Previous notice to fill a blank:

[Guest Kodos]

A previous notice has been given to fill a blank, such as:

"Resolved, That the $200 budget line for charity be amended to specify an annual contribution of __________ to St. Luke's Hospital."

There are only three ideas floating around at the moment: 1) to give $0 to St. Luke's, 2) to give $50 to St. Luke's, and 3) to give $100 to St. Luke's. In informal discussions by members, no one has suggested giving more than half of the charity budget line to the hospital. So it's unlikely that additional options will be added to the blank.

QUESTION ONE:

When the session is held and the motion is brought to the table, options 2) and 3) will be brought up for discussion and the blank will be filled with either $50 or $100 in the voting process outlined in RONR. Is the victor of these two options decided by a simple majority vote or by a 2/3 vote?

QUESTION TWO:

Once the blank is filled, the motion is voted on, allowing option 1) to be made. Normally, a motion to amend, with prior notice, would require only a simple majority to pass. In the case of a blank, does the motion to amend require a 2/3 majority since the motion was in one sense "incomplete" when it was given prior notice?

Maybe I'm just missing it, but I don't find these answers clearly stated in my copy of Robert's Rules of Order (1990 ed.).

Thanks.

-- Kodos

[Robert B Fish]

RONR does not require previous notice for such a motion. Why does your post seem to suggest it is required?

As soon as one of the proposals receives a majority, you stop voting.

The current edition of RONR is the 10th edition (2000)

-Bob

[J. J.]

A previous notice has been given to fill a blank, such as:

"Resolved, That the $200 budget line for charity be amended to specify an annual contribution of __________ to St. Luke's Hospital."

There are only three ideas floating around at the moment: 1) to give $0 to St. Luke's, 2) to give $50 to St. Luke's, and 3) to give $100 to St. Luke's. In informal discussions by members, no one has suggested giving more than half of the charity budget line to the hospital. So it's unlikely that additional options will be added to the blank.

QUESTION ONE:

When the session is held and the motion is brought to the table, options 2) and 3) will be brought up for discussion and the blank will be filled with either $50 or $100 in the voting process outlined in RONR. Is the victor of these two options decided by a simple majority vote or by a 2/3 vote?

It would take a majority to fill the blank, but a 2/3 vote, a majority with notice, or a majority with notice to amend the budget.

QUESTION TWO:

Once the blank is filled, the motion is voted on, allowing option 1) to be made. Normally, a motion to amend, with prior notice, would require only a simple majority to pass. In the case of a blank, does the motion to amend require a 2/3 majority since the motion was in one sense "incomplete" when it was given prior notice?

Maybe I'm just missing it, but I don't find these answers clearly stated in my copy of Robert's Rules of Order (1990 ed.).

Provided that no the budget authorized no donation to St. Luke's (and you have no idea of the omen you gave me) the motion to give $0 to St. Luke's is out of order (p. 132, l. 5-7). While this technically isn't an amendment, but it convert the motion into one that serves no purpose (p. 100, l. 1-5).

[Rob Elsman]

A previous notice has been given to fill a blank, such as:

"Resolved, That the $200 budget line for charity be amended to specify an annual contribution of __________ to St. Luke's Hospital."

There are only three ideas floating around at the moment: 1) to give $0 to St. Luke's, 2) to give $50 to St. Luke's, and 3) to give $100 to St. Luke's. In informal discussions by members, no one has suggested giving more than half of the charity budget line to the hospital. So it's unlikely that additional options will be added to the blank.

QUESTION ONE:

When the session is held and the motion is brought to the table, options 2) and 3) will be brought up for discussion and the blank will be filled with either $50 or $100 in the voting process outlined in RONR. Is the victor of these two options decided by a simple majority vote or by a 2/3 vote?

QUESTION TWO:

Once the blank is filled, the motion is voted on, allowing option 1) to be made. Normally, a motion to amend, with prior notice, would require only a simple majority to pass. In the case of a blank, does the motion to amend require a 2/3 majority since the motion was in one sense "incomplete" when it was given prior notice?

Maybe I'm just missing it, but I don't find these answers clearly stated in my copy of Robert's Rules of Order (1990 ed.).

