Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Voting Between 3 Options


Guest Rev. L Wilson

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, J. J. said:

I think I agree with your position.  One question that I have is if the rules could be suspended to permit using filling blanks?

Well, this is an interesting question. It would seem to me that this might run afoul of the prohibition against more than one main question being pending at a time. If so, the rules could not be suspended for this purpose, as that is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law.

It would seem to me, however, that the assembly could adopt a rule of order for the session prescribing the procedure described by Mr. Novosielski, in much the same way that such rules could be adopted for several of the other proposals that have been suggested in this thread. So far as I can tell, no rule in RONR prevents the adoption of such a rule.

1 hour ago, J. J. said:

Why couldn't someone move one of the budgets and the assembly just use the regular amendment process?

Oh, I quite agree and have been suggesting as much from the beginning. I do not understand the need to reinvent the wheel when RONR already has a tried and true method. :)

Edited by Josh Martin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

Well, this is an interesting question. It would seem to me that this might run afoul of the prohibition against more than one main question being pending at a time. If so, the rules could not be suspended for this purpose, as that is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law.

 

I agree that suspension is not possible if this is more than one question pending at the time. I was thinking of something a bit different.

The rules are suspended to permit each budget to be pending in sequence.  Plan A would become pending an open to debate and amendment.  Same for Plan B and then Plan C.  Only one plan would open for debate and amendment at a time.  When they are finished with Plan C, the chair puts the question on Plan A.  If Plan A is adopted, the other two plans are dropped.  If Plan A is defeated, the assembly moves to Plan B, et cetera.

I think the rules could be suspended to permit that, but I don't see too much value in doing so. 

I agree that a special rule could override the one person one vote rule; I also agree that a special rule of order could be time limited.  I also agree that the rules that are subject to suspension may be suspended for the remainder of the session.  There does have to be a distinction between the two, which wasn't emphasized. 

A motion "that no main motion shall be amended," is effectively a motion to suspend the rules for the session, which would take a 2/3 vote.

A motion, "that all the budgets plans be permitted to be pending at same time, for the remainder of the meeting," could only be adopted as a special rule of order, and would need a 2/3 vote with notice, or a majority of the entire membership.  There can be greater problems as well.

The distinction does need to be clearly spelled out. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, J. J. said:

The rules are suspended to permit each budget to be pending in sequence.  Plan A would become pending an open to debate and amendment.  Same for Plan B and then Plan C.  Only one plan would open for debate and amendment at a time.  When they are finished with Plan C, the chair puts the question on Plan A.  If Plan A is adopted, the other two plans are dropped.  If Plan A is defeated, the assembly moves to Plan B, et cetera.

 I think the rules could be suspended to permit that, but I don't see too much value in doing so. 

Yes, I would agree on both points.

Edited by Josh Martin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

I still disagree that filling blanks is the appropriate tool to use for this purpose.

Oh, I'd agree with that, but it appears that matters have progressed beyond the point where the right way would have been viable, and somebody or some group has come up with three choices, in which that person or group are now heavily invested.  I can hear the howls of "Do you know how much work went into these three choices!?"  As if that was an excuse to allow only a minimal choice.

I proposed filling the blank as a way to take the sad bag of ingredients at hand and try to bring them together into something that ends up where it ought to, with members starting with one single motion, having given at least passing consideration to the other alternatives, and then having the freedom to amend and debate the full budget.  That's not the direction things appeared to be headed.

Edited by Gary Novosielski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...