Bill doesn't pass but also doesn't fail

[Guest Carrie]

Hello, 

We had 5 of 6 members present (quorum). A bill was presented for final reading. Three voted yes, two voted no. Our procedures require a majority of the board (4)  for passage of a bill.. But our procedures define failure of a bill as "a majority of negative votes on any reading of a bill shall result in the failure of said bill." In this instance, only 2 (not a majority) of those present voted no so it doesn't qualify as failing, but also doesn't pass. What is the "status" of this bill? I ask because a board member wants to bring the bill up for vote again, but our procedures allow a motion for reconsideration of any action, so if bill was "failed" that would be considered an action, if it was passed that would be an action. But i'm not sure what action was actually taken on this bill and if it qualifies for motion for reconsideration. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 9/14/2023 at 12:32 PM, Guest Carrie said:

Hello, 

We had 5 of 6 members present (quorum). A bill was presented for final reading. Three voted yes, two voted no. Our procedures require a majority of the board (4)  for passage of a bill.. But our procedures define failure of a bill as "a majority of negative votes on any reading of a bill shall result in the failure of said bill." In this instance, only 2 (not a majority) of those present voted no so it doesn't qualify as failing, but also doesn't pass. What is the "status" of this bill? I ask because a board member wants to bring the bill up for vote again, but our procedures allow a motion for reconsideration of any action, so if bill was "failed" that would be considered an action, if it was passed that would be an action. But i'm not sure what action was actually taken on this bill and if it qualifies for motion for reconsideration. 

This is what happens when people put in fancy sounding language without understanding the consequences.

There is no answer to your question, because the rule makes no sense.  The only thing that makes logical sense is that if a motion is proposed, and does not pass, then it does not go into effect, and the status quo remains.

If the choice is between violating the rule or violating logic, it's time to amend the rules.

The motion to Reconsider is well defined in RONR, and it does not apply to "any action".  Again, if your rules are unworkable you should repeal them and instead use the rules in RONR, which work well.

They are your rules.  I don't know how they're supposed to work.

[puzzling]

On 9/14/2023 at 5:32 PM, Guest Carrie said:

Hello, 

We had 5 of 6 members present (quorum). A bill was presented for final reading. Three voted yes, two voted no. Our procedures require a majority of the board (4)  for passage of a bill.. But our procedures define failure of a bill as "a majority of negative votes on any reading of a bill shall result in the failure of said bill." In this instance, only 2 (not a majority) of those present voted no so it doesn't qualify as failing, but also doesn't pass. What is the "status" of this bill? I ask because a board member wants to bring the bill up for vote again, but our procedures allow a motion for reconsideration of any action, so if bill was "failed" that would be considered an action, if it was passed that would be an action. But i'm not sure what action was actually taken on this bill and if it qualifies for motion for reconsideration. 

This all is not done by RONR, 

RONR doesn't prescribe multiple readings, it doesn't prescribe your handling of motions, so the answer to your questions has to be distilled from your bylaws. Maybe best to involve a parliamentarian advidor  of any of the  parliamentary organisations (NAP or AIP) and have him or her to make a thorough review  of your bylaws and rules of order. 

[Josh Martin]

On 9/14/2023 at 11:32 AM, Guest Carrie said:

Our procedures require a majority of the board (4)  for passage of a bill.. But our procedures define failure of a bill as "a majority of negative votes on any reading of a bill shall result in the failure of said bill."

Why would you do this?

(This is of course rhetorical, and is directed at the drafters of this rule, not at you personally.)

On 9/14/2023 at 11:32 AM, Guest Carrie said:

In this instance, only 2 (not a majority) of those present voted no so it doesn't qualify as failing, but also doesn't pass. What is the "status" of this bill?

I have absolutely no idea. This situation arises entirely due to your organization's customized and bizarre rules.

Under the rules in RONR, the rules define the number of votes required for adoption of a motion. If there are fewer votes than the number required for adoption, the motion fails. There are no circumstances in RONR in which it is possible for a motion to be neither adopted nor lost, so RONR has no answer to what happens in these circumstances. Quite frankly, I don't believe I have ever seen a rule such as this before, and I have seen a lot of strange things on this forum over the years.

It will be up to your organization to interpret its own rules on this matter. In the long run, I advise that the organization amend its rules to avoid this strange situation from recurring in the future.

Edited September 14, 2023 at 07:46 PM by Josh Martin

[Atul Kapur]

As you interpret your rules, recall that an interpretation that leads to the absurd conclusion that nothing happened is to be rejected in favour of a non-absurd interpretation (generalizing from Principle of Interpretation 2 in RONR)

[Tomm]

Just ask'n but...isn't one of the main problems the parenthetical reference of (4) after stating the majority of the board?

We have the same situation in our organization when the bylaws reference a majority of the 9 board members as "five (5)".

It creates the problem as too whether the (5) is the actual number of required votes to be cast or is the (5) just a reference as to what a majority of 9 is?

Of course we should all know that the term "majority" only refers to those who cast a vote and not necessarily those in attendance of the meeting!

It's a matter that requires interpretation by the assembly!

[Joshua Katz]

Is this a governmental body? Some governmental bodies operate under laws (or court interpretations) that say exactly this. I served on one.

[Tomm]

On 9/14/2023 at 3:50 PM, Joshua Katz said:

Is this a governmental body? Some governmental bodies operate under laws (or court interpretations) that say exactly this. I served on one.

No, not in the case I'm referencing.

[Josh Martin]

On 9/14/2023 at 5:42 PM, Tomm said:

Just ask'n but...isn't one of the main problems the parenthetical reference of (4) after stating the majority of the board?

I don't think so. It appears that it was intended to provide that a majority of the entire membership of the board is required for adoption of a bill. This in itself does not create any particular problems. One might argue over whether or not such a rule is desirable on its merits, but it's perfectly possible to apply the rule.

The problem is that the organization further provided that a majority of the votes cast in the negative is required for a bill to be defeated. Most organizations do not do this. Rather, if a motion is not adopted, it is defeated, so there is never a "limbo" state. This rule is the part which creates a problem, because it creates a circumstance in which a motion can somehow receive not enough affirmative votes to be adopted, but also not receive enough negative votes to be defeated.

I would note that even if the majority of the entire board language was not included, the combination of these two rules would still create a paradox in the event of a tie.

On 9/14/2023 at 5:42 PM, Tomm said:

We have the same situation in our organization when the bylaws reference a majority of the 9 board members as "five (5)".

It creates the problem as too whether the (5) is the actual number of required votes to be cast or is the (5) just a reference as to what a majority of 9 is?

I acknowledge that, if there is in fact a question as to whether it was intended to require a majority of the entire membership, or if five was inserted simply as a parenthetical and was not intended to mean anything, that is a problem.

But it's not really the same problem as the nonsensical rules this organization has created.

On 9/14/2023 at 6:03 PM, Tomm said:

No, not in the case I'm referencing.

Yes, but the OP, on the other hand, refers several times to "bills." So it may well be the OP's assembly is a governmental body, or at least one which likes to pretend to be a governmental body.

On 9/14/2023 at 5:42 PM, Tomm said:

Of course we should all know that the term "majority" only refers to those who cast a vote and not necessarily those in attendance of the meeting!

It's a matter that requires interpretation by the assembly!

If you have a question concerning this matter, I would suggest posting a new thread with all of the available facts, including the exact wording of the rule in question.

Edited September 15, 2023 at 12:02 AM by Josh Martin