2nd vote on by law change

[Guest blatterj]

Our By-Laws require a 7 day notice to our Board of Trustees prior to a motion being introduced to change and/or amend a By-Law. This notice was given 10 days prior to our last meeting, along with the motion to made. At the meeting, the motion was voted down (It had to receive 2/3 of the eligible votes in order to pass). After I left the meeting, the motion was brought up again and it passed. My question is.....was the second vote a LEGAL vote? In my opinion, revoting on the motion was illegal due to our By-Laws, which require a mininum of 7 days prior to the meeting.

Any thoughts on this matter?

[Chris Harrison]

Our By-Laws require a 7 day notice to our Board of Trustees prior to a motion being introduced to change and/or amend a By-Law. This notice was given 10 days prior to our last meeting, along with the motion to made. At the meeting, the motion was voted down (It had to receive 2/3 of the eligible votes in order to pass). After I left the meeting, the motion was brought up again and it passed. My question is.....was the second vote a LEGAL vote? In my opinion, revoting on the motion was illegal due to our By-Laws, which require a mininum of 7 days prior to the meeting.

It was proper. A motion to amend the bylaws which is defeated can be Reconsidered at the same meeting (RONR tinted pages 10-11 #16). Technically only a member who voted against the amendment should have moved to Reconsider it but if a timely Point of Order wasn't raised (which it appears didn't happen) the vote (and adopted amendment) is valid.

[Josh Martin]

It was proper. A motion to amend the bylaws which is defeated can be Reconsidered at the same meeting (RONR tinted pages 10-11 #16). Technically only a member who voted against the amendment should have moved to Reconsider it but if a timely Point of Order wasn't raised (which it appears didn't happen) the vote (and adopted amendment) is valid.

Well, it seems that what happened was that the motion was renewed, not reconsidered. This is improper, but the timely Point of Order principle still applies.

[Guest blatterj]

It was proper. A motion to amend the bylaws which is defeated can be Reconsidered at the same meeting (RONR tinted pages 10-11 #16). Technically only a member who voted against the amendment should have moved to Reconsider it but if a timely Point of Order wasn't raised (which it appears didn't happen) the vote (and adopted amendment) is valid.

Thank you....I appreciate the response.

[tctheatc]

The way I read the original question was not can a second vote be taken, but rather if it comes up again for a vote (and let's assume properly) does there need to be a new 7 day notice IAW the bylaws? Seems to me that was the question as the poster opined that it was an illegal vote because when it came up the 2nd time there wasn't (another) 7 days notice that it was coming up (again).

[Josh Martin]

The way I read the original question was not can a second vote be taken, but rather if it comes up again for a vote (and let's assume properly) does there need to be a new 7 day notice IAW the bylaws?

No further notice is required, so long as the time limits for the motion to Reconsider have not passed.

[Trina]

Well, it seems that what happened was that the motion was renewed, not reconsidered. This is improper, but the timely Point of Order principle still applies.

The way I read the original question was not can a second vote be taken, but rather if it comes up again for a vote (and let's assume properly) does there need to be a new 7 day notice IAW the bylaws? Seems to me that was the question as the poster opined that it was an illegal vote because when it came up the 2nd time there wasn't (another) 7 days notice that it was coming up (again).

No further notice is required, so long as the time limits for the motion to Reconsider have not passed.

However, as you pointed out earlier, the motion to reconsider was not properly available to the assembly.

[edit -- sorry, I didn't read the original post carefully enough]

If it's true, as you say, that the point of order would have had to be timely, that leads to the conclusion that when a noticed motion (such as a bylaws amendment) fails, the members who voted in opposition actually have to stick around for the rest of the meeting anyway, just in case someone improperly tries to bring the motion up for a second (or third or fourth, etc.) vote.

Do members really have an obligation to anticipate possible violations of parliamentary procedure in this manner?

Or, conversely, if some of the opponents to the amendment leave after the first vote (in the secure knowledge that a failed motion cannot be renewed during the same meeting) can't one argue that the rights of absentees were violated if the motion is brought up again without notice?

