Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Impossibly High Threshold


pwilson

Recommended Posts

Posted

Is a motion that requires a vote of the majority of the entire membership—i.e., to rescind and expunge from the minutes, to adopt or amend special rules of order without notice, and (unless otherwise provided in the bylaws) to amend or revise bylaws without notice—out of order when fewer than a majority of the entire membership are present?

Specifically, is the introduction of such a motion out of order when fewer than a majority of the entire membership are present? Does continued debate on such a motion become out of order when enough members leave that a majority of the entire membership ceases to be present? Does the possibility of additional members showing up later make any difference?

So far as I know, the only requirement for the adoption of a motion that is also a requirement for its introduction is a requirement of previous notice (see topic 8919 on this forum). Am I missing a rule to the effect that having an impossibly high voting threshold causes a motion to be out of order?

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Posted

Is a motion that requires a vote of the majority of the entire membership—i.e., to rescind and expunge from the minutes, to adopt or amend special rules of order without notice, and (unless otherwise provided in the bylaws) to amend or revise bylaws without notice—out of order when fewer than a majority of the entire membership are present?

Specifically, is the introduction of such a motion out of order when fewer than a majority of the entire membership are present? Does continued debate on such a motion become out of order when enough members leave that a majority of the entire membership ceases to be present? Does the possibility of additional members showing up later make any difference?

So far as I know, the only requirement for the adoption of a motion that is also a requirement for its introduction is a requirement of previous notice (see topic 8919 on this forum). Am I missing a rule to the effect that having an impossibly high voting threshold causes a motion to be out of order?

Q #1: Yes.

Q #2: No.

Q #3: No.

Q #4: I don't know. Are you?

Posted

Is a motion that requires a vote of the majority of the entire membership—i.e., to rescind and expunge from the minutes, to adopt or amend special rules of order without notice, and (unless otherwise provided in the bylaws) to amend or revise bylaws without notice—out of order when fewer than a majority of the entire membership are present?

No.

Specifically, is the introduction of such a motion out of order when fewer than a majority of the entire membership are present?

No.

Does continued debate on such a motion become out of order when enough members leave that a majority of the entire membership ceases to be present?

No.

Does the possibility of additional members showing up later make any difference?

No. (Although this possibility is part of the reason I've been answering no to the other questions, it's not the only reason.)

Am I missing a rule to the effect that having an impossibly high voting threshold causes a motion to be out of order?

No.

Q #1: Yes.

Why? I can't think of any parliamentary reason why making the motion would be out of order. And from a practical perspective, due to the number of procedural options open to the assembly, the chair has no idea when the motion will be voted on or how many members will be present at the time the vote is taken, so the number of members present at the time the motion is made seems irrelevant.

Did you misread the question, or am I missing something?

Posted

No.

No.

No.

No. (Although this possibility is part of the reason I've been answering no to the other questions, it's not the only reason.)

No.

Why? I can't think of any parliamentary reason why making the motion would be out of order. And from a practical perspective, due to the number of procedural options open to the assembly, the chair has no idea when the motion will be voted on or how many members will be present at the time the vote is taken, so the number of members present at the time the motion is made seems irrelevant.

Did you misread the question, or am I missing something?

I assure you, I did not misread the question.

Posted

I assure you, I did not misread the question.

Well then, could you please elaborate upon your answer? Why is the introduction of a motion which requires a majority of the entire membership out of order because a majority of the entire membership is not present at the time?

EDIT: I should note that I am assuming, of course, that the assembly's quorum requirement is less than a majority of the entire membership. :)

Posted

Well then, could you please elaborate upon your answer? Why is the introduction of a motion which requires a majority of the entire membership out of order because a majority of the entire membership is not present at the time?

Such a motion does not have a rational, affirmative side.

Posted

Such a motion does not have a rational, affirmative side.

The motion's fine, it's just that based upon the attendance at the time of introduction, it has no chance of adoption. But the attendance at the time the vote is taken may be quite different.

Posted

The motion's fine, it's just that based upon the attendance at the time of introduction, it has no chance of adoption. But the attendance at the time the vote is taken may be quite different.

If enough members show up later, then the member can make his motion.

Posted

If the motion has absolutely no chance of adoption because the number of members required is not present, it may fall under the definition on page 331: "A motion is dilatory if it seeks to obstruct...as clearly indicated by the existing parliamentary situation."

