Conditioning A Vote to a Defined % Threshold on the Fly

[Guest MFMauceri]

A organization ("Board") I'm part of has clear bylaws:  All decisions are simple majority, except for amending the bylaws and removing a member (2/3rds).  These are publicly elected positions.

A motion was made to send an item back to committee, except with a condition that it can only return to the Board for approval if the committee approves it by a 75% threshold.  My take is that the Bylaws also carry down to committees, and there are no special rules of order allowing for other thresholds (unanimous, any % beside 50+ and 2/3rds (665).

Is there a Robert's cite that speaks to this?

 

 

[George Mervosh]

If a majority vote or a 2/3 vote is required to adopt a motion, those requirements are suspendable.  Giving a committee instructions which includes requiring them to suspend the rules and agree to something by a "75% vote threshold" seems fine as well. 

Edited April 21, 2021 at 07:26 PM by George Mervosh

[Richard Brown]

I agree with the response above by Mr. Mervosh.  Assuming that your bylaws do in fact provide that all motions shall require a majority vote for adoption, that rule would be applicable to committees as well.  A committee is bound by the rules of the membership unless the bylaws provide otherwise.  However, agreeing with Mr. Mervosh, I believe that rule, even though in the bylaws, is in the nature of a rule of order and may be suspended and that the assembly may suspend the rule and direct the committee to require a 75 percent vote threshold on a particular matter.

What I am not sure of, however, is whether it would require a two thirds vote to suspend the rules or if they can be suspended with a majority vote.  The answer to that question depends on exactly what your bylaws say about the majority vote requirement and about the extent to which the parliamentary authority, if there is one, is controlling.   It may well be that the wording of your bylaws makes the majority vote requirement applicable  even to motions to suspend the rules and to other motions which RONR says require a two thirds vote or any vote other than a majority.  We can give you our opinions and advice, but it is ultimately up to the members of your organization to interpret its bylaws.  We cannot do that for you.

If you can provide the exact wording of the majority vote provision in the bylaws, it will be helpful.   Please quote it exactly, don't paraphrase.

[Dan Honemann]

A motion to give such an instruction to a committee will require only a majority vote for its adoption.  RONR, 12th ed., 13:8 (d).

[MFMauceri]

@Richard Brown

Section 3. Official Actions

Consensus. Decisions of the Governing Board can be made by consensus, meaning

unanimity amongst the voting Board Members. In the event consensus is not reached,

decisions will be made by a roll call simple majority vote by the board members present

and voting, not including abstentions, except that amendment of these Bylaws shall

require a super-majority vote, which shall mean no less than twelve (12) votes.

[MFMauceri]

It seems the consensus here is that Roberts enables any majority faction to change the voting rules at will by conditioning any motion to a threshold that's easily obtainable or completely unattainable.  Kinda sounds like democratic tyranny.  If Roberts controlled the senate, then democrats could have reset the threshold for impeachment conviction to a majority?  Or House republicans (with a majority) could condition a motion to impeach must attain a 75% majority to pass.

[George Mervosh]

16 minutes ago, MFMauceri said:

It seems the consensus here is that Roberts enables any majority faction to change the voting rules at will by conditioning any motion to a threshold that's easily obtainable or completely unattainable.

No one said that.  Instructions to a committee and suspending the rules regarding the vote requirement in a deliberative assembly are two different things.

Edited April 21, 2021 at 08:55 PM by George Mervosh

[Guest Puzzling]

53 minutes ago, MFMauceri said:

Section 3. Official Actions

Consensus. Decisions of the Governing Board can be made by consensus, meaning

unanimity amongst the voting Board Members. In the event consensus is not reached,

decisions will be made by a roll call simple majority vote by the board members present

and voting, not including abstentions, except that amendment of these Bylaws shall

require a super-majority vote, which shall mean no less than twelve (12) votes.

This article is only about the decision of the governing board, so they are not applicable to committees, the board can set other regulations for its committees

Not sure what to make  of the last bit:

" except that amendment of these Bylaws shall require a super-majority vote, which shall mean no less than twelve (12) votes "

Do they mean a majority and at least 12 votes in favour? 

It doesn't say a 2/3 vote anyway.

 

[MFMauceri]

@GeorgeMervosh  I understand what you're saying, however in this case there wasn't a motion to suspend rules made, nor adopted.  It was an amended motion to require a 75% approval for one specific issue.  It was made because 75% is essentially unattainable.  In this body, the bylaws and standing rules govern both the board and committees.

So, if they are both silent on whether or not voting thresholds can be set "on the fly," I'm trying to find the cite in Roberts that may clarify.  My RONR is at home, so I'll have to look up Daniel Honemann's cite, but on its surface, the ability to arbitrarily set voting thresholds, seems counterintuitive.

[MFMauceri]

@Richard Brown  Thank you.  If a motion was made to suspend rules was made, Roberts (the named "Parliamentary Authority") requires a 2/3rds approval or 12 Votes.  However there was not a motion to suspend rules, only to amend a motion to return an issue back to committee for further deliberation.  The add-on 75% approval threshold seemed a bit capricious, as its intent was kill the issue, because it would never reach 75% in committee.

