Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Can a motion be made to do something "unanimously"


Guest Robin MP

Recommended Posts

I have been searching in Robert's rules and can't seem to find a definitive answer.

Can a member make a motion to unanimously do something, i.e. "I make a motion that we unanimously (whatever)". I know that a non-unanimous vote can not be made unanimous without a written ballot but is this motion within the rules. (we won't even get into the morals behind it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been searching in Robert's rules and can't seem to find a definitive answer.

Can a member make a motion to unanimously do something, i.e. "I make a motion that we unanimously (whatever)". I know that a non-unanimous vote can not be made unanimous without a written ballot but is this motion within the rules. (we won't even get into the morals behind it)

I am not sure if this is what you are looking for but there is such a thing as a member asking for unanimous consent to do something. See RONR pp. 51-54 for details. However, also see RONR pp. XLIV-XLV for some warnings on requiring unanimity or near unanimity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been searching in Robert's rules and can't seem to find a definitive answer.

Can a member make a motion to unanimously do something, i.e. "I make a motion that we unanimously (whatever)". I know that a non-unanimous vote can not be made unanimous without a written ballot but is this motion within the rules. (we won't even get into the morals behind it)

Well, there is something called a "unanimous consent request" which actually bypasses a formal vote, if there is NO objection. But the general rule is that you can't make something unanimous when it really isn't. This sort of motion could also be treated as a proviso that a unanimous vote was required for adoption. Effectively: I move that we <do something>; provided that a unanimous vote is required for adoption.

In any case, the objection or negative vote of a single member would be enough to defeat the request/motion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do?

Under Voting by ballot Article VIII "When a ballot is not unanimous, it is out of order to move to make the vote unanimous, unless the motion is voted on by ballot to allow members to vote against it in secrecy."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under Voting by ballot Article VIII "When a ballot is not unanimous, it is out of order to move to make the vote unanimous, unless the motion is voted on by ballot to allow members to vote against it in secrecy."

That wording is not in RONR (which is the parliamentary bible we work from here). However, RONR p. 399 says:

When a vote is to be taken, or has been taken, by ballot, whether or not the bylaws require that form of voting, no motion is in order that would force the disclosure of a member's vote or views on the matter. A motion to make unanimous a ballot vote that was not unanimous is out of order, unless that motion is also voted on by ballot - since any member who openly votes against declaring the first vote unanimous will thereby reveal that he did not vote for the prevailing choice.

which says in effect the same thing. However, in your original post you spoke a bit too broadly by saying "I know that a non-unanimous vote can not be made unanimous without a written ballot" which would also include original votes not taken by ballot. If a vote was taken by any other method than by ballot the vote on making the vote unanimous need not be taken by ballot since no one's vote was secret.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under Voting by ballot Article VIII "When a ballot is not unanimous, it is out of order to move to make the vote unanimous, unless the motion is voted on by ballot to allow members to vote against it in secrecy."

That is not the same thing. You didn't say that the first vote was taken by ballot. Look at the rule you quoted: if a vote were taken by ballot and the outcome was not unanimous and someone moved to make the vote unanimous, that vote would also have to be taken by ballot. Otherwise, you would be forcing those voting no to either change their votes or reveal how they had voted.

On the other hand, if a vote were by voice, then those voting "nay" could change their votes by unanimous consent. This is not infrequent:

Chairman: Those voting for Mr. Black say 'aye.' [Many 'ayes'] Thank you.

Chairman; Those voting for Mr. White say 'aye.' [Few 'ayes] Thank you.

Chairman: Mr. Black has been elected to the position of ___. Congratulations.

Mr. White: Mr. Chairman!

Chairman: Mr. White.

Mr. White: Mr. Chairman, I congratulate Mr. Black on his election and I move that his election be made unanimous. I request those who voted for me to change their vote to Mr. Black. [second]

Chairman: The request of Mr. White on behalf of his supporters is in order and requires a unanimous vote.

...

-Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been searching in Robert's rules and can't seem to find a definitive answer.

Can a member make a motion to unanimously do something, i.e. "I make a motion that we unanimously (whatever)". I know that a non-unanimous vote can not be made unanimous without a written ballot but is this motion within the rules. (we won't even get into the morals behind it)

To what end? Why bother? What's the point? And all that jazz. (just curious)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in one of organizations I belong to, when seeking state office you first ask your local chapter for an endorsment. In order to make sure that they "look" good to the membership at large they will make a motion to be "unanimously endorsed." If the motion passes they are allowed to say it was unanimous. To me this is shaddy and misleading. I was wondering if it was proper under the current revision of Robert's rules which, per the constitution and laws of the organization, governs how we conduct business

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in one of organizations I belong to, when seeking state office you first ask your local chapter for an endorsment. In order to make sure that they "look" good to the membership at large they will make a motion to be "unanimously endorsed." If the motion passes they are allowed to say it was unanimous. To me this is shaddy and misleading. I was wondering if it was proper under the current revision of Robert's rules which, per the constitution and laws of the organization, governs how we conduct business

In that sort of case I don't see why the Chapter couldn't use Mr. Fish's suggestion. Of course if someone votes against the motion to make the endorsement unanimous then the Chapter can't in all honesty say that it was unanimous because it wouldn't be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In order to make sure that they "look" good to the membership at large they will make a motion to be "unanimously endorsed." If the motion passes they are allowed to say it was unanimous.

Well, no, they are only allowed to say it was unanimous if it was unanimous. So if the motion to "make it" unanimous does not pass unanimously (that is, without any No votes at all), then it doesn't pass, and the vote remains as previously announced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The procedural act of "making a vote unanimous" wherein the losing candidate or side asks his/her supporters to accept the outcome and join him in supporting the winner is more than "looking good." The act of statesmanship may well pay a dividend when that member seeks another office or presents another issue in the future. It's not dilatory either, since each members - pro and con - has to consider whether to make the outcome unanimous and one member can defeat the motion. It's not always a good thing to do, especially if the vote is close and the minority plans to move to rescind at the next meeting.

-Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To what end? Why bother? What's the point? And all that jazz. (just curious)

Such a motion is most frequently used for elections, particularly when electing a nominee for public office (or for higher office within the organization). The idea is to show unity behind the chosen candidate.

in one of organizations I belong to, when seeking state office you first ask your local chapter for an endorsment. In order to make sure that they "look" good to the membership at large they will make a motion to be "unanimously endorsed." If the motion passes they are allowed to say it was unanimous. To me this is shaddy and misleading. I was wondering if it was proper under the current revision of Robert's rules which, per the constitution and laws of the organization, governs how we conduct business

Such a motion is in order and is quite commonly used for this purpose, but the motion would require unanimous consent or a unanimous vote for adoption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...