Motion to Vote on Option A or Option B Allowed under RRO?

[Guest Confused Vote]

Under RRO is it possible to make a motion that requires someone to vote for option A or option B?  I was under the impression that you could only vote yes or no on a resolution.

We had a motion from the floor (that ultimately was improper per the bylaws) that required members to vote for one of two rates to charge guests.  However many people did not like either option...

[Rob Elsman]

A main motion is amendable as to amounts of money.  One way to settle what "rate" to charge guests is to open a parliamentary device called "filling blanks".  While the main motion is pending, a member could make an incidental motion called Create a Blank by Striking Out.  Adoption of this motion strikes out the "rate" that is in the pending main motion and creates a blank in the same place.  Once the blank is created, a process is gone through to fill the blank, very similar to holding an election of officers.

Using this procedure of filling blanks allows more than just "Option A or Option B".  Any number of suggestions can be offered.  Because a suggestion requires a majority vote to fill the blank, the assembly is assured of the freedom to choose the suggestion it really wants.

[Guest Confused Vote]

Hi Rob,

Wow, that never occurred to us.  I will look into "filling blanks". 

At the time the motion was made we knew it was improper per the bylaws but weren't sure how to proceed.  This has caused significant fallout within our group as the "vote" was close and many people voted under duress.  It was a low point for our group.

Could you recommend further reading on what to do in a situation like this where we aren't sure what to do if a motion from the floor clearly violates our bylaws?

Thank You!

[Atul Kapur]

If a motion is improper according to the bylaws, then someone should have raised a Point of Order stating that; the Chair would then rule on whether the Point of Order was "well taken" (the motion is improper and won't be considered) or "not well taken" (the motion is fine and will be considered). If the Chair felt that the motion was improper, they don't need to wait for a Point of Order to be raised - the Chair could rule that the motion is not in order.

That ruling is subject to appeal, whether it comes from the Chair on their own, or via a Point of Order.

So if it was clear that the motion was improper it never should have come up for a vote at all, but should have been cut off before it was considered, let alone voted on.

Edited October 6, 2020 at 07:04 PM by Atul Kapur
Added last sentence.

[Guest Confused Vote]

Thank You Atul,

We had a feeling this was coming and our exec board agreed beforehand that the Motion was improper.  This elicited a loud protest from the membership. Our chair weakened their stance on the subject and allowed discussion which lead to the vote for option A or B as I mentioned above.

Thank you to both for your help.

 

[Rob Elsman]

If you would like to read up on the device called "filling blanks", take a look at RONR (12th ed.) 12:92-113.

The incidental motion, Create a Blank by Striking Out, has never received the attention I think it deserves in RONR.  It is not included in the alphabetic list of incidental motions in RONR (12th ed.) 6:17.  To the extent it comes to prominence at all, it does so in chapter 12 where filling blanks is discussed.  To find its Standard Descriptive Characteristics, you must consult the tinted pages at the back of the book, Table II, motion 21.

[Atul Kapur]

One other thing. It sounds like it was also improper to force a vote on Option A or Option B.

I agree with Mr. Elsman that using a blank is a great way to decide between options. But then there should be a vote on whether to do the selected option at all vs not doing it.

The point is that the default is to choose neither option.

Let's look at the situation you were in, without blanks: there should have been a motion to do one of the options (pick one, I'll use A). Not a motion to pick one of the two.

So the motion would be "That we do Option A."

Then someone moves an amendment to strike out A and insert B. Then you discuss and vote on the amendment.
If the amendment fails you have the original motion "That we do Option A."
OR
If the amendment is adopted you have the main motion as amended "That we do Option B."

But, either way, you still need to vote on whether to do the selected option. And that is the Yes/No vote you mention in your original post.

1 hour ago, Guest Confused Vote said:

Under RRO is it possible to make a motion that requires someone to vote for option A or option B?  I was under the impression that you could only vote yes or no on a resolution.

The problem with the situation you describe is that the meeting didn't have the option of rejecting both options and doing neither.

[Rob Elsman]

I agree completely with Mr. Kapur; however the assembly was at liberty to amend the main motion to recast it in a way that solved the problem he mentioned.  Striking out the "A or B" part of the main motion and creating a blank seems the ideal solution, in this case, since it seems members wanted to have other suggestions to choose.  And, of course, some members might have wished to vote against the main motion after the blank was filled.

The original poster seems to know that something terrible was wrong with this motion, but does not explain why the motion violated the organization's bylaws.  I think we need to have more information on this part of the post to know how to respond about it.

[Atul Kapur]

Mr. Elsman is correct that there are actually three possible issues identified in the situation.

A: Only having two choices and not liking either one of them. Creating and filling a blank is a great way to resolve this one and is preferable to having multiple secondary amendments (I have a fun presentation on blanks).

B: The motion forcing the meeting to choose between options and the meeting not being aware that they could reject all of them.

C : The motion being improper for the reason that it violates the bylaws.

It's not clear which (or which combination) of these applies, which is why my previous post got a bit wordy.