CAn one change the rules of passing a motion from the past way of doing

[Guest Rod]

Hi Group

I Have a question about the President wanting to change the Vote from the past simple majority and change it to have more vote to pass a measure here is what he wants to do on an issue "Based on the intensity and tenor at our last meeting, I suggest that we require at least five out of seven "yes" votes to pass a motion to combine with DCC. I will withhold my vote until our other board members have voted "yes".  This item will also be deferred until at least five board members are present."  Is this OK according to Robert rules???  in the past it has been out of seven  4 was needed to past measure. Please let me know if this is OK or illegal and is there any info on this issue 

Thank you RG

[Joshua Katz]

The President has no authority to change the vote thresholds, which come from your bylaws, parliamentary authority, and special rules of order. The President has such powers as the bylaws provide, and unilaterally changing the rules is unlikely one of those powers. 

If the President wants to withhold his vote until 4 others vote yes, fine.

If the quorum is less than 5, then no, the President has no authority to unilaterally "defer" the item until 5 are present, either. He can, if you are using the small board rules, make a motion to postpone, or have someone else make such a motion, or give up the chair and make it, but only the assembly will decide. 

[Guest Rod]

Thank you Joshua for the info but could you give me the Page, section  where this is in the Robert Rules? the President will need proof as he thinks it my way or the hiwy LOL I just want the proof when we have our next board meeting.

Thanks RG 

[Josh Martin]

7 minutes ago, Guest Rod said:

Thank you Joshua for the info but could you give me the Page, section  where this is in the Robert Rules? the President will need proof as he thinks it my way or the hiwy LOL I just want the proof when we have our next board meeting.

“All of the duties of the presiding officer described above relate to the function of presiding over the assembly at its meetings. In addition, in many organized societies, the president has duties as an administrative or executive officer; but these are outside the scope of parliamentary law, and the president has such authority only insofar as the bylaws provide it.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 456)

If the President refuses to listen to reason and continues with this “my way or the highway” attitude, see RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 650-654.

[Rob Elsman]

In a such a small body as this one, the president will often participate right along with the other members. That being so, it would be perfectly proper for him, or any other member, to make a preliminary main motion proposing special requirements, such as the ones printed above in red. Clearly, such a motion has the effect of suspending the rules, so a two-thirds vote would be needed for its adoption.

[Joshua Katz]

4 hours ago, Guest Rod said:

Thank you Joshua for the info but could you give me the Page, section  where this is in the Robert Rules? the President will need proof as he thinks it my way or the hiwy LOL I just want the proof when we have our next board meeting.

 

I agree with the citation Mr. Martin provided. Additionally, let him point you to the page that justifies his actions. He can't. 

[Guest Zev]

Ah, pardon me guys, but can someone explain to me just exactly what

On ‎10‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 6:40 PM, Guest Rod said:

...to pass a motion to combine with DCC

means? There is an outside chance it may have some influence on this issue. Just asking.

[Joshua Katz]

3 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

means? There is an outside chance it may have some influence on this issue. Just asking.

Perhaps, but what do you have in mind? I agree that it's possible that this motion has a different threshold than majority, but I took the question to be only whether the President can unilaterally change the threshold. He can't, and I don't see how the contents of the motion change that. 

[Guest Zev]

My initial thought was that the motion could conceivably be an attempt to perform an act that would be disallowed without an amendment to the bylaws. In the process of the heated debate the president then suggests something he has no business suggesting. I would still like to know what "combine with DCC" signifies and whether the bylaws have anything to say on this subject.

[Richard Brown]

I think the bottom line here is that the rules may be suspended to require a different vote threshold for the adoption of a particular motion than specified in the rules, but the assembly itself must suspend the  rules to do it. The president has no authority to unilaterally do it on his own. 
 

Edited October 27, 2019 at 10:22 AM by Richard Brown
Typographical correction

[Guest Zev]

Until Guest Rob does the favor of explaining what "combines with DCC" signifies I do not believe that we have arrived at the bottom line. Perhaps "combines with DCC" is a motion to combine two separate motions or perhaps it is a motion to merge with another organization. Heated debate over combining two motions into one would seem a little bit strange but would not be strange in the case of a merger. In the case of a merger the voting threshold is notice and a two-thirds vote and not a majority as the guest suggests. Observe carefully that the president is saying that he "suggests" a different voting threshold and a different quorum requirement, not that he said "I rule" that the voting threshold and quorum requirement shall be thus-and-thus. So, yes the president can suggest any such measure. No, the president cannot impose a different voting threshold without the assembly's consent or a higher quorum requirement without a bylaw amendment. And the still unresolved question, no the assembly cannot adopt via majority vote this "combine with DCC" if such a motion is a motion that requires a higher voting threshold according to the bylaws. Have I missed something here?

[Joshua Katz]

3 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Observe carefully that the president is saying that he "suggests" a different voting threshold and a different quorum requirement, not that he said "I rule" that the voting threshold and quorum requirement shall be thus-and-thus.

What about this:

On 10/25/2019 at 6:40 PM, Guest Rod said:

This item will also be deferred until at least five board members are present."

Doesn't look like a suggestion. 

I think there are at least 3 possible interpretations - the suggestion interpretation you suggest, the interpretation the OP seemed to imply that he was imposing the rule, and a third that he was ruling that the rule is actually what he says.