In other words, the motion (as stated) was out or order, because it was in contravention of the overriding bylaw that decisions are made by majority votes (except bylaw changes).  What probably needs to be added is a specific citation for "suspending rules".  Presently, by dint of the bylaws, the answer is currently a majority to suspend, should such a motion to be made.

As I'm sure is true with most bodies where Roberts is the Parliamentary Authority, Roberts holds if the governance is silent on a specific issue.  No?

[MFMauceri]

1 hour ago, George Mervosh said:

No one said that.  Instructions to a committee and suspending the rules regarding the vote requirement in a deliberative assembly are two different things.

@George Mervosh In this case, the instructions were to violate the rules that require only a majority.  Had the motion been made to suspend the rules (it wasn't), followed by a vote to confirm the suspension of the rules, then the body could set the threshold to whatever % level, provided a majority approved it.  This sound right?

[Dan Honemann]

25 minutes ago, MFMauceri said:

@George Mervosh In this case, the instructions were to violate the rules that require only a majority.  Had the motion been made to suspend the rules (it wasn't), followed by a vote to confirm the suspension of the rules, then the body could set the threshold to whatever % level, provided a majority approved it.  This sound right?

Have you read the paragraph in RONR that I referred to above?

[Richard Brown]

26 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Have you read the paragraph in RONR that I referred to above?

And I would say particularly the last part of that subsection.... the last full sentence before the sentence in parentheses.  I might need to go back and edit one or two of my responses based on that sentence. I was not aware of that particular sentence, perhaps because it is new to the 12th edition. 🙄  It does not appear in the 11th edition. 

[MFMauceri]

On 4/21/2021 at 3:28 PM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

@Daniel H. Honemann Have you read the paragraph in RONR that I referred to above?

I have the 10th edition as that's what specified in the bylaws, and probably needs to "revised."  Can you cite the index heading, instead of chapter and verse?

Edited April 24, 2021 at 12:06 AM by MFMauceri

[Richard Brown]

On 4/21/2021 at 5:28 PM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Have you read the paragraph in RONR that I referred to above?

 

3 hours ago, MFMauceri said:

I have the 10th edition as that's what specified in the bylaws, and probably needs to "revised."  Can you cite the index heading, instead of chapter and verse?

This section which Mr. Honemann referred you to, §13:8 (d) is new to the 12th edition. It is not in the 10th or 11th editions.   

You said your bylaws specify the 10th edition. That raises what could possibly be another issue. Please quote for us the exact language in your bylaws about the 10th edition being your parliamentary authority.  Please quote it exactly, don’t paraphrase.
 

[Dan Honemann]

We are told that this Board is governed by bylaws which seem to rather clearly state that only a majority vote is required for the adoption of the motion which was made "to send an item back to committee, except with a condition that it can only return to the Board for approval if the committee approves it by a 75% threshold." We are also told that this motion was declared to have been adopted by a majority vote. Even if we assume that this was in error and that a two-thirds vote was required for the adoption of this motion, it is now too late to raise a point of order concerning this violation of the rules. 

But MFMauceri appears to be arguing that the motion which the Board adopted should be ruled null and void because "In this body, the bylaws and standing rules govern both the board and committees", meaning, I gather, that the bylaw provision requiring only a majority vote for any decision to be made applies to proceedings in this committee to which the contested item has been referred. If MFMauceri is right about this, then I would agree that the Board's instruction to the committee is null and void. However, nothing posted so far indicates that this bylaw provision is, in fact, applicable to this committee.

[Richard Brown]

16 hours ago, MFMauceri said:

I have the 10th edition as that's what specified in the bylaws, and probably needs to "revised."  Can you cite the index heading, instead of chapter and verse?

FYI, here is the text of §13:8 (d) which Mr. Honemann referred to and is new in the 12th edition.  I bolded the key part, which is new: 

d) Instructions to the committee can also be included in the motion to Commit, whether the committee is to be a standing or a special one, or a committee of the whole. These instructions, which are binding on the committee, may involve such matters as when the committee is to meet, how it is to consider the question, whether it is to employ an expert consultant, and when it is to report. The committee can be given “full power” to act for the society in a specific case and can be authorized to spend money or even to add to its own membership. The motion to Commit requires a majority vote for its adoption even when it contains instructions that suspend, modify, or conflict with rules of order that would otherwise apply to meetings of the committee. (See 9:35 regarding the adoption of instructions authorizing a committee to hold electronic meetings.).  (Emphasis added)

Edited April 24, 2021 at 04:10 PM by Richard Brown
Added sentenc bolding the key part.

[MFMauceri]

14 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

We are told that this Board is governed by bylaws which seem to rather clearly state that only a majority vote is required for the adoption of the motion which was made "to send an item back to committee, except with a condition that it can only return to the Board for approval if the committee approves it by a 75% threshold." We are also told that this motion was declared to have been adopted by a majority vote. Even if we assume that this was in error and that a two-thirds vote was required for the adoption of this motion, it is now too late to raise a point of order concerning this violation of the rules. 

