound like it creates a standing rule, for future reference, but I may be overthinking it. I often do.

[Josh Martin]

I THOUGHT IT WOULD REQUIRE A TWO THIRDS MAJORITY VOTE AS IT TAKES TWO THIRDS TO REMOVE SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN VOTED INTO OFFICE TO REMOVE THEM. IN THIS CASE THE PEOPLE WERE VOTED ON AND APPROVED TO RUN THE BINGO BY BOTH THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND MEMBERSHIP, THOUGHT THAT WOULD ENTITLE THEM TO THE SAME TWO THIRDS REQUIREMENTTO REMOVE THEM FROM THE JOB.q

Running Bingo is not an office, so far as RONR is concerned, so the principle is not the same. If the individuals were originally appointed to run Bingo via a main motion, however, then the appropriate tool is the motion to Rescind or to Amend Something Previously Adopted, either of which requires a 2/3 vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership, or a majority vote with previous notice.