Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

bringing up a resolution


Guest just wondering

Recommended Posts

Can an elected person from a committee bring up a resolution if it is not on an agenda? If so, then can the resolution pass if it has a majority vote of the members present?

Yes unless the rules say otherwise. However, a motion passes with a majority of the members who voted. There may be members who are present who choose not to vote and with a few exceptions their abstaining doesn't affect the results any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can an elected person from a committee bring up a resolution if it is not on an agenda? If so, then can the resolution pass if it has a majority vote of the members present?

I'm not sure what you mean by an "elected person from a committee". But in general, any member of an assembly can move the adoption of a resolution under New Business even if it is not on an agenda. And with few exceptions, a majority of those present and voting is enough to adopt the resolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can an elected person from a committee bring up a resolution if it is not on an agenda?

You don't even need an agenda.

That is, there is NO SUCH RULE in Robert's Rules of Order which implies, "Nothing can be brought up unless it first appear on an agenda."

Agenda-less meetings are OK.

Non-agendized motions are OK.

If so, then can the resolution pass if it has a majority vote of the members present?

Yes.

How else? -- What did you have in mind other than a majority vote of the members present and voting (not merely present).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would you feel if they clarified that what you thought was correct was, actually, completely wrong?

Gary, that question reminds me of Blaise Pascal, the inventor of Pascal's Wager.

He went through a similar trouble spot, of risking being right versus being wrong.

(At risk was being correct vs. incorrect, for a given binary choice. For his issue, Pascal reasoned that even if he chose "wrong", then there is no down side to choosing "wrong". Thus the penalty for believing the wrong thing was no penalty at all. Believing the opposite way put him at risk for eternal damnation, a risk we was unwilling to take, even if that position was the more likely one, the more logical one, etc. The penalty for that choice was too severe, even if it was a long-shot. Like, betting house chips on a Las Vegas roulette wheel's green double-zero. -- You have 37 out of 38 ways of losing. But the penalty is no loss of any of your own money. So you go with the penalty-less bet, and forego risking your own money on red/black number(s).)

Gary, I think sometimes it is a relief to know one was wrong.

"I am convinced that the majority of wrong-thinking people are right."

– excerpt from a Monty Python sketch

What's shaking at 3:00 a.m. in NYC?

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...