Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Quorum and votes of "50% + 1"


sfraser

Recommended Posts

Hi - apologies for the second (and possibly multiple) threads - I have several questions, and figured from other threads one topic per separate issue would be better.

Our Constitution specifically calls for a quorum of 50% + 1 in everything. Sometimes it even specifies a vote is required of 50% + 1, and not just simple majority, though this is rarer than the quorum requirement.

So: let's assume that one of our constituent bodies has a membership of 11. 50% of 11 is 5.5, and plus 1 is 6.5. It's a bit unreasonable to require half a person to conduct business. How do we read this, and what would our quorum be? We've oscillated between 6 and 7 without consensus, currently.

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our Constitution specifically calls for a quorum of 50% + 1 in everything. Sometimes it even specifies a vote is required of 50% + 1, and not just simple majority, though this is rarer than the quorum requirement.

So: let's assume that one of our constituent bodies has a membership of 11. 50% of 11 is 5.5, and plus 1 is 6.5. It's a bit unreasonable to require half a person to conduct business. How do we read this, and what would our quorum be? We've oscillated between 6 and 7 without consensus, currently.

You read this as 6.5, which is exactly what it is. Your quorum, therefore, is 6.5. I agree that it would be surprising to have a half person enter the room, because I suspect you have only entire members as members. But because your quorum is 6.5 does not mean you must cut members in half. You only have to be able to compare numbers, which involves less bloodshed.

If you have at least 6.5 members in the room, you have a quorum. It should be easy to see that 6 is less than 6.5, while 7 is greater.

The fact that you will never have exactly 6.5 members in the room is irrelevant, and probably for the best anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So: let's assume that one of our constituent bodies has a membership of 11.

50% of 11 is 5.5,

and plus 1 is 6.5.

It's a bit unreasonable to require half a person to conduct business.

How do we read this, and what would our quorum be?

We've oscillated between 6 and 7 without consensus, currently.

Unknown.

You are asking, "How do we interpret a lousy definition?"

(For historical comparison, you are in the same boat as newspaper reporters and TV reporters who use the gawd-awful phrase, "One more than half.") :wacko:

There is no page in RONR (tenth edition 2000) which implies, "When you run into the phrase 'fifty percent plus one' its real meaning is _____."

If I were you, I would err on the side of intention, and interpret that bad phrasing as if it meant, "majority" (i.e., "more than half"). -- It saves yourself some headaches, and finesses the necessity of invoking any rounding errors.

What else? -- If you interpret the bad formula literally, i.e., arithmetically, then you will get strange results whenever you have an odd base number, like your example, "eleven".

(Yet note that bad formula works fine for even numbers.)

***

Q. How bad is the "bad formula"?

In a committee of three, you would need a unanimous vote, i.e., 3 out of 3, if you were to apply that rule literally.

(You'd think that 2 out of 3, i.e., a two-thirds vote, would be sufficient to adopt most anything in a committee of three -- but "NoooOOOooo!") :wacko:

Do the math:

• Assume a committee of 3, where all 3 committee members vote.

• "Fifty percent" of 3 is 1.5

• "Plus one" of that value is 2.5

• Since people are not fractional, what integer meets or exceeds the threshold of 2.5? -- The answer is 3.

• Conclusion: You will need 3 votes in a a committee of 3 to pass anything, if you were to apply the bad formula in its mathematical sense.

Q. Do you want the spend the rest of your life in that alternate universe? :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So: let's assume that one of our constituent bodies has a membership of 11. 50% of 11 is 5.5, and plus 1 is 6.5. It's a bit unreasonable to require half a person to conduct business. How do we read this, and what would our quorum be? We've oscillated between 6 and 7 without consensus, currently.

The quorum is the minimum number of voting members that must present at a meeting to conduct business, not the exact number. So as long as at least 6.5 people show up, you're on your way. I think it's safe to figure on 7 or more.

Of course, you've bumped the number up by 1 in your case. A majority of members as your quorum would allow you to conduct business with only 6 members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi - apologies for the second (and possibly multiple) threads - I have several questions, and figured from other threads one topic per separate issue would be better.

Our Constitution specifically calls for a quorum of 50% + 1 in everything. Sometimes it even specifies a vote is required of 50% + 1, and not just simple majority, though this is rarer than the quorum requirement.

So: let's assume that one of our constituent bodies has a membership of 11. 50% of 11 is 5.5, and plus 1 is 6.5. It's a bit unreasonable to require half a person to conduct business. How do we read this, and what would our quorum be? We've oscillated between 6 and 7 without consensus, currently.

