sebagoacres Posted February 2, 2011 at 01:17 AM Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 at 01:17 AM "matters to come before the committee shall be decided by a majority vote of those committee members present at a meeting in which there is a quorum". We have a 14 member committee with 11 members present. A motion to change the by-laws is made and seconded. (The actual motion is to now require a 2/3 majority vote of the total membership in order to change any by-laws in the future) Also, for the record, we must pass this motion at two consecutive meetings for it to become permanent in our by-laws. The vote is 5 yes, 4 no, and 2 abstain. Does this vote pass based on the line opening this paragraph which is in our current by-laws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted February 2, 2011 at 01:34 AM Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 at 01:34 AM Can't say, because your definition of the vote threshold is tinged with ambiguity.See RONR p. 389-90 for the right (and only clear) way to express whatever threshold you had in mind. And see p. 570 to find out what WAS in your (collective) mind. Then amend your bylaws to say it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted February 2, 2011 at 01:34 AM Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 at 01:34 AM "Matters to come before the committee shall be decided by a majority vote of those committee members present at a meeting in which there is a quorum". We have a 14 member committee with 11 members present. A motion to change the by-laws is made and seconded. (The actual motion is to now require a 2/3 majority vote of the total membership in order to change any by-laws in the future.)Also, for the record, we must pass this motion at two consecutive meetings for it to become permanent in our by-laws.The vote is 5 yes, 4 no, and 2 abstain.Does this vote pass based on the line opening this paragraph which is in our current by-laws?You are confusing two things:1.) the vote necessary for the committee to adopt a motion.2.) the vote necessary to amend one's bylaws.A committee does not unilaterally change bylaws.If you are asking, "Was the vote of 5:4:2 sufficient for the committee to adopt this motion?" then the anwer is "No.""5" is not "a majority of 11 present," as your cited rule says.If you are asking if the vote was sufficient to amend the bylaws, there is no answer, as you have not cited your bylaws' METHOD OF AMENDMENT. You only cited the proposed METHOD OF AMENDMENT. (Which itself failed.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert B Fish Posted February 2, 2011 at 01:41 AM Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 at 01:41 AM "matters to come before the committee chall be decided by a majority vote of those committee members present at a meeting in which there is a quorum". We have a 14 member committee with 11 members present. A motion to change the by-laws is made and seconded. (The actual motion is to now require a 2/3 majority vote of the total membership in order to change any by-laws in the future) Also, for the record, we must pass this motion at two consecutive meetings for it to become permanent in our by-laws. The vote is 5 yes, 4 no, and 2 abstain. Does this vote pass based on the line opening this paragraph which is in our current by-laws?Item 1. Only your organization can give an authoritative interpretation of your bylaws. [page 570 and the principles that follow]Item 2. It sounds like you have a specialized rule that requires all questions to be decided by a majority of those present rather than the rule from RONR that decides questions on the basis of those present and voting. Item 3. as this meeting was in the past, it matters greatly what the chairman said after the vote was taken and whether a point of order was raised at that time. e. See Official Interpretation 2.So, if it helps, a quorum was present, those favoring passage were a majority of those present and voting but not a majority of those present. Again, what did the chairman rule about passage?-Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted February 2, 2011 at 01:58 AM Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 at 01:58 AM "5" is not "a majority of 11 present," as your cited rule says.Careful Kim -- that isn't what sebagoacres wrote. He/she/it said:"decided by a majority vote of those committee members present..."which is where the ambiguity comes in. "Majority vote" by itself means one thing; "vote of a majority of the members present" means something else - per RONR, p. 390.But sebago's bylaw says neither of those things. So we can't be sure what is intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted February 2, 2011 at 06:03 AM Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 at 06:03 AM I had to read JD's point twice to see what distinction he's making. The more I read here the more I learn that well-intentioned people mess up their bylaws with extraneous words. I'm becoming convinced that many are adopting RONR as their parliamentary authority not knowing what's in there. If they knew, they'd realize how much of this stuff needn't be added. I took it Kim's way too. But I see how it could be either way. Had they simplified the bylaws and just stuck with what RONR said, it'd be simpler. Maybe that's evidence they wanted the more difficult threshold as the definition of quorum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted February 2, 2011 at 01:21 PM Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 at 01:21 PM I can easily present a pair of arguments that takes sebago's words and builds a case for either option.You have but to ask... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted February 2, 2011 at 01:26 PM Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 at 01:26 PM (The actual motion is to now require a 2/3 majority vote of the total membership in order to change any by-laws in the future)And please remove "majority" from this apparent proposed bylaw amendment. Majority means more than half, 2/3 means at least 2/3 of the votes in the affirmative. 2/3 majority is a contradiction of sorts at best, a further (and continued) ambiguity at worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sebagoacres Posted February 2, 2011 at 04:07 PM Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 at 04:07 PM You are confusing two things:1.) the vote necessary for the committee to adopt a motion.2.) the vote necessary to amend one's bylaws.A committee does not unilaterally change bylaws.If you are asking, "Was the vote of 5:4:2 sufficient for the committee to adopt this motion?" then the anwer is "No.""5" is not "a majority of 11 present," as your cited rule says.If you are asking if the vote was sufficient to amend the bylaws, there is no answer, as you have not cited your bylaws' METHOD OF AMENDMENT. You only cited the proposed METHOD OF AMENDMENT. (Which itself failed.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sebagoacres Posted February 2, 2011 at 04:15 PM Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 at 04:15 PM Thank you for the response. It sounds like the section of the bylaws needs to be tightened up. May I ask what a reasonable method of amendment clause might be for a 14 member committee? I am proposing 2/3 of the total membership which is 10. Is a majority vote of the total membership which means 8, more appropriate? Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted February 2, 2011 at 04:20 PM Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 at 04:20 PM May I ask what a reasonable method of amendment clause might be for a 14 member committee?As Mr. Goldsworthy noted, a committee doesn't usually have the authority to amend the bylaws. So if you're asking about a voting requirement for approving a proposal to amened the bylaws, that's a different story. Personally, I'd recommend removing this committee's veto power. They can then make whatever recommendations they want (by majority vote) and leave it to the general membership to amend the bylaws as recommended or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.