Atul Kapur

Usually, I see the term "simple majority" used to differentiate it from "two-thirds majority". So I do not presume that it adds clarity to the meaning. Rather, the opposite: it indicates a complete unfamiliarity with the standard terminology.

The wording is ambiguous, so it is up to the organization to interpret the language and determine whether the meaning is a "majority vote" (of those council members present and voting) or a "vote of the majority of the Council members", which are the two standard wordings for the two alternatives. If the bylaws have been changed, then that decision cannot be rescinded/revoked. To go back to the old words, or to make any other changes, you need to follow the rules on how to amend your bylaws.

Your bylaws are ambiguous enough that your organization will have to decide whether the alphabetical-by-first-name order meets the rule. That is done by raising a point of order that the ballots violate the bylaws at the first opportunity / meeting. If you disagree with the ruling on the point of order, then you may appeal from the decision of the chair. The precedent you cite about re-doing the election is persuasive "that is, [it carries] weight in the absence of overriding reasons for following a different course—but [it is] not binding on the chair or the assembly." RONR (12th ed.) 23:16

Any motion that is in conflict with the bylaws is null and void. Same with any "tradition "(RONR uses the term "custom"). In other words, you cannot use motions to circumvent what is stated in your bylaws.

First, the right is meaningless without a way to enforce that right. So the important point here is the reasonableness of the methods used to do so. Is it reasonable for the society to require proof of identification or proof of membership? I'd say, in many cases, yes. Sometimes, it's reasonable to assume that the person is both who they say they are and are a member unless someone challenges or questions it. So the same standard should be applied to the requirement to register 48 hours in advance. Is it reasonable? For many electronic meetings, that time is required to verify that registrants are members, to prepare the list of people entitled to vote at the meeting, etc. If a member feels the requirements are unreasonable, then I think a point of order can be raised at the meeting.

I think we may be getting too complicated here. I don't know that special rules of order or bylaws amendments are required. RONR (12th ed.) 61:6 says that "A society has the right to determine who may be present at its meetings and to control its hall while meetings are in progress" All that I see in the OP's questions are about the practicalities of how the society enforces this right. Whoever has the authority to make the necessary preparations for the meeting, for example, rent the hall where it will be held (or the virtual hall), would almost certainly have the right to confirm that members are attending and non-members are not. Likely this will be the board or staff.

That is not where the disagreement lies. "A majority of the members present," is very clear. However, ""A majority vote of the members present," would not be, because the term "majority vote" is clearly and specifically defined, and that definition is not "of the members present." And that's the proper analogy to the question being discussed in this thread, because the language under question is "2/3 vote of" rather than "a vote of 2/3 of" To be specific: Most motions require > 50% to pass (Not "51%." Also Not "50% + 1") Some motions require 66.666666...% (effectively the nearest whole number which is at least 2/3) (unless there is fractional voting)

The Guest's chosen name also suggests to me that the OP is Canadian. However, Mr. Elsman, wouldn't your advice also apply in the United States?

So broad, in fact, that 56:68(3) would seem to apply. Under that principle, the "all matters" is the general statement and the provisions on amending the bylaws are the specific statement that is of more authority.

Ask them to show you the rule that says that. If someone tries to turn the tables on you, quote Section 21:15: "When it appears that there is no further business in a meeting of an ordinary local society that normally goes through a complete order of business (41) at each regular meeting (9), the chair, instead of waiting or calling for a motion to adjourn, can ask, 'Is there any further business?' If there is no response, the chair can then say, 'Since there is no further business, the meeting is adjourned.' "

I've always read that as the people who've actually registered in person, as opposed to the number to whom credentials have been issued or who have pre-registered. In an electronic meeting, I would say that those who have registered in advance would be the equivalent of those to whom credentials have been issued for an in-person convention. For an electronically held convention, those who are actually participating when the convention is called to order are what I would say is the equivalent of

Richard, we went over all this just over a month ago. It was (arguably) relevant to that discussion but I'm not inclined to re-hash it here and hijack this thread. A quick search will lead you to many grammar forums where you can argue this point. For here, let's just agree to disagree and "live and let live."

