Implications of Failure to Recognize Vote Requirement.

[daveaermstrong]

Our department has adopted Robert's Rules as its guiding procedures and does not have alternatively specified procedures or requirements for changing our department's constitution.  In a recent meeting, a motion was brought that would change the department's constitution.  Unbeknownst to us, the motion should have required a 2/3 vote to pass, since it was presented to the department ahead of time (if I'm reading RONR correctly).  Instead, the chair of the meeting erroneously said that the motion passed with a 6/5/4 (aye/nay/abstain) vote.  The motion has not been implemented yet and I'm wondering if there is anything in the rules that would suggest that since the chair declared the motion passed that it has, in fact, passed, even though it clearly didn't have the votes. Any help you can provide would be most appreciated.  We clearly need to get ourselves up to speed on the rules. 

[Rob Elsman]

The announcement of the chair is in error. Assuming previous notice of the motion was properly given, the motion is adopted, since a Point of Order was not raised in a timely way. The announcement in error did not cause a "continuing breach".

[Josh Martin]

15 minutes ago, daveaermstrong said:

Our department has adopted Robert's Rules as its guiding procedures and does not have alternatively specified procedures or requirements for changing our department's constitution.  In a recent meeting, a motion was brought that would change the department's constitution.  Unbeknownst to us, the motion should have required a 2/3 vote to pass, since it was presented to the department ahead of time (if I'm reading RONR correctly).  Instead, the chair of the meeting erroneously said that the motion passed with a 6/5/4 (aye/nay/abstain) vote.  The motion has not been implemented yet and I'm wondering if there is anything in the rules that would suggest that since the chair declared the motion passed that it has, in fact, passed, even though it clearly didn't have the votes. Any help you can provide would be most appreciated.  We clearly need to get ourselves up to speed on the rules. 

It is correct that, if the constitution is silent regarding its own amendment (which I would double-check on), the rule in RONR is that it requires previous notice and a 2/3 vote, or a vote of a majority of the entire membership. It is, however, too late to raise a Point of Order regarding this issue at this time. Generally, a Point of Order must be raised at the time of the breach, and none of the exceptions appear to apply here (at least based on the facts provided).

I would suggest, however, that it may benefit the harmony of the department to attempt to find some sort of compromise, due not only to the chair’s error but also because the vote in question was so close.

[J. J.]

Unless the vote was by ballot, or required to be by ballot, it sounds like it is too late to raise a point of order. 

[Gary Novosielski]

But if previous notice was not given, which I think is in doubt from the facts presented, would that not be a continuing breach?  (Despite what my location says, I'm currently in the high Andes of Peru¹ and did not pack my Book.  Yes, I know that's no excuse.)

__________
¹ seriously

[Richard Brown]

4 hours ago, daveaermstrong said:

In a recent meeting, a motion was brought that would change the department's constitution.  Unbeknownst to us, the motion should have required a 2/3 vote to pass, since it was presented to the department ahead of time (if I'm reading RONR correctly).

A couple of questions:  First, was this motion an actual proposed amendment to the constitution?  Or was it a motion that someone or some group (the bylaws committee?) review the advisability of such an amendment to the constitution?

Second, I'm curious as to why you say the motion should have required a 2/3 vote to pass "since it was presented to the department ahead of time". . . .    What does being presented to the department (or to anyone or any group) ahead of time have to do with it?  Does your constitution contain a provision that lessens the vote required to adopt an amendment to it if the amendment is presented to "the department" ahead of time?   What vote is required if it is not presented ahead of time?  That is certainly not a provision in RONR.  The default rule in RONR is that proposed bylaw (or  constitution) amendments require both previous notice AND a two thirds vote for adoption.*  Presenting the proposed amendment ahead of time  is an absolute requirement and does not lower the vote threshold unless a provision in your own constitution or bylaws contains it.

That is quite different from, say, a motion to amend or rescind something previously adopted.  Such a motion requires a two thirds vote or the vote of a majority of the entire membership  if previous notice of the motion is not given, but can be adopted with a majority vote if previous notice is given.  Perhaps you are thinking that a proposed bylaw amendment works the same way?   It doesn't.  A proposed bylaw amendment requires both previous notice and a two thirds vote unless the bylaws or constitution itself contains a contrary provision.

*Edited to add:  An alternative to a two thirds vote to amend the bylaws is the vote of a majority of  the entire membership.  See pages 581 and 592.

Edited April 9, 2019 at 04:06 AM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[J. J.]

1 hour ago, Gary Novosielski said:

But if previous notice was not given, which I think is in doubt from the facts presented, would that not be a continuing breach?  (Despite what my location says, I'm currently in the high Andes of Peru¹ and did not pack my Book.  Yes, I know that's no excuse.)

__________
¹ seriously

The questioner said " since it was presented to the department ahead of time," so that may not apply.  Yes, if notice was required by the bylaws, it would be null and void.

There is a possibility of using a majority of the entire membership in some cases.

Say hello to the condors for me. 

Edited April 9, 2019 at 03:57 AM by J. J.

[Atul Kapur]

1 hour ago, Gary Novosielski said:

But if previous notice was not given, which I think is in doubt from the facts presented, would that not be a continuing breach?

I didn't see anything in the OP that states that notice is required. It's usual (and the default in RONR) but the constitution doesn't have to require notice for its own amendment.

6 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

The default rule in RONR is that proposed bylaw (or  constitution) amendments require both previous notice AND a two thirds vote for adoption.

RONR adds a majority of the entire membership as an allowable alternative.

"at least notice and a two-thirds vote, which (with a vote of a majority of the entire membership as an allowable alternative) are the requirements for its adoption if such specification in the bylaws is neglected."  (RONR p.592, lines 10-13)

[Joshua Katz]

12 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

The default rule in RONR is that proposed bylaw (or  constitution) amendments require both previous notice AND a two thirds vote for adoption. 

Presumably, while the "because" is misplaced, the OP meant that 2/3 will suffice, and that a majority of the entire membership is not required (unless, of course, the membership is small enough that the latter is easier to attain). 

[Richard Brown]

1 minute ago, Atul Kapur said:

RONR adds a majority of the entire membership as an allowable alternative.

"at least notice and a two-thirds vote, which (with a vote of a majority of the entire membership as an allowable alternative) are the requirements for its adoption if such specification in the bylaws is neglected."  (RONR p.592, lines 10-13)

Yes, I edited my comment to add that provision at about the same time you were typing your comment!

[Rob Elsman]

11 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

But if previous notice was not given, which I think is in doubt from the facts presented, would that not be a continuing breach?  (Despite what my location says, I'm currently in the high Andes of Peru¹ and did not pack my Book.  Yes, I know that's no excuse.)

__________
¹ seriously

RONR can be safely read at high altitudes if stringent safety precautions are observed; otherwise, the excitement can be overwhelming.