But MFMauceri appears to be arguing that the motion which the Board adopted should be ruled null and void because "In this body, the bylaws and standing rules govern both the board and committees", meaning, I gather, that the bylaw provision requiring only a majority vote for any decision to be made applies to proceedings in this committee to which the contested item has been referred. If MFMauceri is right about this, then I would agree that the Board's instruction to the committee is null and void. However, nothing posted so far indicates that this bylaw provision is, in fact, applicable to this committee.

@Daniel H. Honemann  Thank you, yes.  The Board's bylaws pass down in their entirety and also direct the conduct of committees, including RONR being the Parliamentary Authority, as does the "Standing Rules, Policies & Procedures" which includes special Rules of Order that have been enacted over the years; one set of "body-specific" instructions and RONR to provide guidance for anything the bodies rules are silent on; pretty standard stuff.

The amended motion in question actually failed, but my poit of order was that the amendment was out of order in the first place because it was in contravention of the bylaws, so rather than "null and void" it became a moot point.  However RONR is quite a tome and there's always something that may be in ther that requires a little due diligence.

Based on the Bylaws the body has three vote thresholds: "Unanimous" (not required to approve anything but nice when it obviates a roll call vote); "2/3rds (or 66%) to amend the bylaws or expel a boardmember, and simple majority for all other "decisions."  I believe the language needs to tightened up to let simple majority apply to issues, and the Parliamentary Authority govern procedures.  The Bylaws actually only cite RONR as the Parliamentary Authority, and I thank everyone for pointing out they need to cite eith a specific edition or "latest edition).

[Richard Brown]

16 minutes ago, MFMauceri said:

The Bylaws actually only cite RONR as the Parliamentary Authority, and I thank everyone for pointing out they need to cite eith a specific edition or "latest edition).

I don’t think anyone on here has suggested that your bylaws should cite a particular edition. To the contrary, most if not all of us believe that it’s best that the bylaws do not refer to a specific edition  but rather to the “current edition“ of RONR. See, for example, §56:66. 

[MFMauceri]

35 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

I don’t think anyone on here has suggested that your bylaws should cite a particular edition. To the contrary, most if not all of us believe that it’s best that the bylaws do not refer to a specific edition  but rather to the “current edition“ of RONR. See, for example, §56:66. 

@Richard Brown I agree. Thank you.  "Current Edition" covers it.  I really don't think anyone on this council even realizes RONR's periodically updated.  Then again, they don't know about this forum's resources, either.   The City of Los Angeles would prefer that we didn't use RONR at all.  They recommend a 5-page Playskool version called "Rosenberg's Rules of Order", which essentially turns the Chair into a depot.  This body rarely has to refer to Roberts, but when we do, it's usually procedural but sometime's controversial.

Insofar as a motion to Commit, thank you for the full text, although I will pick up the most "current edition" (12).  In the situation I first asked for advice on, there was no specialization to the motion (Commit or otherwise).  It was a routine amendment motion with a very unreasonable twist (clearly being made to kill the issue in committee).

Edited April 25, 2021 at 03:40 AM by MFMauceri

[Atul Kapur]

6 hours ago, MFMauceri said:

The Bylaws actually only cite RONR as the Parliamentary Authority, and I thank everyone for pointing out they need to cite eith a specific edition or "latest edition).

 

5 hours ago, MFMauceri said:

I agree. Thank you.  "Current Edition" covers it.

If you look at p. vii, you will find that if you only say Robert's Rules of order in your bylaws, without specifying an addition or the words current edition, then you are assumed to automatically follow the current edition.

[Guest Puzzling]

9 hours ago, MFMauceri said:

The City of Los Angeles would prefer that we didn't use RONR at all.  They recommend a 5-page Playskool version called "Rosenberg's Rules of Order", which essentially turns the Chair into a depot.  This body rarely has to refer to Roberts, but when we do, it's usually procedural but sometime's controversial.

Don't  be so negative " Rosenberg's rules of order" are at least 7 pages long. 

But I fear many members will not even read those 7 pages.

If you are in an assembly that rarely refers to Roberts rules, get two copies , one for yourself and another to lend to the member referring to it and simply ask where?

[MFMauceri]

On 4/25/2021 at 2:06 AM, Atul Kapur said:

 

If you look at p. vii, you will find that if you only say Robert's Rules of order in your bylaws, without specifying an addition or the words current edition, then you are assumed to automatically follow the current edition.

@Atul KapurYou see, you just can't get that kind of definitive specificity just anywhere!  Thanks.

[MFMauceri]

On 4/25/2021 at 6:17 AM, Guest Puzzling said:

Don't  be so negative " Rosenberg's rules of order" are at least 7 pages long. 

But I fear many members will not even read those 7 pages.

If you are in an assembly that rarely refers to Roberts rules, get two copies , one for yourself and another to lend to the member referring to it and simply ask where?

@guestI'm seeing an opportunity to publish 'Rosenberg's Rules for Dummies.'  It will be a laminated index card we can sell for $4.99 (bargain!).