UnquoteWist

On 1/12/2024 at 11:37 AM, Bruce Lages said:

How many different named entities do you need to reference in your constitution, and what is their relationship to each other?  I wouldn't think the need to provide initialisms is a common or typical issue for most organizations in writing their governing documents. Is this some kind of umbrella organization that encompasses multiple sub-units with different names?

@Bruce Lages, this is an academic org. that either references or defines/establishes at least 30 other groups with names as long as 100 characters and 10 words. The relationships are mixed, but many of these other named entities referenced are representatives from other organizations externally established.

Thanks for your reply! Thanks for your reply as well, @Rob Elsman!

Voluntary support from amazing people like you two (and the other big contributors on this Forum) for complete strangers who are new to these things is one of the most beautiful things about the internet.

Hello!

We're doing an overhaul of our constitution, and I'm wondering what is the best or most common way to connect long names of groups to their respective initialisms. In prose, it's typical for the initialism to be put in parentheses after the first or second time it is mentioned in the text, and that initialism is used for the remainder of the document. For our constitution, we could either 1) write out the whole name and put the group initialism in parenthesis together in the section it's introduced (e.g., "Art. 4 §6 International House of Pancakes (IHOP)") or 2) add a subpoint "terminology" or similar underneath each group's founding section with this information. Other ideas?

#2 would be nice because it would allow the Section titles to be more succinct and make the Table of Contents a lot cleaner, but it feels far more formal than we need? I just figured this isn't the first time anyone's thought of this, and I'm curious to hear your approaches!

On 11/5/2023 at 5:14 PM, Richard Brown said:

@UnquoteWistThey are your bylaws, but as Mr. Lages pointed out, it sure seems strange that if a voice vote on a motion that requires a majority vote for passage is inconclusive and a ballot vote is then taken it requires a two-thirds vote for the same motion to pass.

Requiring a two-thirds vote to adopt bylaw amendments is quite common and is the rule in RONR if the bylaws are silent.  It is pretty much the norm.

Thanks for your response (and to everyone else as well!). I'm relatively new to this, but this technical stuff is really interesting to me. Thanks for the intent comment, Bruce.

This is the only place in our bylaws and constitution that talks about voting, so EVERYTHING is currently being held to that 2/3rds majority. We had a vote about making a feedback form anonymous, and since it only received 58% of the vote, the chair said it didn't pass. The argument is that "non-constitutional votes" includes literally EVERYTHING that isn't a constitutional amendment. 

On 11/5/2023 at 4:54 PM, Bruce Lages said:

Has your organization adopted RONR as your parliamentary authority? If it has, it appears that almost all of those provisions can be eliminated since they duplicate, for the most part, the procedures specified in RONR.  The provision that you cite that clearly differs from RONR is the requirement for a 2/3 vote if a ballot vote is necessary after an inconclusive voice vote. Under RONR, the subsequent ballot vote would still be a majority vote.

And just out of curiosity, what does your organization have against its vice president?

Ah! I forgot to add that. No, there is no official mention of RONR, but I plan to make that official soon hopefully. Hahaha I have no idea why the VP is singled out like that. 

Do you think it seem like the intention of the original text was to have a simple majority? I know RONR usually stays away from "intent" as a justification, but just curious.

Hello! My organization has a wildly insufficient constitution and bylaws. They haven't been updated since about 2016 and are riddled with problems. We're working on a constitutional committee, but there are issues that we need to address now. There is an ambiguity on non-constitutional votes and I'd like to hear your opinions. There is no judiciary or contingency points to resolve this in any of the documentation. It seems like it's more likely that the discrepancy between the simple majority and two-thirds majority is an editorial oversight during a previous change than intended because it doesn't make sense to have different thresholds for verbal vs two-thirds. Constitutional votes are specified to be two-thirds. We have no changelog record or contact with the writers of these documents.

§6 Voting methods.

i. Constitutional Amendments:

     1. All votes must be motioned by a member other than the vice-president. 

          A. The motion must be seconded.

     2. A paper vote must be performed.

     3. Two-thirds majority required to pass.

i. Non-constitutional:

     1. All votes must be motioned by a member other than the vice-president. 

          A. The motion must be seconded.

     2. A verbal vote in favor and opposed (simple majority).

          A. If the verbal vote is too close to call, or if a member challenges the results of the verbal vote, then a paper vote will be performed.

          B. Two-thirds majority required to pass.

I know that RONR says that ambiguities are up to the organization to interpret, and that a simple majority is all that's required to decide on an interpretation, but does that still apply if it's about voting thresholds?