[hmtcastle]

Do members really have an obligation to anticipate possible violations of parliamentary procedure in this manner?

That's an interesting observation.

Given the timeliness requirement for most points of order, I think we can add "It's not over 'til it's over" to "You snooze, you lose".

[Chris Harrison]

However, as you pointed out earlier, the motion to reconsider was not properly available to the assembly.

If it's true, as you say, that the point of order would have had to be timely, that leads to the conclusion that when a noticed motion (such as a bylaws amendment) fails, the members who voted in opposition actually have to stick around for the rest of the meeting anyway, just in case someone improperly tries to bring the motion up for a second (or third or fourth, etc.) vote.

Do members really have an obligation to anticipate possible violations of parliamentary procedure in this manner?

Or, conversely, if some of the opponents to the amendment leave after the first vote (in the secure knowledge that a failed motion cannot be renewed during the same meeting) can't one argue that the rights of absentees were violated if the motion is brought up again without notice?

We actually don't know what exactly happened since blatterj had left the meeting prior to the second vote and so can't tell us the exact way things went down (though since I view the 2nd vote-even if it was renewed-as an intent to reconsider the defeated amendment and I consider it as an improperly executed motion to Reconsider).

I agree that members shouldn't have to stick around just in case a violation occurs but in this case I don't believe there actually was any violation. If I were the chair and someone tried to renew the defeated amendment I would rule it out of order but would also note that a motion to Reconsider would be in order and let the member(s) take it from there (so I think the Chair could have possibly been complicit in the situation).

[Trina]

We actually don't know what exactly happened since blatterj had left the meeting prior to the second vote and so can't tell us the exact way things went down (though since I view the 2nd vote-even if it was renewed-as an intent to reconsider the defeated amendment and I consider it as an improperly executed motion to Reconsider).

I agree that members shouldn't have to stick around just in case a violation occurs but in this case I don't believe there actually was any violation. If I were the chair and someone tried to renew the defeated amendment I would rule it out of order but would also note that a motion to Reconsider would be in order and let the member(s) take it from there (so I think the Chair could have possibly been complicit in the situation).

Yes, I guess in this case, since the motion to reconsider was a legitimate possibility, the members should have stayed to protect their position. I should have read blatterj's original post more carefully before posting my question.

[Guest Nancy N.]

Well, it seems that what happened was that the motion was renewed, not reconsidered. This is improper, but the timely Point of Order principle still applies.

Josh [Post 3], why do you figure that it was a(n improper) renewal, and not a reconsidering?

Chris, you too....

[Dan Honemann]

Josh [Post 3], why do you figure that it was a(n improper) renewal, and not a reconsidering?

Chris, you too....

Because we assume nobody ever does anything right?

[Gary Novosielski]

Because we assume nobody ever does anything right?

Well, isn't that where the "smart money" is?

[Josh Martin]

If it's true, as you say, that the point of order would have had to be timely, that leads to the conclusion that when a noticed motion (such as a bylaws amendment) fails, the members who voted in opposition actually have to stick around for the rest of the meeting anyway, just in case someone improperly tries to bring the motion up for a second (or third or fourth, etc.) vote.

Do members really have an obligation to anticipate possible violations of parliamentary procedure in this manner?

Well, the motion could also be properly brought up again by way of the motion to Reconsider, or by suspending the rules which prevent the motion from being renewed.

As a general rule I think it's wise to stick around for the entire meeting whenever possible, as you never know what might happen.

Or, conversely, if some of the opponents to the amendment leave after the first vote (in the secure knowledge that a failed motion cannot be renewed during the same meeting) can't one argue that the rights of absentees were violated if the motion is brought up again without notice?

No. Since there are proper ways to bring the motion up again for consideration, such a violation is a violation of suspendable rules of order, not a violation of rules protecting the rights of absentees.

Josh [Post 3], why do you figure that it was a(n improper) renewal, and not a reconsidering?

The wording from the original post ("the motion was brought up again") does not sound like the proper procedure for a motion to Reconsider. I could be wrong, but it doesn't really make a difference regarding the validity of the amendment.

[Trina]

....