Thanks!

Amend the constitution (and wherever else it is found) by striking out "50% + 1" and inserting "majority" in the same place. Then, see FAQ #5 from the Robert's Rules of Order website, www.robertsrules.com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were you, I would err on the side of intention, and interpret that bad phrasing as if it meant, "majority" (i.e., "more than half"). -- It saves yourself some headaches, and finesses the necessity of invoking any rounding errors.

I wouldn't. Intention plays no role in interpreting the Bylaws unless there is an ambiguity. While "50% + 1" is a foolish threshold, there is nothing ambiguous about it. While I agree with Mr. Elsman that the Bylaws should be amended as soon as possible to replace "50% + 1" with "majority," in the meantime, the rule should be applied as it exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While "50% + 1" is a foolish threshold, there is nothing ambiguous about it.

You are wrong, there.

To be "ambiguous", all a rule needs is to be applied or interpreted counter to logic, or interpreted counter to the dictionary meaning of the words.

If you or I can find people who think the bad formula can be obeyed by calculating a majority, then the bad formula is ambiguous.

I can cite you an organization which, for years, has been interpreting its "fifty percent plus one" rule as if it meant "majority."

So it was ambiguous for hundreds of people, for years. -- They didn't know. They didn't enforce the arithmetical meaning of the phrase.

You can take your own poll, and verify the results yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kim, I don't think ambiguity is synonymous with ignorance, flawed logic, bad math, or the inability to read a dictionary. The definition of 50% is "a half expressed as a percentage." 11 * .5 +1 = 6.5. The concept of rounding as noted in FAQ 5 applies as well to the calculation of a quorum as it does to a vote. In the language of that FAQ, "The requirement of (50% + 1) means at least (50% +1). As a consequence, nothing less will do."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kim, I don't think ambiguity is synonymous with ignorance, flawed logic, bad math, or the inability to read a dictionary.

I do.

To be ambiguous, all you need is enough people who read the text, and misapply it. -- Not out of ignorance of the rule itself, but out of sheer inertia, sheer unthinking assumption.

And we've got lots of that.

Half the world thinks "fifty percent plus one" or "one more than half" is the same thing as a "majority."

Half the world is wrong. -- But only half the world knows the other half is wrong.

But you don't think a phrase which can be mis-interpreted by 1 out of 2 people is ambiguous wording?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do.

To be ambiguous, all you need is enough people who read the text, and misapply it. -- Not out of ignorance of the rule itself, but out of sheer inertia, sheer unthinking assumption.

And we've got lots of that.

Half the world thinks "fifty percent plus one" or "one more than half" is the same thing as a "majority."

Half the world is wrong. -- But only half the world knows the other half is wrong.

But you don't think a phrase which can be mis-interpreted by 1 out of 2 people is ambiguous wording?

I think it's just as you said - 1 out of 2 people is just wrong. That's not ambiguity. That's just the state of being wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be ambiguous, all you need is enough people who read the text, and misapply it. -- Not out of ignorance of the rule itself, but out of sheer inertia, sheer unthinking assumption.

And we've got lots of that.

I don't think "sheer unthinking assumption" is sufficient to make a rule ambiguous. If it is, then my experience on this forum suggests that the vast majority of RONR is "ambiguous," as there's plenty of "sheer unthinking assumption" about lots of it. Rather, an ambiguous rule is one in which there are multiple reasonable interpretations of the rule. There is only one reasonable interpretation of 50% + 1. The fact that many assemblies apparently forgot how math works doesn't change that.

But you don't think a phrase which can be mis-interpreted by 1 out of 2 people is ambiguous wording?

Well, I don't think there's anything ambiguous about "majority," but plenty of people think that "majority" means "50% + 1."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not ambiguity. That's just the state of being wrong.

There is only one reasonable interpretation of 50% + 1. The fact that many assemblies apparently forgot how math works doesn't change that.

You might as well argue with those who think today (or any day) is Judgment Day. Or expect them to be more amenable to reason tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad that our organization isn't unique in debating the issue!

So, how Kim Goldsworthy has described it (intention rather than letter) is how our body has interpreted quorum for a long while. I think it may be best to err on the side of caution going forward, and round up a person rather than down a person. As it was pointed out, bloodshed in the meeting room is never a good idea to obtain exact quorum. Finally, are there any implications for previous meetings where our quorum may now have been unsure?

Thanks again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad that our organization isn't unique in debating the issue!