Thanks.

-- Kodos

Q #1: Filling a blank requires a majority vote, regardless of the vote required to adopt the main motion, RONR (10th ed.), p. 156, ll. 32-35.

Q #2: In my opinion, since the previous notice was given of a motion containing a blank, members are properly notified that the scope of change is unlimited, so the motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted can be adopted by a majority vote, regardless what amount fills the blank.

[Guest Kodos]

...the motion to give $0 to St. Luke's is out of order (p. 132, l. 5-7). While this technically isn't an amendment, but it convert the motion into one that serves no purpose (p. 100, l. 1-5).

Sorry, I phrased the sentence poorly. I meant that once (say) $50 has been used to fill the blank, the motion becomes:

"Resolved, That the $200 budget line for charity be amended to specify an annual contribution of $50 to St. Luke's Hospital."

This motion will be debated and voted on. If a member wants $0 to be donated to the hospital, he or she will simply vote "no."

So my question regarding this second vote (on the main motion) is whether the previously "blank" aspect of the motion demands a 2/3 majority even though the blank motion was given previous notice.

[Rob Elsman]

Sorry, I phrased the sentence poorly. I meant that once (say) $50 has been used to fill the blank, the motion becomes:

"Resolved, That the $200 budget line for charity be amended to specify an annual contribution of $50 to St. Luke's Hospital."

This motion will be debated and voted on. If a member wants $0 to be donated to the hospital, he or she will simply vote "no."

So my question regarding this second vote (on the main motion) is whether the previously "blank" aspect of the motion demands a 2/3 majority even though the blank motion was given previous notice.

If a member votes no, he expresses the judgment that what the motion proposes should not be done. Thus, he intends that the budget line should remain $200.

[Guest Kodos]

If a member votes no, he expresses the judgment that what the motion proposes should not be done. Thus, he intends that the budget line should remain $200.

That's another way of putting it, yes.

But I don't see where Robert's Rules of Order clearly state which kind of majority will win in these cases when prior notice is used with a blank.

I would assume that it would require a simple majority as with all other amendments with prior notice, but that doesn't seem fair with a blank. Too much is left unsaid when giving the prior notice in these cases.

[Guest Kodos]

I would assume that it would require a simple majority as with all other amendments with prior notice...

I should have said "as with all other motions to amend with prior notice..."

[Shmuel Gerber]

That's another way of putting it, yes.

But I don't see where Robert's Rules of Order clearly state which kind of majority will win in these cases when prior notice is used with a blank.

I would assume that it would require a simple majority as with all other amendments with prior notice, but that doesn't seem fair with a blank. Too much is left unsaid when giving the prior notice in these cases.

You are correct: Robert's Rules of Order does not directly address this specific question. But it is in order to make a motion with a blank in it, and since previous notice of that motion has been given, its adoption should require only a majority vote (but of course the blank must be filled).

[Gary Novosielski]

That's another way of putting it, yes.

But I don't see where Robert's Rules of Order clearly state which kind of majority will win in these cases when prior notice is used with a blank.

I would assume that it would require a simple majority as with all other amendments with prior notice, but that doesn't seem fair with a blank. Too much is left unsaid when giving the prior notice in these cases.

While the motion is pending, all types of amendment, whether by filling a blank or any other method, require a majority vote. So filling the blank with a particular value will take a majority vote. It makes no difference what vote is ultimately required to adopt the motion, nor whether prior notice was provided--amendments to a pending motion are agreed to by a majority.

In this case, however, since prior notice was given of the intent to modify the previously adopted budget, the vote on the motion as amended will also be a majority.

The effect of the motion, if defeated, would not be to limit the donation to St. Luke's to zero dollars. It would be to leave the budget line for Charity at $200 as before, with no specific mention (that I have seen here) of what portion, if any, of that sum should be donated to St. Luke's.

[hmtcastle]

Provided that no the budget authorized no donation to St. Luke's (and you have no idea of the omen you gave me) . . .

Okay, it's been two days now and I still have no idea of the omen. And I don't like having no idea.

Something to do with Darth Vader?