voting thresholds

[Pastor Tim]

One of the (perhaps) oddities about my denomination's annual meeting is that a standing committee reviews all of the proposed business items prior to the conference and makes a recommendation to our delegate body. The delegates then vote on that recommendation, which can be amended, etc. etc.  We've done this for close to 200 years.

One of this standing committee's responsibilities is to determine which items of business will require a 2/3 majority vote. For polity changes, this is obvious. But if this standing committee deems an item to be "highly controversial" (our internal lingo) they can also recommend that the item will require a 2/3 vote to be adopted. This, too, is long-established by our own conference rules.

At our conference this year, an item came to the delegate body that required a simple majority vote for passage. One delegate rose to speak and attempted to amend the recommendation to require a 2/3 vote, on the basis that this was (in his opinion) a highly controversial matter. The chair ruled the motion out of order, on the grounds that our "2/3rds Committee" had reviewed it and had recommended a simple majority passage.

My question is this: could the delegate body have voted to make this particular item require a 2/3 vote? That seems to set up the oddity of voting by simple majority to make an item require a 2/3 vote to pass. 

[J. J.]

The delegate body could suspend the rules to require a 2/3 vote to adopt a particular measure (25:1).  This suspension would require a 2/3 vote (25:2).

[Rob Elsman]

I suspect that the rules of the conference are the operative and relevant rules in this matter. Over the venerable two hundred years, this question has most likely been asked and answered. How has the conference previously proceeded? Is there a precedent?

[Josh Martin]

On 7/11/2023 at 8:45 AM, Pastor Tim said:

One of the (perhaps) oddities about my denomination's annual meeting is that a standing committee reviews all of the proposed business items prior to the conference and makes a recommendation to our delegate body. The delegates then vote on that recommendation, which can be amended, etc. etc.  We've done this for close to 200 years.

This part is not that odd. Large conventions quite frequently have a "Resolutions Committee" to review resolutions and make recommendations.

On 7/11/2023 at 8:45 AM, Pastor Tim said:

But if this standing committee deems an item to be "highly controversial" (our internal lingo) they can also recommend that the item will require a 2/3 vote to be adopted. This, too, is long-established by our own conference rules.

This is the odd part.

What exactly do the conference rules say on this matter?

On 7/11/2023 at 8:45 AM, Pastor Tim said:

At our conference this year, an item came to the delegate body that required a simple majority vote for passage. One delegate rose to speak and attempted to amend the recommendation to require a 2/3 vote, on the basis that this was (in his opinion) a highly controversial matter. The chair ruled the motion out of order, on the grounds that our "2/3rds Committee" had reviewed it and had recommended a simple majority passage.

I do not express a view at this time on whether it is in order under the convention's rules to override the committee's judgment on whether a matter is "highly controversial" and therefore requires a 2/3 vote (and if so, what the appropriate procedure and vote is to do so), since I have not read the convention's rules on that subject.

I concur with J.J. that if the rules in RONR were all that was controlling, the assembly may Suspend the Rules to require a higher voting threshold for a particular item, however, doing so would require a 2/3 vote.

On 7/11/2023 at 8:45 AM, Pastor Tim said:

My question is this: could the delegate body have voted to make this particular item require a 2/3 vote? That seems to set up the oddity of voting by simple majority to make an item require a 2/3 vote to pass. 

I would suggest, respectfully, that your conference rules create this oddity, by permitting a committee, in its judgment, to determine that a motion which would ordinarily require a majority vote would require a 2/3 vote on the grounds that it is "highly controversial." In the ordinary case, the rules clearly lay out which types of motions require a 2/3 vote and do not include this level of subjectivity. Once that oddity is introduced, I don't know that permitting the convention to make that judgment (as opposed to a committee) would be any more odd.

Edited July 11, 2023 at 03:39 PM by Josh Martin

[Dan Honemann]

On 7/11/2023 at 11:34 AM, Josh Martin said:

I would suggest, respectfully, that your conference rules create this oddity, by permitting a committee, in its judgment, to determine that a motion which would ordinarily require a majority vote would require a 2/3 vote on the grounds that it is "highly controversial."

But based on Pastor Tim's statement of the rule it appears that the committee can only recommend the requirement of a two-thirds vote.

[Pastor Tim]

On 7/11/2023 at 11:34 AM, Josh Martin said:

What exactly do the conference rules say on this matter?

"It has become our standard practice that Standing Committee may determine that adoption of items of major consequence for the life of the church will require a two-thirds vote."

What this means is that once our committee determines the item requires 2/3, then that settles the issue for voting--by custom and by 'standard practice.' I can't recall anyone ever questioning a decision of our 2/3 committee either way.

The Conference rule is a nod to the highly relational nature of our church relationships, and the difficulties of living into realities when resolutions are passed on razor-thin margins (even if might make Gen. Robert spin in his grave.) Sometimes, the best one can do is make sausage, I suppose.

