Bylaw Provision to prevent certain actions by majority of membership instead of 2/3 vote

[Guest student]

Hello,

 

This question is in the context of an Associated Students Senate (basically the Board of Directors of the Association). The Bylaws provide that the latest edition of RONR is our parliamentary authority. We want to add a provision into our Senate Bylaws as follows:

Whenever Robert’s Rules of Order states that a motion can be adopted by “vote of the majority of the entire membership” or some other standard (e.g. majority with notice or two-thirds vote), the “vote of the majority of the entire membership” standard shall not be valid and the other standards shall apply.

This would apply to motions to: adopt special rules, amend something previous adopted, discharge, postpone, rescind. The Senate requires the presence of all 20 members, so we have full attendance of the body at almost every meeting. Thus we do not think that a majority vote of the entire membership should be given any "special power" to take action. 

 

Does RONR have a provision like this for smaller bodies that compel attendance (like city councils or boards)? I'm surprised if it doesn't. Maybe one complication is that the "majority of the membership" standard applies only to organizations that have general meetings? Although we do have a general membership of about 40,000, our charter does not provide for any membership meetings other than an annual election where the Senate and officers are elected by ballot and motions can be put to ballot by petition.

 

I digress, my question is if the above wording would accomplish what we want it to accomplish. If not, is there a better way to word it?

 

[jstackpo]

Your provision is a tad ambiguous  --  do you mean to change the 2/3 vote requirement for all motions  to a majority?  The parenthetical portion of your text could be read that way.  Like previous question?

 

Also better to use the word "required" in place of "invalid".   Or perhaps "available".

 

Think this through VERY carefully.      Look for unintended consequences.  (I'll bet you can find lots of them!)

 

RONR does not have a "required attendance" rule (even as an example) so any such would have to be in your bylaws or the Student Senate charter.   What are the consequences when you do not have 100% attendance at a meeting?

[Dan Honemann]

Hello,

 

This question is in the context of an Associated Students Senate (basically the Board of Directors of the Association). The Bylaws provide that the latest edition of RONR is our parliamentary authority. We want to add a provision into our Senate Bylaws as follows:

Whenever Robert’s Rules of Order states that a motion can be adopted by “vote of the majority of the entire membership” or some other standard (e.g. majority with notice or two-thirds vote), the “vote of the majority of the entire membership” standard shall not be valid and the other standards shall apply.

This would apply to motions to: adopt special rules, amend something previous adopted, discharge, postpone, rescind. The Senate requires the presence of all 20 members, so we have full attendance of the body at almost every meeting. Thus we do not think that a majority vote of the entire membership should be given any "special power" to take action. 

 

Does RONR have a provision like this for smaller bodies that compel attendance (like city councils or boards)? I'm surprised if it doesn't. Maybe one complication is that the "majority of the membership" standard applies only to organizations that have general meetings? Although we do have a general membership of about 40,000, our charter does not provide for any membership meetings other than an annual election where the Senate and officers are elected by ballot and motions can be put to ballot by petition.

 

I digress, my question is if the above wording would accomplish what we want it to accomplish. If not, is there a better way to word it?

 

I think that your wording will accomplish what you want. Or how about simply:

 

"A vote of the majority of the entire membership will not be sufficient for the adoption of any motion requiring anything more than just a majority vote for its adoption."

 

This shorter version has the advantage of doing away with the motion to Rescind and Expunge from the Minutes. 

 

By the way, why did you include "postpone" in your list of motions to which your rule will apply? No motion to Postpone requiring a two-thirds vote for its adoption can be adopted with anything less than that.

[Guest student]

Your provision is a tad ambiguous  --  do you mean to change the 2/3 vote requirement for all motions  to a majority?  The parenthetical portion of your text could be read that way.  Like previous question?

 

Also better to use the word "required" in place of "invalid".   Or perhaps "available".

 

Think this through VERY carefully.      Look for unintended consequences.  (I'll bet you can find lots of them!)

