Any parliamentarians here? Is there a stipulation or process for a “deliberative assembly” (okay, a meeting) to require a unanimous vote on a motion? Let’s say someone moves the group will take a public stand on one side of a controversial issue and the group is divided, with many preferring to support the other side of the issue. Is there a way to require a unanimous vote to determine if the group will support the motion?
I’m guessing someone could move the decision would have to be unanimous, they way they could move for a secret vote, but would that be decided by a simple majority? Or ruled out of order?
I’m a parliamentarian (studying for my RP certification).
I suppose theoretically you could move to Suspend the Rules to require a vote to be unanimous but I could argue that such a motion violates basic parliamentary law. It is a basic principal that to rescind or amend a decision already made requires a higher threshold than that needed to pass the motion, but the motion to Rescind or Amend is only a 2/3 vote.
So in your view, would it be possible within the rules to move to require a 2/3 majority vote to pass a particular motion?
It strikes me as contradictory that a majority vote could impose a requirement for a unanimous vote. I think @Saint_Cad is right.
Is it possible for a chair to suggest they would entertain a motion to include the voting results in the statement, so it might read, “as passed in a 10-9 vote, the Organization of Muffin Fans wishes it to be known it believes raisins are a abomination and no true muffin can contain raisins”?
I hasten to add I like raisins, it’s not my organization or job, and I’m curious what happens when an organization has a simple majority vote that commits it to publicly supporting something a significant minority disagrees with and finds morally indefensible and such members cannot resign from the organization without losing their job? They suck it up, one way or another?
Sounds like a very good way to lose a winnable vote.
When recording outcomes the meeting secretary, on instruction from the Chair should record the result of the vote as CARRIED, or CARRIED UNANAMOUSLY or CARRIED WITHOUT DISSENT.
Whether this demarcation has any implication would depend on the article or constitution of the association.
No.
That would mean the members were not aware of the precise text of the motion before they voted.
True, but following the main motion, any member could then move that “In any communication to the media or the public by any official of this organisation concerning the motion on X, the official shall always give the vote breakdown on the motion, namely that it passed by a vote of # to # [or, was rejected by a vote of # to #].”
That motion would simply be giving directions to the officials of the org, after the main motion was voted on, so should be okay. If it passes, then the body has given direction to its officials.
It’s called a counted vote and yes it can be made as a main motion.
Only if a counted vote is ordered by the body OR ordered by the Chair as a revote if the voice vote was ambiguous. And in that case it is the count, not “unanimously” or “without dissent”.
That might come in handy for me in the future. Can you point me to a Roberts cite? (Not doubting you; would appreciate more info and don’t have my Roberts handy.)
And as Chair, I would rule such a motion out of order. Parliamentary law says that once a motion has been disposed of, that any action taken is the will of the body. To publicly give the vote breakdown implies the body as a whole is not taking the action. As for the rule putting the vote count in the minutes, that is rule 48:5 (12th edition)
Yes, implying, or rather stating plainly, that the body as a whole was not supportive would be the intention of such a motion. Interesting that it would considered out of order.
Now, and I realize we’re heading into the weeds here, and I don’t have a dog in the particular fight I’m alluding to so don’t need answer fast, would it be in order to make an amendment to the main motion along the lines of Northern Piper’s suggestion, meaning it would be considered before the main motion was disposed of?
So looking up Robert’s Rules, rule 10:8(7)(a) would say yes IF the vote threshold is in the bylaws or special rules of order, So to answer the OP - yes. Put the unanimous requirement into the bylaws or special rules of order. The other question is could you do it ad hoc in a meeting by suspending the rules understanding that less than a unanimous vote can rescind it. To finish off your question, it would be a 2/3 vote by Suspending the Rules.
And to throw another complication rule 48:10 says the threshold should be in the bylaws or special rules of order. If it said “must” then there would be your answer.
No. An amendment must be germane to the motion. Instead it would be an incidental motion.
Thanks. will bear both points in mind for the future.