I agree that members shouldn't have to stick around just in case a violation occurs but in this case I don't believe there actually was any violation. If I were the chair and someone tried to renew the defeated amendment I would rule it out of order but would also note that a motion to Reconsider would be in order and let the member(s) take it from there (so I think the Chair could have possibly been complicit in the situation).

Well, the motion could also be properly brought up again by way of the motion to Reconsider, or by suspending the rules which prevent the motion from being renewed.

As a general rule I think it's wise to stick around for the entire meeting whenever possible, as you never know what might happen.

Hypothetically, there's a meeting at which the proposed bylaws amendment is defeated on an 8 to 5 vote. Mr. and Mrs. Smith (who both voted against the amendment) then leave for another appointment, confident that everything is settled. They are absolutely sure that the other 3 people who voted 'no' will not change their minds, and that a motion to reconsider will therefore be impossible. They are correct about the unwavering position of their 3 allies.

As soon as they're out the door, a member in favor of the amendment moves to suspend the rules which prevent renewal of the same motion at this meeting. The motion to suspend passes on an 8 to 3 vote, the amendment is brought before the assembly for the second time that night, and is quickly adopted on an 8 to 3 vote.

Is this all hunky dory?

If so, you're darn right that members would be wise to stick around for the entire meeting whenever possible .

Although the 3 remaining opponents are run over in the maneuver, and although the early-departing Smiths are blindsided, there don't appear to be grounds even for a timely point of order, never mind any complaints after the fact... or am I missing something? Any chance that p. 253 ll. 8-10 has any application here, in terms of the vote needed to suspend the rules in this situation?

[Josh Martin]

Is this all hunky dory?

Yes.

Although the 3 remaining opponents are run over in the maneuver, and although the early-departing Smiths are blindsided, there don't appear to be grounds even for a timely point of order, never mind any complaints after the fact... or am I missing something?

There are no grounds for a Point of Order of any sort, as the rule in question is suspendable.

The wisest course of action for the allies of the Smiths would be to use the motion to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes, as this seems like exactly the sort of situation that motion was designed for.

Any chance that p. 253 ll. 8-10 has any application here, in terms of the vote needed to suspend the rules in this situation?

I don't see how it would apply.

[Trina]

There are no grounds for a Point of Order of any sort, as the rule in question is suspendable.

The wisest course of action for the allies of the Smiths would be to use the motion to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes, as this seems like exactly the sort of situation that motion was designed for.

Very interesting. Thank you for the response. I hope the discussion of reconsider, renew, and suspend the rules has been useful to the original poster as well.

I don't see how it would apply.

I didn't really think so; however, the language about 'no rule protecting a minority of a particular size can be suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as the minority protected by the rule,' sounds very broad and generally stated. What are the limits of the 'protection' included in the technical meaning of this rule? After all, it doesn't say 'no rule protecting the basic rights of membership of a minority...'; it just says 'protecting', period. The rule against renewal certainly was 'protecting' the interests of the 3 opponents (in the scenario above), until that protection was removed by suspending the rules. I think this sounds like an overly broad interpretation of the p. 253 rule, but what, actually, is the correct interpretation? Are there other passages in RONR that throw further light on the meaning of this rule?

I've been wondering about this for a while, trying to come up with examples where the rule would (or would not) apply.

[Dan Honemann]

Very interesting. Thank you for the response. I hope the discussion of reconsider, renew, and suspend the rules has been useful to the original poster as well.

I didn't really think so; however, the language about 'no rule protecting a minority of a particular size can be suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as the minority protected by the rule,' sounds very broad and generally stated. What are the limits of the 'protection' included in the technical meaning of this rule? After all, it doesn't say 'no rule protecting the basic rights of membership of a minority...'; it just says 'protecting', period. The rule against renewal certainly was 'protecting' the interests of the 3 opponents (in the scenario above), until that protection was removed by suspending the rules. I think this sounds like an overly broad interpretation of the p. 253 rule, but what, actually, is the correct interpretation? Are there other passages in RONR that throw further light on the meaning of this rule?

