Search the Community

Our students are currently in the process of amending their constitution. In order for the amend to be considered, it needs a 2/3 super majority vote from their senate. What does mean, 2/3 super-majority vote” in terms of Robert’s Rules of Order? In their legislative documents, a 2/3 majority is defined as “ two thirds of the Senate Members contributing to the quorum rounded to the nearest senator.” But no where else do their documents do they define what a two-thirds super-majority is. Just that it is needed for the amendment to pass. Are they being redundant with the term itself?

We are debating and voting on amendments to our bylaws, and I have a couple issues I could really, really use some help on. Our bylaws state the 2/3 threshold applies to “voting members present and voting,” quoted here (with the name of our organization redacted): //content.invisioncic.com/r127373/monthly_2022_03/E996D3A9-B7C7-4EEB-9570-43AE693A0433.thumb.jpeg.33281c16ee2a986d4c10304280cd3f5a.jpeg However, when we held a vote, abstentions were counted in the calculation for the total number to reach the 2/3 threshold. The proposed amendment failed to pass by 1 vote, but included in those calculations were 9 abstentions. At the time, the parliamentarian announced the result, and someone immediately motioned to postpone the other discussions until the next business meeting. To me, that calculation was in error, as “voting members present and voting” seems pretty clear that abstentions shouldn’t count. “Voting” implies taking an action, and this was a zoom call where abstentions took NO action (honestly we’re not even sure all of them were still there. Some of their cameras and mics were off). I have reached out to the other committee members in charge of the vote (I’m also on the bylaws committee), and brought this to their attention. However, while they agree that an abstention is NOT a vote, they still feel that abstentions should be part of the overall count. I’m honestly very confused as to why… I suspect that since this was a very contentious debate, and also both of them were personally against the proposed amendment, they’re very reluctant to reopen the issue. (For the record, they’re not bad people! I just think they are likely dismissing my concerns rather than taking the time and effort to review it fairly.) I have quoted the relevant sections of Roberts Rules - how the 2/3 vote works, how “and voting” in the Rules directly mirrors our Bylaws language (or vice versa), how members have a right to abstain without their vote counting towards a “No.” I’m honestly at a loss as to what else I can do, or what other references I can provide to them. So the first question is - does anyone have any other references that explain in plain English how and why abstentions are not included in the 2/3 vote threshold calculation? Or that confirm the words “present and voting” in our bylaws mean only counting votes that are cast, and not abstentions? Second question - if I do convince them that we did the calculation incorrectly, can we simply recalculate it after subtracting the number of abstentions? Or would that vote be invalidated and we’d have to hold it again? Third question - if I can’t convince the parliamentarian and the committee privately that this was done incorrectly and we need to fix it, what is the best way to address it before the membership? - keeping in mind that we postponed further debate on the amendments until the next meeting, DIRECTLY after the result was announced. - from reading, I’m assuming I could make a point of order as soon as the next business meeting opens, and then if the Parliamentarian doesn’t sustain it I could Appeal to put it to a vote of the membership? I am worried about timeliness though. The point of order is supposed to be made immediately after the result is announced, but there wasn’t an opportunity before the motion to postpone. If that wouldn’t qualify as “immediately,” then would section 23.6, example E apply and provide an exception to the timeliness requirement? The one that discusses breaches of a continuing nature, and the example includes “a rule protecting a basic right of an individual member.” Namely, in this case, the right of abstention. I think we have an ethical obligation to correct this, especially since it affected the outcome of the vote. Any possible help you can give me would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time!

Hello, Our small church is divided on topics which require a 2/3 vote to change bylaws/constitution and possibly leave our current denomination. There has been some confusion as some members seem to believe that there would need to be 2/3 vote just to leave things as they are. As I read Robert's Rules, I believe it means a 2/3 vote to make changes. Can someone help clarify this for me? Thank you.

Our chair overlooked the 2/3 majority required for a motion, and nobody else caught it until after the meeting. Does the carried motion stand?