Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Motion still good?


Guest Ken

Recommended Posts

We recently had a motion on the floor to vote for something. The motion stated that the vote will be a simle majority (51%) vote. After reviewing our bylaws and consulting with forums regarding bylaws, it was decided by our Executive Board that the vote has to be a 2/3 majority and not a simle majority. Is the motion that was presented still good or does it have to be restated with the 2/3 majority?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It remains in effect - "still good". An error in voting, and/or the chairs (erroneous) statement that the motion carried (or was defeated), needs must be corrected right away via a timely point of order. Since it (evidently) wasn't the motion remains in effect (RONR p. 243-244.)

You can fix things up, next meeting, via the motion to rescind/amend something previously adopted (p. 293 ff.) if you wish.

BTW, a "majority" is "more than half", not "51%". A real close vote with a lot of voters, could be a majority and still be less than 51%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It remains in effect - "still good". An error in voting, and/or the chairs (erroneous) statement that the motion carried (or was defeated), needs must be corrected right away via a timely point of order. Since it (evidently) wasn't the motion remains in effect (RONR p. 243-244.)

You can fix things up, next meeting, via the motion to rescind/amend something previously adopted (p. 293 ff.) if you wish.

BTW, a "majority" is "more than half", not "51%". A real close vote with a lot of voters, could be a majority and still be less than 51%.

The person that made the motion will not be present so can it be made a point of order from the Executive Board? The Executive Board believes that the 2/3 vote would be in the best interest of the body and this will satisfy the body as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We recently had a motion on the floor to vote for something.

Who is we? The board or the general membership?

The motion stated that the vote will be a simle majority (51%) vote.

It's not typical that a motion also includes the required vote threshold to pass it, so what do you really mean by this?

After reviewing our bylaws and consulting with forums regarding bylaws, it was decided by our Executive Board that the vote has to be a 2/3 majority and not a simle majority.

How does the Board get involved in this? Are they interpreting your bylaws? Do your bylaws say anything about the required vote for this particular motion?

The person that made the motion will not be present so can it be made a point of order from the Executive Board?

As noted, it's too late for a Point of Order, wherever it might come from. And a Point of Order would be made by a member of the assembly (and it matters not if they made the motion), not from a group such as the EB.

The Executive Board believes that the 2/3 vote would be in the best interest of the body and this will satisfy the body as a whole.

Well, that's very nice but what is in the best interest of the body and what is parliamentarily correct are often two very different things.

Maybe you'd like to give us some solid facts on what is really happening here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is we? The board or the general membership?

It's not typical that a motion also includes the required vote threshold to pass it, so what do you really mean by this?

How does the Board get involved in this? Are they interpreting your bylaws? Do your bylaws say anything about the required vote for this particular motion?

As noted, it's too late for a Point of Order, wherever it might come from. And a Point of Order would be made by a member of the assembly (and it matters not if they made the motion), not from a group such as the EB.

Well, that's very nice but what is in the best interest of the body and what is parliamentarily correct are often two very different things.

Maybe you'd like to give us some solid facts on what is really happening here?

We had a motion to change our work schedule next year. Our work schedule is in our CBA. The motion stated that the vote would be a simple majority vote (51%). There was some duscussion on this regarding the required amount of votes. Our bylaws state a 2/3 majority for a change in our CBA. Our Executive Board in our Union talked extensively about this and found out through a bylaw forum and our Union's legal council that the vote will change our contract next year and that we should make it a 2/3 majority vote.

Our Executive Board (in our bylaws) has some authority to make decisions in the best interest of the Union. Our Executive Board wants to bring this recommendation to our Union body at our Union meeting as to make this vote fair for everyone.

I hope that clears the mud a little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming "CBA" means constitution, bylaws, and artichokes, or something like it, the rule there, requiring a 2/3 vote for a change, cannot be changed by the motion saying it wants a different threshold. Yet the change was adopted anyway, by the erroneous vote, as Dr Stackpole and Mr Foulkes point out. It is now a full-fledged part of your CBA. Don't think about trying to "affirm" the change by a 2/3 vote, by the way -- that's just no good.

I'm trying to think of **something** you can do about this, that would satisfy everybody's desire to vote by 2/3 about it, but -- short of something silly like voting to change the schedule back to what it was, and then again voting for the change, both votes by 2/3 -- or just rephrasing the change, with no change in meaning -- I' m coming up with nothing.

(BTW, Ken, if you can edit your post -- #5 in this thread -- to pull your reply out of David Foulkes' quote-box, that would help unmuddy things too.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming "CBA" means constitution, bylaws, and artichokes, or something like it, the rule there, requiring a 2/3 vote for a change, cannot be changed by the motion saying it wants a different threshold. Yet the change was adopted anyway, by the erroneous vote, as Dr Stackpole and Mr Foulkes point out. It is now a full-fledged part of your CBA. Don't think about trying to "affirm" the change by a 2/3 vote, by the way -- that's just no good.

I'm trying to think of **something** you can do about this, that would satisfy everybody's desire to vote by 2/3 about it, but -- short of something silly like voting to change the schedule back to what it was, and then again voting for the change, both votes by 2/3 -- or just rephrasing the change, with no change in meaning -- I' m coming up with nothing.

(BTW, Ken, if you can edit your post -- #5 in this thread -- to pull your reply out of David Foulkes' quote-box, that would help unmuddy things too.)

If the bylaws specify a two-thirds requirement for the vote, then its adoption constitutes a continuing breach and is null and void. Since the schedule appears to be in your bylaws, if the bylaws specify a majority threshold requirement, then you should make a Point of Order to this effect at the next available opportunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the bylaws specify a two-thirds requirement for the vote, then its adoption constitutes a continuing breach and is null and void.

Nope, not true. Read p. 244 carefully and you'll see that (a) there is noting about process (except c which deals with higher laws) and (-b-) lines 1 and 2 on that page make it clear the correcting voting errors MUST be done right away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the bylaws specify a two-thirds requirement for the vote, then its adoption constitutes a continuing breach and is null and void. Since the schedule appears to be in your bylaws, if the bylaws specify a majority threshold requirement, then you should make a Point of Order to this effect at the next available opportunity.

A requirement for a two-thirds vote to adopt motions of a certain class is in the nature of a suspendable rule of order; therefore, any breach of it must be brought up and corrected immediately after the announcement of the vote result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the bylaws specify a two-thirds requirement for the vote, then its adoption constitutes a continuing breach and is null and void. Since the schedule appears to be in your bylaws, if the bylaws specify a majority threshold requirement, then you should make a Point of Order to this effect at the next available opportunity.

What is said in Official Interpretation 2006-18 applies even if the voting requirement is in the Bylaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming "CBA" means constitution, bylaws, and artichokes, or something like it, the rule there, requiring a 2/3 vote for a change, cannot be changed by the motion saying it wants a different threshold. Yet the change was adopted anyway, by the erroneous vote, as Dr Stackpole and Mr Foulkes point out. It is now a full-fledged part of your CBA. Don't think about trying to "affirm" the change by a 2/3 vote, by the way -- that's just no good.

I'm thinking CBA refers to a Collective Bargaining Agreement, as for a labor union.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...