I've been wondering about this for a while, trying to come up with examples where the rule would (or would not) apply.

The rule requiring a 2/3 vote to suspend the rule against renewal protects a minority of any number in excess of 1/3 of the members present. 3 is not more than 1/3 of 11.

[Trina]

The rule requiring a 2/3 vote to suspend the rule against renewal protects a minority of any number in excess of 1/3 of the members present. 3 is not more than 1/3 of 11.

Are you saying that p. 253 ll. 8-10 only applies to minorities greater than 1/3, but less than 1/2 ??

Where does it say that?

[Dan Honemann]

Are you saying that p. 253 ll. 8-10 only applies to minorities greater than 1/3, but less than 1/2 ??

Where does it say that?

No, I'm not saying that.

An organization may have a rule which requires a 4/5 vote for adoption of a certain type of motion, and if so the rule on page 253, lines 8-10, says that this rule cannot be suspended by anything less than a 4/5 vote.

[Dan Honemann]

An organization may have a rule which requires a 4/5 vote for adoption of a certain type of motion, and if so the rule on page 253, lines 8-10, says that this rule cannot be suspended by anything less than a 4/5 vote.

Another example (and perhaps a clearer one) would be a case in which an organization has adopted a rule that a minority of one-fifth of the members present can order a roll-call vote (see p. 405, l. 23-32). The rule on page 253, lines 8-10, tells you that this rule cannot be suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as one-fifth of the members present.

I'm sure that neither of the examples I have provided come as much of a surprise.

[Trina]

The rule requiring a 2/3 vote to suspend the rule against renewal protects a minority of any number in excess of 1/3 of the members present. 3 is not more than 1/3 of 11.

An organization may have a rule which requires a 4/5 vote for adoption of a certain type of motion, and if so the rule on page 253, lines 8-10, says that this rule cannot be suspended by anything less than a 4/5 vote.

Another example (and perhaps a clearer one) would be a case in which an organization has adopted a rule that a minority of one-fifth of the members present can order a roll-call vote (see p. 405, l. 23-32). The rule on page 253, lines 8-10, tells you that this rule cannot be suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as one-fifth of the members present.

I'm sure that neither of the examples I have provided come as much of a surprise.

Thank you for the clarification. Reading between the lines of what you say here, I conclude that the p. 253 rule applies only to named or defined minorities (already clearly defined in the rules or bylaws of the organization, in the examples you give -- e.g. 'one-fifth of the members present'), and that it does not apply to what one might call spontaneously arising minorities (e.g. the 3 remaining opponents of the defeated amendment, in my earlier example). Although they may feel as if their rights are being violated, they are (presumably) not a previously defined minority in the rules of the organization, and thus have no protection from the rule on p. 253 ll. 8-10. Is that accurate?

[Dan Honemann]

Thank you for the clarification. Reading between the lines of what you say here, I conclude that the p. 253 rule applies only to named or defined minorities (already clearly defined in the rules or bylaws of the organization, in the examples you give -- e.g. 'one-fifth of the members present'), and that it does not apply to what one might call spontaneously arising minorities (e.g. the 3 remaining opponents of the defeated amendment, in my earlier example). Although they may feel as if their rights are being violated, they are (presumably) not a previously defined minority in the rules of the organization, and thus have no protection from the rule on p. 253 ll. 8-10. Is that accurate?

Well, in the situation you described (3 members out of a total of 11), they are just not a large enough minority to be protected against suspension of a rule which requires only a two-thirds vote for its suspension.

[Josh Martin]

...that it does not apply to what one might call spontaneously arising minorities (e.g. the 3 remaining opponents of the defeated amendment, in my earlier example). Although they may feel as if their rights are being violated, they are (presumably) not a previously defined minority in the rules of the organization, and thus have no protection from the rule on p. 253 ll. 8-10. Is that accurate?

Assuming the "spontaneously arising minority" is smaller than the minority the rule is intended to protect, yes, I'd say that is accurate. If it were not accurate, it would be impossible to pass any motion to Suspend the Rules except by unanimous consent. There's always some person or group who's going to claim their rights have been violated.