Changing voting threshold to more restrictive

[Steven P]

We are about to vote on a controversial subject, one of the members is asking if the voting threshold can be changed for this vote from Majority to two thirds. Robert's does not provide a method for changing the threshold by a subsidiary motion to more restrictive and our bylaws are silent on this. Since this is not a vote requiring two thirds, I would have to rule that any motion to increase the threshold would be out of order.  I do not think suspend the rules would be appropriate for this either as this does not provide for it's own suspension.

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/19/2023 at 8:25 AM, Steven P said:

We are about to vote on a controversial subject, one of the members is asking if the voting threshold can be changed for this vote from Majority to two thirds. Robert's does not provide a method for changing the threshold by a subsidiary motion to more restrictive and our bylaws are silent on this. Since this is not a vote requiring two thirds, I would have to rule that any motion to increase the threshold would be out of order.  I do not think suspend the rules would be appropriate for this either as this does not provide for it's own suspension.

The requirement of a majority vote for adoption is a rule of order. This rule may be suspended by a two-thirds vote in order to change the vote required for adoption to two-thirds. 

[J. J.]

On 3/19/2023 at 8:25 AM, Steven P said:

We are about to vote on a controversial subject, one of the members is asking if the voting threshold can be changed for this vote from Majority to two thirds. Robert's does not provide a method for changing the threshold by a subsidiary motion to more restrictive and our bylaws are silent on this. Since this is not a vote requiring two thirds, I would have to rule that any motion to increase the threshold would be out of order.  I do not think suspend the rules would be appropriate for this either as this does not provide for it's own suspension.

Agreeing with Mr. Honemann, I would not that the rule could not be suspended in advance of the session where the vote is being taken. 

In addition, you might want to take a look at 2:14, 2:21, 10:26 fn. 1, and 25:2 fn. 5.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/19/2023 at 8:25 AM, Steven P said:

We are about to vote on a controversial subject, one of the members is asking if the voting threshold can be changed for this vote from Majority to two thirds. Robert's does not provide a method for changing the threshold by a subsidiary motion to more restrictive and our bylaws are silent on this. Since this is not a vote requiring two thirds, I would have to rule that any motion to increase the threshold would be out of order.  I do not think suspend the rules would be appropriate for this either as this does not provide for it's own suspension.

It does not need to provide for its own suspension.  Not only is it clearly in the nature of a rule of order, but it is contained in RONR, not in the bylaws.  As such it can be suspended by a two-thirds vote.   

That would be sufficient to raise the threshold as high as two thirds.  If it were desired to raise the threshold higher, say, three-fourths, then it would take a three-fourths vote to suspend the rule.

[J. J.]

On 3/19/2023 at 11:00 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

It does not need to provide for its own suspension.  Not only is it clearly in the nature of a rule of order, but it is contained in RONR, not in the bylaws.  As such it can be suspended by a two-thirds vote.   

That would be sufficient to raise the threshold as high as two thirds.  If it were desired to raise the threshold higher, say, three-fourths, then it would take a three-fourths vote to suspend the rule.

I think it would only take 2/3 to suspend the rule and raise it higher.

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/19/2023 at 11:00 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

That would be sufficient to raise the threshold as high as two thirds.  If it were desired to raise the threshold higher, say, three-fourths, then it would take a three-fourths vote to suspend the rule.

 

On 3/20/2023 at 5:25 PM, J. J. said:

I think it would only take 2/3 to suspend the rule and raise it higher.

General Robert agrees (see Q&A 324 on page 518 of PL).

[Richard Brown]

On 3/20/2023 at 4:25 PM, J. J. said:

I think it would only take 2/3 to suspend the rule and raise it higher.

Before i saw Mr. Honemann's latest response, I was going to say I agree.  Having seen Mr. Honemann's response, I still agree.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/20/2023 at 6:09 PM, Dan Honemann said:

General Robert agrees (see Q&A 324 on page 518 of PL).

I read the cited question, as well as the quoted sentences in ROR that it refers to, and I still don't see the light.

This appears to be a clear example of the minority protection clause in SDC #7 of Suspend the Rules  [25:2].  And yes, a similar rule existed in ROR p. 87.

[J. J.]

On 3/21/2023 at 11:40 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

I read the cited question, as well as the quoted sentences in ROR that it refers to, and I still don't see the light.

This appears to be a clear example of the minority protection clause in SDC #7 of Suspend the Rules  [25:2].  And yes, a similar rule existed in ROR p. 87.

SDC #7 refers to the suspension of an existing rule, e.g. a rule that would set a 2/3 threshold.  The current rule sets the threshold at a majority, so that would not violate SDC #7.