Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums
leonard miller

motion to accept as a whole

Recommended Posts

 the Board of Trustees are trying to pass a constitution revision by  a simple up/down vote on the revision as a whole. If there is a motion to that effect and seconded, followed by discussion, can amendments to parts of the revision be made before the vote to accept as a whole?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Who's Coming to Dinner

This would have to be phrased as a motion to Suspend the Rules and consider the revision without permitting changes, because amendments are in order according to regular parliamentary rules. So I think you would first vote on the motion to suspend, which is undebatable and requires a two-thirds vote, and if it passes, you would then consider the revision without allowing amendments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Zev

Clarification if you please. Are these a series of amendments that are attempted to be adopted in a single vote or is this an entirely new document? Whose meeting is this, the Board of Trustees' meeting or the assembly's meeting? Also, what does your constitution say about who has the authority to amend the constitution and what requirements must be fulfilled? I'm not entirely clear on what you mean to say by "parts of the revision."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, leonard miller said:

 the Board of Trustees are trying to pass a constitution revision by  a simple up/down vote on the revision as a whole. 

 

1 hour ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

This would have to be phrased as a motion to Suspend the Rules and consider the revision without permitting changes, because amendments are in order according to regular parliamentary rules. So I think you would first vote on the motion to suspend, which is undebatable and requires a two-thirds vote, and if it passes, you would then consider the revision without allowing amendments.

If the object is as stated in Mr. MIller's first sentence, then:

"When the object is to adopt a motion without debate or amendment, the form is: 
MEMBER A (obtaining the floor): I move to suspend the rules and adopt [or "agree to"] the following resolution: "Resolved, That ..." (Second.) 
 If such a motion does not receive the required two-thirds vote, the main motion can be taken up only in the normal way." 
RONR (11th ed.), pp. 266-67.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your statement is a bit unclear and I don't want to assume.

Are the Board of Trustees trying to have a vote without allowing the opportunity to move any amendments? If that is the case, then GWCtoD is correct.

If they want to have a vote without any debate as well as no amendments, then Mr. Mervosh is correct.

Otherwise, you are describing the standard way to consider a revision. There will be one motion to adopt the revised bylaws. RONR says this should be dealt with seriatim, one section at a time, with the opportunity to amend each section as it comes up. After the seriatim consideration, the revision is open to any amendments anywhere in the document. And, finally, there is one vote on the revision (with any amendments that have been adopted).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, leonard miller said:

 the Board of Trustees are trying to pass a constitution revision by  a simple up/down vote on the revision as a whole. If there is a motion to that effect and seconded, followed by discussion, can amendments to parts of the revision be made before the vote to accept as a whole?

Maybe I'm confused, but that's the normal way to handle a revision.

  • A motion is made to adopt the revision and seconded.
  • The revision is debated (considered) by paragraph, and amendments can be made if agreed to by a majority vote.
  • When all discussion, amendments, additions, deletions, and so forth are completed, The revision as a whole is voted on.  The vote threshold is whatever your bylaws requirements set--typically a 2/3 vote, but check your bylaws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are the Board of Trustees trying to have a vote without allowing the opportunity to move any amendments? If that is the case, then GWCtoD is correct. 

I believe this is what the rogue trustees are attempting.  Thanks for all your replies and support. I now know what proceedures they must follow to accomplish their goal and I may be able to stop them from this poor use of leadership. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, leonard miller said:

Next question. I believe that a more honest vote by the membership will take place if it is done by secret ballot.  What must be done to require a ballot vote?

Any member may move to take the vote by ballot.  I requires a majority vote to adopt.

Share this post


Link to post
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...