 

RONR does not have a "required attendance" rule (even as an example) so any such would have to be in your bylaws or the Student Senate charter.   What are the consequences when you do not have 100% attendance at a meeting?

 

This is intended to only apply to motions like "rescind" where the motion can be adopted by (a) majority with notice (b ) two-thirds vote © majority of membership. It would make © invalid, and only allow (a) or (b ) to be used. I see how that "or" could be very ambiguous. The following seems better:

 

Whenever Robert’s Rules of Order states that a motion can be adopted by several standards including “vote of the majority of the entire membership” (e.g. in addition to majority with notice or two-thirds vote), the “vote of the majority of the entire membership” standard shall not be sufficient and only the other standard(s) shall apply.

 

If you are interested, our charter provides that if a Senator misses more than 20% of regular meetings without excuse in a single semester, their seat is automatically declared vacant. We have weekly regular meetings, so this works out to missing 3 or more meetings. They also have their stipend docked by 10% for every unexcused absence. The absence excusal mechanism is very detailed, both in valid reasons and procedure. There is a nonpartisan Accountability Officer who administers the process and a Judicial Board to which appeals can be made. 

 

I think that your wording will accomplish what you want. Or how about simply:

 

"A vote of the majority of the entire membership will not be sufficient for the adoption of any motion requiring anything more than just a majority vote for its adoption."

 

This shorter version has the advantage of doing away with the motion to Rescind and Expunge from the Minutes. 

 

By the way, why did you include "postpone" in your list of motions to which your rule will apply? No motion to Postpone requiring a two-thirds vote for its adoption can be adopted with anything less than that.

 

Thank you for the suggestion. I am a little wary about making it too simple, as we generally err towards making rules excruciatingly obvious/self-explanatory (given that we can go years without having anyone with a solid grasp on parlipro -- reading some of our older proceedings is terrifying). On the other hand, I acknowledge simplicity makes it less prone to "loopholes".

 

What do you mean by "doing away with the motion to Rescind and Expunge from the Minutes"?

 

I misspoke and meant "postpone an event or action previously scheduled" (item #64 on Table of Rules Relating to Motions).

 

Thank you both for your help!

[jstackpo]

Since, from what you say, it is possible (although unlikely, perhaps) that you could have enough absentees that you couldn't muster a 2/3 vote but could still get a majority of the entire membership on some very critical but contentious issue, that strikes me as an opportunity for an unintended consequence that could jump up and bite you.

 

"Majority decides" is a looooong and hallowed tradition.  Anything otherwise gives a veto to a minority.

[Guest student]

Since, from what you say, it is possible (although unlikely, perhaps) that you could have enough absentees that you couldn't muster a 2/3 vote but could still get a majority of the entire membership on some very critical but contentious issue, that strikes me as an opportunity for an unintended consequence that could jump up and bite you.

 

"Majority decides" is a looooong and hallowed tradition.  Anything otherwise gives a veto to a minority.

 

My understanding is that these five motions require 'heightened' vote thresholds or notice because they backtrack on previous actions of the body or restrict its future actions. RONR treats majority of the membership as a 'heightened' vote threshold as it assumes that "it is likely to be impossible to get a majority of the entire membership even to attend a given meeting" (p. 404).  For us it isn't, and defeats the point of having a higher threshold. These motions all fall back to majority with notice, thus preserving majority rule (except for the one regarding Special Rules, which we do wish to be 2/3 vote).

 

My concern stems from the highly partisan factions which exist in the body. Although one of the major factions usually has a majority of the membership, they never have a 2/3rds supermajority. This way they can't surprise rescind something without giving notice (which on something contentious would result in public input).

[Dan Honemann]

This is intended to only apply to motions like "rescind" where the motion can be adopted by (a) majority with notice (b ) two-thirds vote © majority of membership. It would make © invalid, and only allow (a) or (b ) to be used. I see how that "or" could be very ambiguous. The following seems better:

 

Whenever Robert’s Rules of Order states that a motion can be adopted by several standards including “vote of the majority of the entire membership” (e.g. in addition to majority with notice or two-thirds vote), the “vote of the majority of the entire membership” standard shall not be sufficient and only the other standard(s) shall apply.