J.J. I said way earlier in this thread that I thought this was the appropriate interpretation, and based it on the principles of interpretation. But I've seen too many examples where people insert this language after the words "majority vote" (in this case, 3/4 vote) in the mistaken belief that they need to specify the denominator, when all they are doing is confusing the matter. In my experience, the intent in the vast majority of the cases is not in alignment with what is written down, usually due to ignorance that the default denominator is exactly what they intended. There is clearly an ambiguity here.

Richard, you know that we've established that singular "they" is accepted English. They've said so. 😆

If there is still a question, the (resigning) officer can attend an Executive Board meeting, raise as a question of privilege the fact that they submitted their resignation over 30 days ago, repeat the intent to resign, and leave all the books and materials that need to be transferred there with the secretary at the meeting.

Others have answered, but to be explicit, members of the group that is meeting have the right. So for board meetings, it applies to members of the board, not all members of the union.

Richard, this part seems pretty all-encompassing I'm not sure how the bylaws could be clearer.

I agree with Mr. Katz that it is up to the organization to interpret its own bylaws. But in case it's helpful... For the following rationale, I would interpret it as saying you need 3/4 of the 34 votes. One of the principles of interpretation is that no words are in the bylaws without purpose (not an exact quote; I don't have the book in front of me). So the addition of the words "in attendance" suggests that the intention is to change the usual denominator from "present and voting" (which in this case would be the 28 votes) to "present." When you amend the bylaws to remove this ambiguity, the preferred language would be "vote of three-fourths (3/4) of the active membership in attendance at a regular business meeting" if the intent is to require 3/4 of all active members who are present (i.e., abstentions affect the result). Otherwise, if the intent that it be 3/4 of those who actually vote (abstentions, blanks, and illegible votes are ignored completely), then amend the language to say, "a three fourths (3/4) vote at a regular business meeting"

Guest Anne Marie Utter, please note that either way, whether a member makes the motion or the chair assumes it, there is a motion for the meeting to consider.

A short training session can have a large effect on bringing everyone up to speed. Many parliamentarians can provide this workshop. These can be supplemented by a "tip" at each meeting to keep raising the bar.

Mr. Elsman is correct that there are actually three possible issues identified in the situation. A: Only having two choices and not liking either one of them. Creating and filling a blank is a great way to resolve this one and is preferable to having multiple secondary amendments (I have a fun presentation on blanks). B: The motion forcing the meeting to choose between options and the meeting not being aware that they could reject all of them. C : The motion being improper for the reason that it violates the bylaws. It's not clear which (or which combination) of these applies, which is why my previous post got a bit wordy.

Seems quite clear to me and but I'm not a member and, as stated earlier, interpretation of your rules is done by your organization.

I agree with Mr. Martin that interpretation of your rules is done by your organization. You've told us that the procedure manual states that the Nomination Committee finalizes the slate. If this is explicit and clear, then you should follow that rule. Do your bylaws say anything about the duties of the Nomination Committee?

One other thing. It sounds like it was also improper to force a vote on Option A or Option B. I agree with Mr. Elsman that using a blank is a great way to decide between options. But then there should be a vote on whether to do the selected option at all vs not doing it. The point is that the default is to choose neither option. Let's look at the situation you were in, without blanks: there should have been a motion to do one of the options (pick one, I'll use A). Not a motion to pick one of the two. So the motion would be "That we do Option A." Then someone moves an amendment to strike out A and insert B. Then you discuss and vote on the amendment. If the amendment fails you have the original motion "That we do Option A." OR If the amendment is adopted you have the main motion as amended "That we do Option B." But, either way, you still need to vote on whether to do the selected option. And that is the Yes/No vote you mention in your original post. The problem with the situation you describe is that the meeting didn't have the option of rejecting both options and doing neither.

If a motion is improper according to the bylaws, then someone should have raised a Point of Order stating that; the Chair would then rule on whether the Point of Order was "well taken" (the motion is improper and won't be considered) or "not well taken" (the motion is fine and will be considered). If the Chair felt that the motion was improper, they don't need to wait for a Point of Order to be raised - the Chair could rule that the motion is not in order. That ruling is subject to appeal, whether it comes from the Chair on their own, or via a Point of Order. So if it was clear that the motion was improper it never should have come up for a vote at all, but should have been cut off before it was considered, let alone voted on.