Improper motions

[Guest Ryan Buff]

If a call for a 2/3 vote is made in a situation where a 2/3 vote was not needed, if that motion is brought up again for a vote, does it need 2/3 to win because it’s been brought up and defeated already? 

[Hieu H. Huynh]

What was being voted on?

[Joshua Katz]

What do you mean by a call for a 2/3 vote? Who made this call? Did they have such power?

[Richard Brown]

And what do you mean by “the motion being brought up again for a vote”?  In what way? Being renewed?  reconsidered? Something else? 

Edited March 14, 2021 at 03:40 PM by Richard Brown
Added examples

[Shmuel Gerber]

Is this the Question & Question Forum or the Question & Answer Forum?

(I'm just asking. 🙂)

[Guest Ryan Buff]

So back in 1970 our fire department made a motion to change our fire trucks from the traditional red to the safety yellow for safety purposes. So the first truck we bought safety yellow was in 1972 and the whole truck was one color. About 1976 we bought another truck that was white over the safety yellow, but no none can confirm or deny that a motion was made to officially  adopt the white over safety yellow to the meeting room floor of the time and it was just done by the truck committee of the time. So just earlier this week I made a motion on the meeting floor that we change the top color of the truck to silver over the safety yellow instead of the white/safety yellow. After I did that, a member stood up and said he believes we need to do it as a 2/3 vote since we’ve had a 40 +\- year tradition of the white. So the president did it as a 2/3 vote and it lost 12/13. So my questions is since we aren’t overturning a motion previously made then was a 2/3 vote needed ? And people are saying that since the motion was not approved by the vote if i bring up the same motion again that it definitely needs 2/3 to win since it was already voted down. Hopefully this all makes sense. Our by-laws only say a 2/3 vote is needed to overturn a previous motion or to expel a member. 

[Guest Puzzling]

41 minutes ago, Guest Ryan Buff said:

Our by-laws only say a 2/3 vote is needed to overturn a previous motion

Can you quote verbatim (not paraphrase) what your bylaws state about this. 

RONR says one thing but your bylaws have priority over RONR.

[Ryan Buff]

19 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

Can you quote verbatim (not paraphrase) what your bylaws state about this. 

RONR says one thing but your bylaws have priority over RONR.

 

    “Nine members shall constitute a quorum and a majority of the members present shall govern except to revise or annul the Constitution, By-laws, or Rules of Order when two thirds of the members shall be required as prescribed in Article I of the Constitution.”  This is what they say exactly 

[Richard Brown]

Guest Ryan, based on your additional information, with  there being no record of a vote of the assembly for white over yellow color of all future firetrucks or even for that particular previous one, your motion to paint this truck silver over yellow should not have required two thirds vote but a regular majority vote. Further, if you renew the motion (make the motion again) it only requires a majority vote for passage, not a two thirds vote. 

[Ryan Buff]

2 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Guest Ryan, based on your additional information, with  there being no record of a vote of the assembly for white over yellow color of all future firetrucks or even for that particular previous one, your motion to paint this truck silver over yellow should not have required two thirds vote but a regular majority vote. Further, if you renew the motion (make the motion again) it only requires a majority vote for passage, not a two thirds vote. 

Does it state this somewhere that I couldn’t find? 

[Richard Brown]

Actually, in reviewing your posts, it seems like the vote taken years ago was to paint all future firetrucks solid yellow. Unless there is a record of the assembly Voting to change the color, that is the color all future firetrucks should be. Therefore, if you want your new fire truck to be silver over yellow, I think it would require either a 2/3 vote or the vote of a majority of the entire membership without notice, or a regular majority vote if previous notice of the motion is made.
 

You are amending something previously adopted, which requires a majority vote with notice or a two thirds vote or the vote of the majority of the entire membership without previous notice.You are amending something previously adopted, which requires a majority vote with notice or a two thirds vote or the vote of the majority of the entire membership without previous notice. 

[Richard Brown]

7 minutes ago, Ryan Buff said:

Does it state this somewhere that I couldn’t find? 

See §35 of RONR, particularly 35:2 (7). 

[Dan Honemann]

But the bylaws say that "a majority of the members present shall govern except to revise or annul the Constitution, By-laws, or Rules of Order when two thirds of the members shall be required as prescribed in Article I of the Constitution.” So why isn't a vote of a majority of the members present the required vote (assuming the presence of a quorum)?

 

[Richard Brown]

3 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

But the bylaws say that "a majority of the members present shall govern except to revise or annul the Constitution, By-laws, or Rules of Order when two thirds of the members shall be required as prescribed in Article I of the Constitution.” So why isn't a vote of a majority of the members present the required vote (assuming the presence of a quorum)?

 

Based on the language our guest posted from his bylaws, I agree. He posted that language as I was making my other comments and I had not yet read it until just now.

[Guest Puzzling]

50 minutes ago, Ryan Buff said:

 

    “Nine members shall constitute a quorum and a majority of the members present shall govern except to revise or annul the Constitution, By-laws, or Rules of Order when two thirds of the members shall be required as prescribed in Article I of the Constitution.”  This is what they say exactly 

This does NOT say that a 2/3 vote is needed to overturn a previous motion.