 

 

I don't find this to be an improvement. I think that "several standards" means "more than two", and what I think you mean is "two or more". I'd also delete the parenthetical phrase altogether, since it doesn't read properly as it stands.

 

 

What do you mean by "doing away with the motion to Rescind and Expunge from the Minutes"?

 

The shorter version I suggested does away with the motion to Rescind and Expunge from the Minutes because this motion can be adopted only by a vote of the majority of the entire membership.

[Richard Brown]

The shorter version I suggested does away with the motion to Rescind and Expunge from the Minutes because this motion can be adopted only by a vote of the majority of the entire membership.

What about a provision along these lines:  "Whenever our parliamentary authority specifies a vote of the majority of the entire membership as an alternative or required vote threshold, a two thirds vote of those members present and voting shall suffice".

[Dan Honemann]

What about a provision along these lines:  "Whenever our parliamentary authority specifies a vote of the majority of the entire membership as an alternative or required vote threshold, a two thirds vote of those members present and voting shall suffice".

 

This will do away with the requirement of previous notice for the adoption of motions requiring previous notice and a two-thirds vote, which I don't think is intended.

[Richard Brown]

What about a provision along these lines:  "Whenever our parliamentary authority specifies a vote of the majority of the entire membership as an alternative or required vote threshold, a two thirds vote of those members present and voting shall suffice".

 

This will do away with the requirement of previous notice for the adoption of motions requiring previous notice and a two-thirds vote, which I don't think is intended.

How so?  I don't see how the wording I suggested has any effect on motions requiring a two thirds vote or previous notice.  It only eliminates the option (or requirement) of the vote of a majority of the entire membership.

 

Edited to add:  Upon further reflection, I do see how it can eliminate the requirement of previous notice for those motions that require either the MEM without notice or a two thirds vote with notice.   The wording I suggested would, I believe allow such a motion to be adopted without previous notice, but a two thirds vote would still be required.  From what the original poster said, that is usually a higher threshold than MEM because they usually have full attendance.

[Gary Novosielski]

RONR treats majority of the membership as a 'heightened' vote threshold as it assumes that "it is likely to be impossible to get a majority of the entire membership even to attend a given meeting" (p. 404).  For us it isn't, and defeats the point of having a higher threshold. These motions all fall back to majority with notice, thus preserving majority rule (except for the one regarding Special Rules, which we do wish to be 2/3 vote).

 

I don't think it's necessarily a "heightened" threshold, although in organizations with a low quorum and high absentee rate it may be quite impossible to attain.  In other organizations with virtually 100% attendance, MEM will be easier to attain than 2/3.   Just the other day I was in a meeting that scantly met the majority quorum requirements, yet a ballot that was nearly unanimous constituted a majority of the entire membership in favor.

 

It's not heightened, it's just different.  And very well thought out in RONR as to when and how it should apply to different situations.  If the entire membership is present and wishes to do something why should they be prevented?  

 

For example, a requirement for MEM is often an alternative to a previous notice requirement, which makes sense.  If a majority of the entire membership approve of an action, then even if there were people who were unaware of the meeting because no notice was given, and who, if they attended, would all have voted no, it makes no difference.  Their attendance or vote would be of no consequence.  (Yes, it could be argued that if present they might have argued persuasively enough to defeat the motion, but that's pretty far fetched in actual practice.)

 

I think that the requirements for MEM, as stated in RONR, are logical and defensible in all cases, and I'd be disinclined to mess with it.  Any language you could come up with will necessarily be more poorly thought out than the corresponding rule in RONR.

[Dan Honemann]

What about a provision along these lines:  "Whenever our parliamentary authority specifies a vote of the majority of the entire membership as an alternative or required vote threshold, a two thirds vote of those members present and voting shall suffice".

 

 

This will do away with the requirement of previous notice for the adoption of motions requiring previous notice and a two-thirds vote, which I don't think is intended.

