Alan

[Guest Alan]

our church guidlings say when voting on a motion  it has to pass by a 2/3 votes of the membere present, however we have been passing motions by 2/3 of the votes cast.  Do we now go by the guidelines or do we go with the precedence set by piror voting

[Josh Martin]

our church guidlings say when voting on a motion  it has to pass by a 2/3 votes of the membere present, however we have been passing motions by 2/3 of the votes cast.  Do we now go by the guidelines or do we go with the precedence set by piror voting

 

If your rules provide that certain motions require a vote of 2/3 of the members present, then that rule must be followed, notwithstanding that the assembly has failed to follow it in the past. If the assembly wishes to change this (which is probably best - RONR notes that voting requirements based on the number of members present are generally undesirable), it will need to amend its rules.

[jstackpo]

And while you are at it, amend the adoption threshold down to a (mere) majority of those voting and present.

 

That way you won't be handing a minority (1/3) the power to veto what a majority may well wish to adopt.

[Josh Martin]

And while you are at it, amend the adoption threshold down to a (mere) majority of those voting and present.

 

That way you won't be handing a minority (1/3) the power to veto what a majority may well wish to adopt.

 

Well, my assumption had been that the 2/3 requirement applied only to certain types of motions, and there are certainly situations where an assembly may wish for a higher voting threshold in particular cases. If the rule indeed applies to all motions, then yes, the wisdom of that certainly seems questionable.