fixedincome Posted September 16, 2016 at 05:13 PM Report Share Posted September 16, 2016 at 05:13 PM What is the procedure for going to a board meeting and proposing the change of majority vote to 2/3 majority vote ? Does it have to get an the agenda first ?? Thanks for your help Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted September 16, 2016 at 05:18 PM Report Share Posted September 16, 2016 at 05:18 PM Are you proposing a permanent rule change (or a new rule) or do you want to increase the vote requirement for just one particular motion on a one time basis? As to agendas, you might see FAQ No 14: http://robertsrules.com/faq.html#14 Let us know if that link does not answer your question about the agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fixedincome Posted September 16, 2016 at 05:24 PM Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2016 at 05:24 PM permanent rule change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted September 16, 2016 at 05:34 PM Report Share Posted September 16, 2016 at 05:34 PM 14 minutes ago, fixedincome said: permanent rule change It does not need to be on the agenda because it can be made as new business and you don't need to specify items of new business on an agenda, but this is a special rule of order which requires previous notice (RONR, pp. 121-124) and a 2/3 vote or a vote of a majority of the entire board to adopt. Also, the board cannot adopt this special rule of order if it conflicts wtih a rule of the society (RONR, p. 486.). In my view this isn't a very good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fixedincome Posted September 16, 2016 at 05:37 PM Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2016 at 05:37 PM Is it better to do this change for 1 item at a time? I would be interested in why you don't think this is a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted September 16, 2016 at 05:43 PM Report Share Posted September 16, 2016 at 05:43 PM 1 minute ago, fixedincome said: Is it better to do this change for 1 item at a time? I would be interested in why you don't think this is a good idea. There are plenty of motions already requiring a 2/3 vote (See tinted pages 44-45), why do you want a 2/3 vote to adjourn or to pay the electric bill? If you feel a main motion is so important that a higher percentage should be required to adopt it, move to adopt a proviso that said motion won't take effect unless it's adopted by a 2/3 vote. Not every decision is so critical that a majority shouldn't suffice, again remembering there are plenty of motions already requiring a 2/3 vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fixedincome Posted September 16, 2016 at 05:52 PM Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2016 at 05:52 PM Thank you ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fixedincome Posted September 16, 2016 at 09:39 PM Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2016 at 09:39 PM 4 hours ago, Richard Brown said: Are you proposing a permanent rule change (or a new rule) or do you want to increase the vote requirement for just one particular motion on a one time basis? As to agendas, you might see FAQ No 14: http://robertsrules.com/faq.html#14 Let us know if that link does not answer your question about the agenda. The link was helpful. now I need to change the vote for 1 particular motion. What is the best way to do this ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weldon Merritt Posted September 16, 2016 at 10:32 PM Report Share Posted September 16, 2016 at 10:32 PM 17 hours ago, fixedincome said: The link was helpful. now I need to change the vote for 1 particular motion. What is the best way to do this ?? Mr. Mervosh already told you that--add a proviso to the motion saying that the motion will not take effect unless it is adopted by a two-thirds vote. You can just word the motion as, "I move [whatever], provided that this motion shall not take effect unless it receives a two-thirds vote." But please don't say "two-thirds majority." A two-thirds vote and a majority vote are dir\ffirent things. As a further comment on why requiring a two-thirds vote on most ordianry motion is a bad idea, consider that doing so replaces majoity rule (the usual democatic standard) with minority rule, since it allows two-thirds one-third of the voters plus one more to defeat a a motioin that is supported by almost twice as many as oppose it. Edited to correct the misstated fraction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted September 16, 2016 at 11:28 PM Report Share Posted September 16, 2016 at 11:28 PM 46 minutes ago, Weldon Merritt said: . . . As a further comment on why requiring a two-thirds vote on most ordianry motion is a bad idea, consider that doing so replaces majoity rule (the usual democatic standard) with minority rule, since it allows two-thirds of the voters plus one more to defeat a a motioin that is supported by almost twice as many as oppose it. Weldon, I believe you got the last part of that backwards. Did you perhaps intend to say that a two thirds vote requirement allows ONE THIRD of the voters plus one to defeat a motion that is supported by almost twice as many as oppose it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted September 17, 2016 at 01:51 AM Report Share Posted September 17, 2016 at 01:51 AM 1 hour ago, Richard Brown said: Weldon, I believe you got the last part of that backwards. Did you perhaps intend to say that a two thirds vote requirement allows ONE THIRD of the voters plus one to defeat a motion that is supported by almost twice as many as oppose it? I bet he does; you and I do, and for that matter we thence outnumber him two to one (but that's a slim margin because with only one more supporter he will have his 1/3 + 1 to frustrate our 2/3 predominance. I know this because my brother has a doctorate in mathematics ("Clifford's algebra") and my mother passed a college course in statistics in the 1960's or 1970's and I myslef went to college for a while a couple of times. The second time I signed up, I figured, heck, sometimes having a bachelor's conveys at least a superficial patina of respectability, countering the impression I give to strangers and family members by my clothing selection and ability to find my comb every three weeks or so; which (the patina, not the comb particularly) is useful for getting by in a society that is often run by superficialities -- note Mr. Honemann's having changed into a business suit so as to pass as a fisherman). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weldon Merritt Posted September 17, 2016 at 03:03 PM Report Share Posted September 17, 2016 at 03:03 PM 15 hours ago, Richard Brown said: Weldon, I believe you got the last part of that backwards. Did you perhaps intend to say that a two thirds vote requirement allows ONE THIRD of the voters plus one to defeat a motion that is supported by almost twice as many as oppose it? Richard, you are absolutely right! I did misstate. Thankls for pointing it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.