Modification of Usual Bases for Decision

[Guest Loose]

p. 389 -

My organization's bylaws say actions are to be based on majority vote, defined as half or more of the number of MEMBERS.

Parliamentary law requires 2/3 sometimes with other stips in certain situations.

1. Do our bylaws indicate all decisions are to be won by a mere majority of the membership? Or can one assume the bylaws mean its definition of majority applies where "majority" applies in parliamentary law and 2/3 type votes are required where parliamentary law requires it? (Am I making sense?)

2. If our definition of majority involves the basis of "membership" in its calculation, can I infer this means a 2/3 vote means 2/3 of the "membership" or would a 2/3 vote always involve basis of those "present and voting"? (Am I makeing sense??)

[Kim Goldsworthy]

p. 389 -

My organization's bylaws say

actions are to be based on majority vote, defined as

half or more of the number of MEMBERS.

Oh, we got Trouble. Trouble, my friends. We got lots and lots of Trouble. With a capital "T".

Parliamentary law requires 2/3 sometimes with other steps in certain situations.

1. Do our bylaws indicate all decisions are to be won by a mere majority of the membership? Or can one assume the bylaws mean its definition of majority applies where "majority" applies in parliamentary law and 2/3 type votes are required where parliamentary law requires it? (Am I making sense?)

No, you are not making sense.

You asking if "our bylaws [do] indicate [X]."

We cannot answer that question.

Only a READER of your bylaws can answer that question.

2. If our definition of majority involves the basis of "membership" in its calculation,

can I infer this means a 2/3 vote means 2/3 of the "membership",

or would a 2/3 vote always involve basis of those "present and voting"?

(Am I making sense?)

No, you are not making sense.

You are (again) asking a question about YOUR OWN BYLAWS.

We only answer questions about Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised [RONR Tenth Edition 2000].

We cannot interpret your unique, customized definitions, and unique, customized bylaws.

(Your cited rules are already garbled and ambiguous. Who knows how Gordian your rules are if read in their entirety?)

[Tim Wynn]

p. 389 -

My organization's bylaws say actions are to be based on majority vote, defined as half or more of the number of MEMBERS.

Parliamentary law requires 2/3 sometimes with other stips in certain situations.

1. Do our bylaws indicate all decisions are to be won by a mere majority of the membership? Or can one assume the bylaws mean its definition of majority applies where "majority" applies in parliamentary law and 2/3 type votes are required where parliamentary law requires it? (Am I making sense?)

Yes, you're making sense. However, your organization's bylaw provision is not. The provision seems clear, per se, but it will be up to your organization to decide how it applies to various situations.

Your organization would be well advised to read, p. 564, l. 11-14 and to apply this concept to every aspect of the bylaws, through amendment, to the greatest extent possible.

2. If our definition of majority involves the basis of "membership" in its calculation, can I infer this means a 2/3 vote means 2/3 of the "membership" or would a 2/3 vote always involve basis of those "present and voting"? (Am I makeing sense??)

I don't think the act of attaching a new definition to "majority vote" affects the meaning of "two-thirds vote."

[Tim Wynn]

My organization's bylaws say actions are to be based on majority vote, defined as half or more of the number of MEMBERS.

If your bylaws set a quorum as a percentage that's less than half of the entire membership, then Principle of Interpretation #2 (p. 570), might be of some interest.

[Josh Martin]

1. Do our bylaws indicate all decisions are to be won by a mere majority of the membership? Or can one assume the bylaws mean its definition of majority applies where "majority" applies in parliamentary law and 2/3 type votes are required where parliamentary law requires it? (Am I making sense?)

It is up to your organization to interpret its own Bylaws. See RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 570-573 for some Principles of Interpretation.

If you provide an exact quote from your Bylaws we might be able to provide a bit more assistance by comparing the language to the language used in RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 387-393, but I don't dare to interpret a paraphrase in an area where the exact wording is so important.

2. If our definition of majority involves the basis of "membership" in its calculation, can I infer this means a 2/3 vote means 2/3 of the "membership" or would a 2/3 vote always involve basis of those "present and voting"? (Am I makeing sense??)

The unqualified term "2/3 vote" means 2/3 of the members present and voting, regardless of the rules in your Bylaws regarding another type of vote.

[Gerry4000]

Although you need to interpret your own bylaws, you might face the situation that a 2/3 vote could very well be easier to attain than a "majority vote".

If the organization has 100 members, and 60 show up for a meeting -

then a vote of 51 in favor would be needed for a majority of members, BUT only 40 for a 2/3 vote of those present and voting (could be less if some don;t vote).

I think the bylaws need some work.