 

 

How so?  I don't see how the wording I suggested has any effect on motions requiring a two thirds vote or previous notice.  It only eliminates the option (or requirement) of the vote of a majority of the entire membership.

 

RONR (the parliamentary authority, one assumes) says that a motion to adopt a special rule of order (for example) is a motion which can be adopted by a vote of the majority of the entire membership. Your rule says that since this vote is an "alternative or required vote threshold" for the adoption of this motion, a two-thirds vote will suffice to adopt it.

[Dan Honemann]

So how about:

 

"In order for any motion to be adopted, it must be adopted by a vote prescribed for its adoption other than a vote of the majority of the entire membership."

 

I'm beginning to have fun with this.   

[George Mervosh]

"No motion may be adopted by a vote of the majority of the entire membership"  That is the goal, right? 

[Dan Honemann]

"No motion may be adopted by a vote of the majority of the entire membership"  That is the goal, right? 

 

So if a majority of the entire membership votes in favor of a motion, this vote won't adopt it?

[SaintCad]

"No motion may be adopted by a vote of the majority of the entire membership"  That is the goal, right? 

Even regular main motions?

[Guest Guest]

"A vote of the majority of the entire membership adopts no motion."

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Majority is more than half. Two thirds is also more than half. So a two-thirds vote adopts no motion?

In the situation described in this thread, the entire membership is present. In this case, a vote of the majority of the entire membership could be the same as majority vote. So majority vote adopts no motion?

 

 

 

Edited to add that perhaps some examples may be helpful.

 

Suppose that all 20 members attend a meeting.

A motion to rescind is being considered.

This motion requires more than a majority vote to adopt it.

The vote results are as follows:

14 ayes, 6 noes

This motion was adopted by a two-thirds vote.

It was also adopted by a vote of the majority of the entire membership.

Since it was adopted by a vote of the majority of the entire membership, this motion is not adopted.

 

Now an original main motion is being considered.

This motion only requires a majority vote to adopt it.

The vote results are as follows:

11 ayes, 9 noes

This motion was adopted by majority vote.

It was also adopted by a vote of the majority of the entire membership.

Since it was adopted by a vote of the majority of the entire membership, this motion is not adopted.

[Guest student]

This is my most updated version:

 

Whenever Robert’s Rules of Order states that a motion can be adopted by a “vote of the majority of the entire membership”, it shall instead require either a two-thirds vote or a majority vote with notice, unless otherwise provided for in these Bylaws. 

 

The "unless otherwise provided for in these Bylaws" part is for provisions concerning the adoption of Special Rules which is also made non-standard by our Bylaws.

 

 

[Dan Honemann]

This is my most updated version:

 

Whenever Robert’s Rules of Order states that a motion can be adopted by a “vote of the majority of the entire membership”, it shall instead require either a two-thirds vote or a majority vote with notice, unless otherwise provided for in these Bylaws. 

 

The "unless otherwise provided for in these Bylaws" part is for provisions concerning the adoption of Special Rules which is also made non-standard by our Bylaws.

 

This provision seems okay to me, assuming that it fits properly within the context of your bylaws and will not conflict in any way with any other provision. I assume it will be inserted someplace within the article or section of your bylaws which provides that the current edition of RONR is your parliamentary authority. I suppose this is also the place where your rules relating to adoption and amendment of special rules of order are to be found.

 

You may, however, get some guff similar to the objections raised against the suggestions made in posts 14 and 17. When you say "Whenever Robert’s Rules of Order states that a motion can be adopted by a 'vote of the majority of the entire membership',...", we know you mean wherever this is specifically stated in RONR, but you still may face some arguments or concerns to the effect that RONR also says, at least by implication, that any motion that can be adopted by a majority vote can also be adopted by a vote of the majority of the entire membership.

 

In any event, since I agree with those who believe that this is not a good idea, and since we are supposed to be explaining here in this forum the meaning and proper application of the rules in RONR and not how to negate them, I think this will be my final comment.