Shelly Posted September 25, 2011 at 02:17 AM Report Share Posted September 25, 2011 at 02:17 AM At a meeting of our club recently, we had 27 members present. We were trying to get 4 people voted in. Our Constitution states that we must get 2/3 of the present member's votes. Three people were not close in getting in however one member got 17 votes. Our club has voted to round up (5 and over, less than five) and round down. One member stated that she voted for this person and abstained from voting on the others. My question is, did this person get enough votes (17.333333) to be voted in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted September 25, 2011 at 02:23 AM Report Share Posted September 25, 2011 at 02:23 AM At a meeting of our club recently, we had 27 members present. We were trying to get 4 people voted in. Our Constitution states that we must get 2/3 of the present member's votes. Three people were not close in getting in however one member got 17 votes. Our club has voted to round up (5 and over, less than five) and round down. One member stated that she voted for this person and abstained from voting on the others. My question is, did this person get enough votes (17.333333) to be voted in?If 27 ballots were cast in an election where a candidate received 17 votes, that candidate did not reach a 2/3 vote requirement.The wording of the vote requirement and the details of the election process are essential factors in determining the outcome, and those factors are not completely clear from your post. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted September 25, 2011 at 02:27 AM Report Share Posted September 25, 2011 at 02:27 AM Our club has voted to round up (5 and over, less than five) and round down.That's unfortunate. See FAQ #5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted September 25, 2011 at 02:28 AM Report Share Posted September 25, 2011 at 02:28 AM if you need a 2/3 vote based on 27, no, because 2/3 of 27 is 18.But your rules aren't clear: does "2/3 of the present member's votes" mean a 2/3 vote of those members who happen to be present at the time, or 2/3 of the members your group has at the present time? I don't know.I also don't see where the abstention issue fits in here, nor the rounding. It sounds as if perhaps you are talking a 2/3 vote based on 27, and if so, it fell short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted September 25, 2011 at 02:48 AM Report Share Posted September 25, 2011 at 02:48 AM That's unfortunate. See FAQ #5.Yes, it is. An assembly cannot change a vote requirement in the bylaws, except by amending the bylaws. However, if the chair incorrectly announces the result of a vote and no immediate point of order is made, the vote stands, unless a breach of a continuing nature is involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hunt Posted September 25, 2011 at 02:51 AM Report Share Posted September 25, 2011 at 02:51 AM Yes, it is. An assembly cannot change a vote requirement in the bylaws, except by amending the bylaws. However, if the chair incorrectly announces the result of a vote and no immediate point of order is made, the vote stands, unless a breach of a continuing nature is involved.Is a vote requirement not in the manner of a rule of order protecting a minority, and thus suspendable as long as the objecting minority is no greater than the minority protected by the rule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted September 25, 2011 at 03:12 AM Report Share Posted September 25, 2011 at 03:12 AM Is a vote requirement not in the manner of a rule of order protecting a minority, and thus suspendable as long as the objecting minority is no greater than the minority protected by the rule?It is, but Tim said "change," and he is quite correct about that. The original post is unclear on whether "Our club has voted to round up..." is in reference to a motion to Suspend the Rules for this particular instance or if it was a motion adopted as an ongoing rule at some point in the past. I would also note that while it is in order to Suspend the Rules to change a voting requirement, there is rarely any reason to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted September 25, 2011 at 03:24 AM Report Share Posted September 25, 2011 at 03:24 AM Is a vote requirement not in the manner of a rule of order protecting a minority, and thus suspendable as long as the objecting minority is no greater than the minority protected by the rule?First, there's a difference in changing a rule and suspending it. Second, the principle you have in mind requires that the negative vote not be equal to or greater than the minority it protects. If a rule protecting a minority of a certain size could be suspended despite a negative vote equal to that minority, the protection would be lost, e.g. a two-thirds vote requirement does nothing to protect a minority of one third. Third, it makes no sense to suspend a rule to get around a two-thirds vote requirement, since suspending a rule requires a two-thirds vote. As an extension of that, with the minority-protection rule in mind, how would suspending a vote requirement ever be of any use? A vote requirement would never be subject to being suspended by a vote less than the requirement it proposes to suspend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GcT Posted September 25, 2011 at 04:08 AM Report Share Posted September 25, 2011 at 04:08 AM Why don't you guys go to the bar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted September 25, 2011 at 11:07 AM Report Share Posted September 25, 2011 at 11:07 AM Why don't you guys go to the bar?That's obviously where they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted October 4, 2011 at 03:07 AM Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 at 03:07 AM At a meeting of our club recently, we had 27 members present. We were trying to get 4 people voted in. Our Constitution states that we must get 2/3 of the present member's votes. Three people were not close in getting in however one member got 17 votes. Our club has voted to round up (5 and over, less than five) and round down. One member stated that she voted for this person and abstained from voting on the others. My question is, did this person get enough votes (17.333333) to be voted in?I'm not clear on how these votes were counted. How could anyone have gotten a third of a vote? It sounds like 17 people voted for this person. Now, if the "one member" who voted only for this person was not counted as part of the 17, that would raise the vote count to 18 in favor, and would be 2/3 of those present. But I'm a little worried by your saying that the member "stated" that she voted for this person. You can't go by what she "stated", you have to actually count the ballots.Now if the vote count was only 17, then that is less than 2/3. and the motion fails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted October 4, 2011 at 11:32 AM Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 at 11:32 AM I'm not clear on how these votes were counted. How could anyone have gotten a third of a vote? No one got a third of a vote. The 17.33333333 figure is 2/3 of 26, the total of votes cast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.