So, how Kim Goldsworthy has described it (intention rather than letter) is how our body has interpreted quorum for a long while. I think it may be best to err on the side of caution going forward, and round up a person rather than down a person. As it was pointed out, bloodshed in the meeting room is never a good idea to obtain exact quorum. Finally, are there any implications for previous meetings where our quorum may now have been unsure?

Thanks again.

I vaguely recall that one of the states of the USA officially, by an act of the legislature, defined Pi as 3. Does that make it ambiguous? Maybe ambiguous in that state?

So, refusing to agree that six is not less than six-and-a-half is failing to recognize an ambiguity?

Finally, S Fraser: please see p. 338, lines 22 - 28.

[Edited 'cause I can't resist hyphens.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it may be best to err on the side of caution going forward . . .

Actually, when it comes to math, it's best not to err at all. Try it and see if your test scores don't improve.

This is not rocket science (although that's mostly math too).

You many never obtain "exact quorum" and you don't need to.

Finally, if there's clear and convincing proof that a quorum was not present at a meeting, any business conducted therein could be ruled null and void. So, "going forward", brush up on your math skills and do it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As best I can determine, Mr. Goldsworthy's contention is that, in this context, "50% + 1" has come to be regarded as a code phrase meaning "more than half". I don't know if this is right or not, but I don't find it a preposterous assertion.

I don't find it preposterous either, but I don't find it persuasive. There are many examples here where we've had to tell people, in effect, "Yes, it's clear what your bylaws should have said, and probably meant to say, but it's a pity they didn't."

The rules for interpretation, loosely paraphrased, suggest that when the drafters of language readily could have said one thing, but puzzlingly say another, we are to assume they had a reason.

Consider how much stock we place in the presumed intentionality and specificity of the use of "or" vs. "and", for example in providing the authorization for summary regime-change without waiting for "the election of their successors." Isn't it a little inconsistent, then, to say that 6 is close enough to 6.5 that it's not really less? Ask the guy who tried to jump across a 6.5-foot ditch.

I think the suggestion that there are code words that should be interpreted to mean something mathematically different from what they actually say is one that leads down a long, dark path. Of course I agree that folks ought to amend their bylaws to say majority when they mean majority, but until they do, I believe they're stuck with the language they chose--presumably with their eyes open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider how much stock we place in the presumed intentionality and specificity of the use of "or" vs. "and", for example in providing the authorization for summary regime-change without waiting for "the election of their successors." Isn't it a little inconsistent, then, to say that 6 is close enough to 6.5 that it's not really less? Ask the guy who tried to jump across a 6.5-foot ditch.

RONR very specifically spells out the difference between "or" and "and" in the context to which you refer (and thus is controlling in any organization which has adopted RONR as its authority). This tells us nothing about the meaning of phrases which RONR says absolutely nothing about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RONR very specifically spells out the difference between "or" and "and" in the context to which you refer (and thus is controlling in any organization which has adopted RONR as its authority). This tells us nothing about the meaning of phrases which RONR says absolutely nothing about.

Quite so.

And should RONR someday state that "50% + 1" should be interpreted to mean "a majority", I'll be fine with it. Until then we're stuck with dictionaries and math books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, when it comes to math, it's best not to err at all. Try it and see if your test scores don't improve.

Thanks for the advice. Hoewver, I am a mathematics major and don't believe the question we've had has been one of math, but rather of interpreting rounding in the context of parliamentary procedure which, until clarified, was more unknown than a simple equation. When enough of the general 'authorities' (be it advisors, lawyers, etc.) have given us enough differing answers to provide a state of confusion, I certainly believe that it's not unreasonable for a question to be brought up in this matter - whether or not it's 'rocket science.'

The rules for interpretation, loosely paraphrased, suggest that when the drafters of language readily could have said one thing, but puzzlingly say another, we are to assume they had a reason.

I understand this point - the question at our institution has always been framed in 'what was the real intent' as opposed to what is the letter - the 'mischief' or 'golden' rule as it can be described. I suppose as a general question, is there a time when this sort of interpretive logic could be used - i.e. to prevent a harm or unintended consequence of a rule? Or is this a question better reserved for situations outside of parliamentary procedure?

Of course I agree that folks ought to amend their bylaws to say majority when they mean majority, but until they do, I believe they're stuck with the language they chose--presumably with their eyes open.

I absolutely agree with you. Unfortunately, these rules were written over a decade ago and, as we've already discovered, not by the most competent of authors. We're trying to deal with the mess as best we can this year, at least. Thanks for the responses - is an illuminating discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...