No one, to my knowledge, has ever attempted to work the system backwards, as this year's motion intended to do. Frankly, those of us who know the person who made the motion recognized it as a backdoor attempt to defeat the item of business.

(And please kindly overlook that we have a standing committee named "Standing Committee.")  😀

[J. J.]

On 7/11/2023 at 1:41 PM, Pastor Tim said:

"It has become our standard practice that Standing Committee may determine that adoption of items of major consequence for the life of the church will require a two-thirds vote."

What this means is that once our committee determines the item requires 2/3, then that settles the issue for voting--by custom and by 'standard practice.' I can't recall anyone ever questioning a decision of our 2/3 committee either way.

The Conference rule is a nod to the highly relational nature of our church relationships, and the difficulties of living into realities when resolutions are passed on razor-thin margins (even if might make Gen. Robert spin in his grave.) Sometimes, the best one can do is make sausage, I suppose.

No one, to my knowledge, has ever attempted to work the system backwards, as this year's motion intended to do. Frankly, those of us who know the person who made the motion recognized it as a backdoor attempt to defeat the item of business.

(And please kindly overlook that we have a standing committee named "Standing Committee.")  😀

If what you referring to is something that is not incorporated into an adopted rule, it would be a custom.  In such cases, the majority vote would suffice.

I am not clear, however, on if this is a custom or some adopted rule. 

[Josh Martin]

On 7/11/2023 at 12:22 PM, Dan Honemann said:

But based on Pastor Tim's statement of the rule it appears that the committee can only recommend the requirement of a two-thirds vote.

That's not what it sounds like to me from the follow-up post.

On 7/11/2023 at 12:41 PM, Pastor Tim said:

"It has become our standard practice that Standing Committee may determine that adoption of items of major consequence for the life of the church will require a two-thirds vote."

What this means is that once our committee determines the item requires 2/3, then that settles the issue for voting--by custom and by 'standard practice.' I can't recall anyone ever questioning a decision of our 2/3 committee either way.

The Conference rule is a nod to the highly relational nature of our church relationships, and the difficulties of living into realities when resolutions are passed on razor-thin margins (even if might make Gen. Robert spin in his grave.) Sometimes, the best one can do is make sausage, I suppose.

No one, to my knowledge, has ever attempted to work the system backwards, as this year's motion intended to do. Frankly, those of us who know the person who made the motion recognized it as a backdoor attempt to defeat the item of business.

(And please kindly overlook that we have a standing committee named "Standing Committee.")  😀

Thank you for this additional information. The below analysis assumes that this is, in fact, a rule. I am somewhat uncertain on this, because "It has become our standard practice that" is usually not how a rule is written.

I will first note that this is rule is quite unusual, it will ultimately be up to the organization to interpret the meaning of this rule, and in the long run, the best solution will be to amend the rule to clearly answer the question of what happens if the conference disagrees with the committee's determination in this matter. (In the alternative, the rule could be struck altogether, or replaced with something that more clearly defines the circumstances under which a motion shall require a 2/3 vote.)

In the interim, my own best stab at this is as follows:

In any event, I do not think it is in order, as the member attempted to do, to move to "amend" the recommendation to add (or remove) a requirement for a 2/3 vote, because as I read the rule in question, the committee is authorized to "determine" (not recommend) that a motion shall require a 2/3 vote.

I believe that it would be in order, as J.J. suggests, to move to Suspend the Rules to change the voting threshold for the motion, one way or the other. This would require a 2/3 vote. The rule in question is in the nature of a rule of order, and I see no reason why the rule could not be suspended.

I also believe it would be in order to raise a Point of Order asserting that a particular matter is not an "item of major consequence for the life of the church," and that, as a consequence, the item does not require a 2/3 vote, and to then Appeal from the ruling of the chair if needed. If the assembly determines that a matter is not an "item of major consequence," then the committee lacks the authority to determine that it requires a 2/3 vote, and therefore a 2/3 vote is not required.

I don't think the reverse is possible, because the rule simply says that the committee may determine that the adoption of an item of major consequence will require a 2/3 vote - the committee is not required to determine that the adoption of a 2/3 vote is required on the basis that an item is an "item of major consequence." So I'm not seeing a clear mechanism through a Point of Order and Appeal to change an item to requiring a 2/3 vote. (Unless, of course, one disagrees with me about how the rule itself works, which is very possible.)

Edited July 11, 2023 at 06:14 PM by Josh Martin

[puzzling]

It looks like the motion is about a controversial matter, the opponents (a likely big minority) seem to think so. 

If your church find consensus (or a big majority) important it might be better and simpler to require a 2/3 vote for he adoption of any main motion.

Debate over if a certain motion is controversial or not is a self fulfilling prophecy  debating it makes the motion more controversial than it originally was.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 7/11/2023 at 5:48 PM, puzzling said:

If your church find consensus (or a big majority) important it might be better and simpler to require a 2/3 vote for he adoption of any main motion.

I'd recommend against that strongly.  The choice is either majority rule, or minority rule, and a two-thirds requirement means that one-third can block anything.  That's minority rule.