Posted

If the motion has absolutely no chance of adoption because the number of members required is not present, it may fall under the definition on page 331: "A motion is dilatory if it seeks to obstruct...as clearly indicated by the existing parliamentary situation."

Although, as discussed at length in a recent thread, a motion can only be dilatory if there is intent to obstruct.

If the assembly is one or two members short of a majority of the entire membership, and "everyone" knows that three or four members always show up late but always show up, I'm not sure making the motion would be dilatory. Though it might be out of order for some other reason.

Posted

If enough members show up later, then the member can make his motion.

Well, let's make sure I understand your position.

  • You stated that the motion's introduction is out of order, but that if the number of members present falls below a majority of the entire membership, further debate on the motion is not out of order. Why? Based upon your reasoning, it would seem the motion no longer has a rational, affirmative side.
  • Up until what time could a Point of Order be raised regarding the lack of a sufficient number of members present for such a motion?
  • Is it the duty of the chair to monitor attendance in order to enforce this? Granted, the chair is already expected to monitor attendance to determine the presence of a quorum, but many organizations have a much lower quorum requirement than a majority of the entire membership. If it is obvious that a quorum is present, I doubt the chair would pay much closer attention to how many members were present.
  • How should the case be handled if the motion is not newly introduced, but is coming up from a previous meeting (unfinished business, general or special orders, report from a committee it was referred to, etc.)?

If the motion has absolutely no chance of adoption because the number of members required is not present, it may fall under the definition on page 331: "A motion is dilatory if it seeks to obstruct...as clearly indicated by the existing parliamentary situation."

Yes, but there's no suggestion that anyone is seeking to obstruct the conduct of business.

Posted

Well, let's make sure I understand your position.

  • You stated that the motion's introduction is out of order, but that if the number of members present falls below a majority of the entire membership, further debate on the motion is not out of order. Why? Based upon your reasoning, it would seem the motion no longer has a rational, affirmative side.
  • Up until what time could a Point of Order be raised regarding the lack of a sufficient number of members present for such a motion?
  • Is it the duty of the chair to monitor attendance in order to enforce this? Granted, the chair is already expected to monitor attendance to determine the presence of a quorum, but many organizations have a much lower quorum requirement than a majority of the entire membership. If it is obvious that a quorum is present, I doubt the chair would pay much closer attention to how many members were present.
  • How should the case be handled if the motion is not newly introduced, but is coming up from a previous meeting (unfinished business, general or special orders, report from a committee it was referred to, etc.)?

Yes, but there's no suggestion that anyone is seeking to obstruct the conduct of business.

I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. All I'm saying is that it's absurd for a member to make a motion that the assembly cannot adopt.

Posted

All I'm saying is that it's absurd for a member to make a motion that the assembly cannot adopt.

There is nothing to suggest that the assembly "cannot adopt" the motion. The motion may not come to a vote until hours (or months) later, so there is no reason to rule the motion out of order based upon the attendance at the time the motion is made.

Whether making the motion at such a time is a good tactical choice is another question entirely, but the fact that it may be a bad idea doesn't make it out of order. :)

Posted

There is nothing to suggest that the assembly "cannot adopt" the motion. The motion may not come to a vote until hours (or months) later, so there is no reason to rule the motion out of order based upon the attendance at the time the motion is made.

Whether making the motion at such a time is a good tactical choice is another question entirely, but the fact that it may be a bad idea doesn't make it out of order. smile.gif

If enough members show up later, then the member can make his motion.

Posted

If enough members show up later, then the member can make his motion.

Why would a motion that may be properly adopted be out of order? Where does RONR say that anything above a quorum is needed to introduce a motion.

Posted

Is a motion that requires a vote of the majority of the entire membership ... out of order when fewer than a majority of the entire membership are present?

Specifically, is the introduction of such a motion out of order when fewer than a majority of the entire membership are present?

No.

It is not out of order to introduce any motion with a high threshold of adoption.

However, certain delays will be necessary to ensure a chance of passage.

But to answer your question behind the question, I will say, "It is not up to the chair to do the arithmetic for threshold of adoption at the time a motion is introduced."

So, a chair cannot rule the motion "out of order."