In fact it states that a majority is enough. (As long as a quorum of 9 members is present at the meeting) 

this even applies to disciplinary action (except if that is ruled at other places in the bylaws or constitution) 

Makes me wonder if anybody really read the bylaws before)

what RONR states is of no importance,  the bylaws have priority.

[Richard Brown]

9 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

This does NOT say that a 2/3 vote is needed to overturn a previous motion.

In fact it states that a majority is enough. (As long as a quorum of 9 members is present at the meeting) 

I’m, no that’s not what the bylaws say. They say that the vote of “a majority of the members present shall govern”.  That is not the same thing as a regular majority vote.  The way I read it it amounts to “the vote of a majority of the members present“.

12 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

what RONR states is of no importance,  the bylaws have priority.

Well, that may or may not be the case. There are still questions of whether the provisions of RONR apply on procedural motions, such as emotions to close debate, to suspend the rules, etc. The bylaws still need to be interpreted by the membership to determine whether the quoted provision applies to everything (except for the exceptions noted) or just to substantive motions.

I have seen organizations, were similar language is used, take the position that the perversion applies only to substantive motions but that the rules in RONR control when it comes to procedural motions. Other organizations take the position that the provision in the bylaws applies to everything. Such an interpretation would be reasonable in this situation based on the bylaw language quoted. 

 

[Joshua Katz]

On 3/14/2021 at 7:37 AM, Guest Ryan Buff said:

If a call for a 2/3 vote is made in a situation where a 2/3 vote was not needed,

 

17 hours ago, Guest Ryan Buff said:

So just earlier this week I made a motion on the meeting floor that we change the top color of the truck to silver over the safety yellow instead of the white/safety yellow. After I did that, a member stood up and said he believes we need to do it as a 2/3 vote since we’ve had a 40 +\- year tradition of the white. So the president did it as a 2/3 vote and it lost 12/13.

This may be a little peripheral, but I think there is a mistake here. There is no secret "right" answer written in the sky. What is needed is determined by points of order and appeals. Seemingly, although the words weren't used, here we had a point of order and a ruling, with no appeal. So a 2/3 vote was needed. 

Also, if the motion was to change from white/yellow to silver/yellow, but the rule was yellow, I think the motion would be out of order, or should be rephrased as simply amending the rule to silver/yellow. Note that the rule cannot be suspended because it is a standing rule having application outside the meeting context.

17 hours ago, Guest Ryan Buff said:

About 1976 we bought another truck that was white over the safety yellow, but no none can confirm or deny that a motion was made to officially  adopt the white over safety yellow to the meeting room floor of the time and it was just done by the truck committee of the time.

Have they checked the minutes?

16 hours ago, Ryan Buff said:

    “Nine members shall constitute a quorum and a majority of the members present shall govern except to revise or annul the Constitution, By-laws, or Rules of Order when two thirds of the members shall be required as prescribed in Article I of the Constitution.”  This is what they say exactly 

In my view, this says:

1. 9 members are a quorum

2. All votes require a majority of those present (which is not the rule in RONR), except:

3. Revising or annulling the Constitution, By-laws, or Rules of Order, in which case

4. 2/3 of the members must be present, and

5. The vote threshold remains a majority of those present.

17 hours ago, Guest Ryan Buff said:

So back in 1970 our fire department made a motion to change our fire trucks from the traditional red to the safety yellow for safety purposes.

This sounds like a standing rule. It is not a constitutional provision, a by-laws provision, or a rule of order. So this rule does not apply to it. Seemingly, then, the required vote is a majority of those present.
BUT only your organization can interpret your bylaws. It is conceivable to read this other ways, including that such an action requires a 2/3 vote.

17 hours ago, Guest Ryan Buff said:

And people are saying that since the motion was not approved by the vote if i bring up the same motion again that it definitely needs 2/3 to win since it was already voted down.

This is incorrect. Being voted down does not change the vote threshold requiring if the motion is made at a later session. Neither does a ruling on the vote threshold at the first session govern the second, except that it creates a precedent.

[Dan Honemann]

16 hours ago, Ryan Buff said:

    “Nine members shall constitute a quorum and a majority of the members present shall govern except to revise or annul the Constitution, By-laws, or Rules of Order when two thirds of the members shall be required as prescribed in Article I of the Constitution.”  This is what they say exactly 

 

15 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

In my view, this says:

1. 9 members are a quorum

2. All votes require a majority of those present (which is not the rule in RONR), except:

3. Revising or annulling the Constitution, By-laws, or Rules of Order, in which case

4. 2/3 of the members must be present, and

5. The vote threshold remains a majority of those present.

I don't see how you arrive at these conclusions unless you know what is said in Article I of the Constitution.

[George Mervosh]

22 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

Is this the Question & Question Forum or the Question & Answer Forum?

(I'm just asking. 🙂)

I think the Q & Q Forum has a nice ring to it because sometimes the supplemental Q's get no A.    https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/36801-opposing-an-appeal/?tab=comments#comment-219387

 

[Richard Brown]

29 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

I think the Q & Q Forum has a nice ring to it because sometimes the supplemental Q's get no A.

And sometimes the supplemental Q’s get the information we need in order to provide the proper A’s.