Jason H Posted July 28, 2014 at 08:59 AM Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 at 08:59 AM Hello all, Our society has adopted Robert's Rules of parliamentary procedure and our President acts as chair over all meetings. As I understand it, a decision of the chair can be appealed and subsequently overruled by a majority vote of the members present. I'm just wondering what happens if a motion is made (and seconded) but it isn't entirely clear (with respect to Robert's Rules or our bylaws) whether the motion should require a majority vote or a 2/3 vote of the members present. If the chair asserts that the motion shall require a 2/3 vote to pass, can't an appeal be made? And if the appeal only requires a majority vote of the members present to overrule the chair's decision, doesn't this allow a simple majority to pass a motion that might properly require a 2/3 vote? In other words, can't the successful appeal of the chair's decision turn a 2/3 vote into a majority vote? For example, if a motion was made regarding a merger, consolidation or dissolution, RONR defers to "legal counsel" with respect to corporations. But what is proper process DURING the actual meeting, if such a motion is made and 51% of the members present are determined to pass this motion? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted July 28, 2014 at 10:39 AM Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 at 10:39 AM ... . As I understand it, a decision of the chair can be appealed and subsequently overruled by a majority vote of the members present. You'll understand it better if you leave it as "majority vote." ... ... If the chair asserts that the motion shall require a 2/3 vote to pass, can't an appeal be made?... Yes, of course. (Except, see the bottom of p. 256.) And if the appeal only requires a majority vote of the members present to overrule the chair's decision, doesn't this allow a simple majority to pass a motion that might properly require a 2/3 vote? In other words, can't the successful appeal of the chair's decision turn a 2/3 vote into a majority vote?.... Still, leave it as "majority vote." And, no; it might look that way, superficially, but no. What's properly required will be determined by the assembly, if it disagrees with the chairman's initial ruling about it. ... For example, if a motion was made regarding a merger, consolidation or dissolution, RONR defers to "legal counsel" with respect to corporations. But what is proper process DURING the actual meeting, if such a motion is made and 51% of the members present are determined to pass this motion? Thanks! Where's it say "legal counsel," exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted July 28, 2014 at 10:42 AM Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 at 10:42 AM If the chair asserts that the motion shall require a 2/3 vote to pass, can't an appeal be made? If the chair declares a point of order not well taken, yes. And if the appeal only requires a majority vote of the members present to overrule the chair's decision, doesn't this allow a simple majority to pass a motion that might properly require a 2/3 vote? Conceivably, but at this point a majority is not of the opinion that the motion would require a 2/3 vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted July 28, 2014 at 10:46 AM Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 at 10:46 AM Hey. Not bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted July 28, 2014 at 10:54 AM Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 at 10:54 AM What is being appealed, in this 2/3 vs. majority setup, is not the rule that such and such a motion requires a 2/3 vote, but the chair's judgment (or correctness) that the rule applies in the particular situation. (Which is what Tim F said, but not as concisely.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted July 28, 2014 at 04:43 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 at 04:43 PM What is being appealed, in this 2/3 vs. majority setup, is not the rule that such and such a motion requires a 2/3 vote, but the chair's judgment (or correctness) that the rule applies in the particular situation. (Which is what Tim F said, but not as concisely.) An example of Dr. Stackpole's concise reply are motions that fall outside of the object of the society. There's no question that it takes a 2/3 vote to allow them to be considered, but there's often a question of whether or not such a motion is, in fact, outside of the object of the society. Sometimes this is decided via an appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted July 28, 2014 at 05:05 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 at 05:05 PM An example of Dr. Stackpole's concise reply are motions that fall outside of the object of the society. Actually, I misspoke (or miswrote): Tim F was the concise one. I was a tad wordy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason H Posted July 28, 2014 at 09:29 PM Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 at 09:29 PM Thank you all for your replies. I guess I'm a little confused as to why the appeal process of a chair's decision could not be abused to the point of absurdity. For example:A motion is made (and seconded) for an action that is specifically addressed in the society's bylaws as requiring a 2/3 vote.A member requests a clarification (from the chair) regarding the number of votes required for the motion to be adopted.The chair references the society's bylaws, and states that a 2/3 vote will be required. Next, a portion of the membership argues that this "interpretation" of the bylaws is inaccurate. If that portion of the membership is 51% can't they always overrule the chair? I apologize if I'm missing some concept that would prevent or address this sort of behavior. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted July 28, 2014 at 09:38 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 at 09:38 PM If you will, this is a homey example of Godel's Proof (lifted from mathematics) to the effect that no (sufficiently complex) system can be entirely free of seeming internal contradictions or inconsistencies. I have taken a few interpretive liberties with the proof, just as folks like to do with bylaw rules they don't "like". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Britton Posted July 28, 2014 at 10:35 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 at 10:35 PM In the example you cite: For example:A motion is made (and seconded) for an action that is specifically addressed in the society's bylaws as requiring a 2/3 vote.A member requests a clarification (from the chair) regarding the number of votes required for the motion to be adopted.The chair references the society's bylaws, and states that a 2/3 vote will be required. If the citation from the bylaw is without ambiguity, and it cannot possibly have two reasonable opinions, the appeal would be dilatory and is not allow. See the standard characteristics for Appeal, (2b), p. 256. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted July 28, 2014 at 10:45 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 at 10:45 PM If the citation from the bylaw is without ambiguity, and it cannot possibly have two reasonable opinions, the appeal would be dilatory and is not allowed. But wouldn't it be up to the chair to rule the appeal dilatory? And couldn't that ruling be appealed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted July 28, 2014 at 10:52 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 at 10:52 PM I guess I'm a little confused as to why the appeal process of a chair's decision could not be abused to the point of absurdity.The Chair can disallow an Appeal if "there cannot possibly two reasonable opinions" (RONR p. 256 ll. 33-36). However, the Chair should be absolutely sure he is on solid footing before doing so because if his position isn't that of the rest of the assembly's he could in theory be subjected to disciplinary action for "abusing his authority". Occasionally being a deliberative body means the assembly may have to put up with absurdity (for a short period of time at least 1). 1 After the Appeal is seconded and the Chair has spoken in debate (if he chooses to do so) a member can move the Previous Question which if adopted by a 2/3 vote puts an immediate stop to the debate and a vote is taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted July 28, 2014 at 10:58 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 at 10:58 PM But wouldn't it be up to the chair to rule the appeal dilatory? And couldn't that ruling be appealed?That is a good question. Generally speaking a ruling can't be Appealed when an Appeal is pending. So the question is if the Appeal is still pending after the Chair rules there can't be two reasonable opinions and then an Appeal is made from that ruling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.