The motion is in order (all other things being equal) even if the HOUR OF VOTING will not arrive any time soon, due to strategic intervening motions by the supporters, like:

• Postpone Definitely

• Lay On The Table

• Refer To Committee

• Fix The Time To Which To Adjourn

(etc.)

Does continued debate on such a motion become out of order when enough members leave that a majority of the entire membership ceases to be present?

No.

Of course not.

You've got a quorum? - You can debate. - Period.

Does the possibility of additional members showing up later make any difference?

No.

Posted

...

I can't think of any parliamentary reason why making the motion would be out of order. And from a practical perspective, due to the number of procedural options open to the assembly, the chair has no idea when the motion will be voted on or how many members will be present at the time the vote is taken, so the number of members present at the time the motion is made seems irrelevant.

Such a motion does not have a rational, affirmative side.

The motion's fine, it's just that based upon the attendance at the time of introduction, it has no chance of adoption. But the attendance at the time the vote is taken may be quite different.

Well, let's make sure I understand your position.

  • You stated that the motion's introduction is out of order, but that if the number of members present falls below a majority of the entire membership, further debate on the motion is not out of order. Why? Based upon your reasoning, it would seem the motion no longer has a rational, affirmative side.
  • Up until what time could a Point of Order be raised regarding the lack of a sufficient number of members present for such a motion?
  • Is it the duty of the chair to monitor attendance in order to enforce this? Granted, the chair is already expected to monitor attendance to determine the presence of a quorum, but many organizations have a much lower quorum requirement than a majority of the entire membership. If it is obvious that a quorum is present, I doubt the chair would pay much closer attention to how many members were present.
  • How should the case be handled if the motion is not newly introduced, but is coming up from a previous meeting (unfinished business, general or special orders, report from a committee it was referred to, etc.)?

Mr. Martin's view of this makes a lot of sense to me. And I don't think most of the questions in the list above have been addressed yet -- if the introduction of the motion is out of order, based on attendance, then there must be sensible answers to those questions... somewhere in RONR.

It seems to me that the judgement of whether a motion has a rational affirmative side depends entirely on the content/wording of the motion, not on how many people are in the room at any particular moment. That would be like having a bunch of different quorum levels defined, all of which must be monitored as different motions are introduced -- not a concept I remember seeing anywhere in RONR.

Posted

No.

It is not out of order to introduce any motion with a high threshold of adoption.

However, certain delays will be necessary to ensure a chance of passage.

But to answer your question behind the question, I will say, "It is not up to the chair to do the arithmetic for threshold of adoption at the time a motion is introduced."

So, a chair cannot rule the motion "out of order."

The motion is in order (all other things being equal) even if the HOUR OF VOTING will not arrive any time soon, due to strategic intervening motions by the supporters, like:

• Postpone Definitely

• Lay On The Table

• Refer To Committee

• Fix The Time To Which To Adjourn

(etc.)

No.

Of course not.

You've got a quorum? - You can debate. - Period.

No.

It is not out of order to introduce any motion with a high threshold of adoption.

I'm afraid that position is going to be difficult to reconcile with what is said in RONR (10th ed.), p. 297, ll. 13-22.

Posted

I'm afraid that position is going to be difficult to reconcile with what is said in RONR (10th ed.), p. 297, ll. 13-22.

How do you figure?

Excerpt, page 297.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE NOTICE.

As noted in Standard Descriptive Characteristic 6 above, when previous notice is a requirement for the adoption of a motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted, no subsidiary motion to amend is in order that proposes a change greater than that for which notice was given. This is always the case, for example, when the bylaws of an organization require previous notice for their amendment, which they should do (pp. 562-63). It will also be the case, as a practical matter, whenever a majority of the entire membership is not in attendance at the time the vote is taken on a motion to rescind or amend a provision of the constitution or bylaws, or a special rule of order. In either of the situations described above, no subsidiary motion to amend is in order that proposes a change going beyond the scope of the notice which was given, for the reason that adoption of such a motion will destroy the effect of the notice, and the motion is thus tantamount to a motion to Postpone Indefinitely.

Look at your own citation. Look at lines 13-22.

It will also be the case, as a practical matter,

whenever a majority of the entire membership is not in at-

tendance
at the time the vote is taken
on a motion to re-

scind or amend a provision of the constitution or bylaws, or

a special rule of order. In either of the situations described

above, no subsidiary motion to amend is in order that pro-

poses a change going beyond the scope of the notice which

was given, for the reason that adoption of such a motion

will destroy the effect of the notice, and the motion is thus

tantamount to a motion to Postpone Indefinitely.

Q. What is the difference between:

(a.) "at the time the vote is taken"

vs.

(b.) "at the time the motion is introduced"?

A. The difference is, in case #a, a vote on the main motion is involved, while in case #b, no vote on the main motion is involved.

It is not out of order to introduce a main motion which cannot be voted on at that moment.

You introduce it; you amend it; you refer it to committee; you postpone it; Etc.

You just cannot vote on it, yet.

Nothing wrong with that.

No conflict with page 297.

Posted

How do you figure?

Excerpt, page 297.

Look at your own citation. Look at lines 13-22.

It will also be the case, as a practical matter,

whenever a majority of the entire membership is not in at-

tendance
at the time the vote is taken
on a motion to re-

scind or amend a provision of the constitution or bylaws, or

a special rule of order. In either of the situations described

above, no subsidiary motion to amend is in order that pro-

poses a change going beyond the scope of the notice which

was given, for the reason that adoption of such a motion

will destroy the effect of the notice, and the motion is thus

tantamount to a motion to Postpone Indefinitely.

Q. What is the difference between:

(a.) "at the time the vote is taken"

vs.

(b.) "at the time the motion is introduced"?

A. The difference is, in case #a, a vote on the main motion is involved, while in case #b, no vote on the main motion is involved.

It is not out of order to introduce a main motion which cannot be voted on at that moment.

You introduce it; you amend it; you refer it to committee; you postpone it; Etc.

You just cannot vote on it, yet.

Nothing wrong with that.

No conflict with page 297.

In the example given there, a subsidiary motion to Amend is out of order if its adoption would destroy the effect of the previous notice given, since the main motion, as amended, cannot be adopted, since a majority of the entire membership is not present.

Posted

In the example given there, a subsidiary motion to Amend is out of order if its adoption would destroy the effect of the previous notice given, since the main motion, as amended, cannot be adopted, since a majority of the entire membership is not present.

Ah! What about an amendment which does not exceed scope of notice?

Can you do that, even if MEM (JJ's abbreviation for "majority of the membership") is not present?

Posted

Ah! What about an amendment which does not exceed scope of notice?

Can you do that, even if MEM (JJ's abbreviation for "majority of the membership") is not present?

What you need to get out of what is said on p. 297 is that a motion to Amend can be ruled to be inadmissible, at the time it is made, on account that, if adopted, it would render the pending main motion unadoptable at that time, even though the possibility exists that enough members may show up later to make adoption possible.

Posted

What you need to get out of what is said on p. 297 is that a motion to Amend can be ruled to be inadmissible, at the time it is made, on account that, if adopted, it would render the pending main motion unadoptable at that time, even though the possibility exists that enough members may show up later to make adoption possible.

If adopting the motion to amend renders the pending main motion unadoptable, doesn't that imply that the pending main motion was previously adoptable? But aren't you also arguing that, because a majority of the membership is not present, the main motion is not adoptable?

Posted

If adopting the motion to amend renders the pending main motion unadoptable, doesn't that imply that the pending main motion was previously adoptable? But aren't you also arguing that, because a majority of the membership is not present, the main motion is not adoptable?

The main motion is adoptable when it is made, because enough members are present to adopt it at that time. When the motion to Amend is made, it is not in order at that time, because, at the time the motion is made, there are not enough members present at that time to adopt the main motion if the amendment were adopted.

Posted

If adopting the motion to amend renders the pending main motion unadoptable, doesn't that imply that the pending main motion was previously adoptable? But aren't you also arguing that, because a majority of the membership is not present, the main motion is not adoptable?

The pg. 297 citation Mr. Elsman is speaking of refers to a situation in which the main motion may be adopted by a lower voting threshold, but since the amendment is beyond the scope of the notice, it raises the threshold to a majority of the entire membership.

As I understand it, Mr. Elsman is arguing that the same principle as in the pg. 297 citation would apply to the making of a main motion which required a vote of a majority of the entire membership.

I find the citation interesting but the "at the time the vote is taken" language puzzles me.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...