Guest Shelly Posted October 4, 2011 at 12:41 AM Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 at 12:41 AM At a recent meeting of our club, four prospective members were up for membership. Our club votes by secret ballot with a two-thirds of the attending membership voting in favor requirement for acceptance. There were twenty seven members present. Three prospective members were NOT voted in. On the fourth, she received 17 yea, 9 nay and one abstaining. Our club has voted to "round up (five or more) or round down (less that five) in to make it easier to on us! The one voter who abstained told us that she also voted to abstain on the other three prospects. If we round it off, it is 17.33333. Should the one prospect now be a member? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted October 4, 2011 at 12:50 AM Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 at 12:50 AM This is basically the same post that you made before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted October 4, 2011 at 12:51 AM Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 at 12:51 AM Our club has voted to "round up (five or more) or round down (less that five) in to make it easier to on us!That's still unfortunate. See FAQ #5.With twenty-seven members present you'll need at least eighteen affirmative votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted October 4, 2011 at 12:52 AM Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 at 12:52 AM What you describe, particularly "rounding up" or "down", is utterly foreign to RONR.They are your special rules and it will be up to you, collectively, to figure out what they mean.See RONR p. [588 / 570]* for aid in interpreting your rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g40 Posted October 4, 2011 at 12:54 PM Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 at 12:54 PM At a recent meeting of our club, four prospective members were up for membership. Our club votes by secret ballot with a two-thirds of the attending membership voting in favor requirement for acceptance. There were twenty seven members present. Three prospective members were NOT voted in. On the fourth, she received 17 yea, 9 nay and one abstaining. Our club has voted to "round up (five or more) or round down (less that five) in to make it easier to on us! The one voter who abstained told us that she also voted to abstain on the other three prospects. If we round it off, it is 17.33333. Should the one prospect now be a member?A 2/3 vote is (In my opinion) very easy to determine, without rounding. Just double the nays and if the yes votes would need to be double that the have the 2/3. You are, in my opinion, making things more difficult by rounding (as well as not being correct). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted October 4, 2011 at 01:38 PM Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 at 01:38 PM A 2/3 vote is (In my opinion) very easy to determine, without rounding. Just double the nays and if the yes votes would need to be double that the have the 2/3.Except that what's (apparently) required in this instance is the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members present. So no need to "double the nays". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GcT Posted October 5, 2011 at 02:18 PM Report Share Posted October 5, 2011 at 02:18 PM Okay, then: to calculate 2/3 of the members present, jsut double the non-nays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted October 5, 2011 at 06:43 PM Report Share Posted October 5, 2011 at 06:43 PM Okay, then: to calculate 2/3 of the members present, jsut double the non-nays.So, you'd double the ayes and abstentions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gary c Tesser not a zomb Posted October 6, 2011 at 08:03 AM Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 at 08:03 AM Oh. So let me see if I have this right. I wrote "double the non-nays" when I meant, and should have written, "double the non-ayes." And this. -- THIS. -- -- THIS is what you choose to quibble about.O What are things coming to? Board members all over are being eaten by crocodiles trained by registered parliamentarians; postal workers and UPS drivers and Amazon.com shipment officers being ravished in hysterical sublime worshipful gratitude as the still ink-soggy copies of RONR 11th dribble out across this great nation (and parts of Canada) so that these, the elite, the cognoscenti, can in ecstatic rapturous glee can ... can ... can post citations on the Robert's Rules Website using page numbers different from the boring ol' pages they've been using since 2000.Great Steaming Cobnuts. Fine, David, I admit it, I made a mistake. I'm sorry, okay? Can we move on now, like gentlemen, or gerbils if you prefer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted October 6, 2011 at 11:41 AM Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 at 11:41 AM Actually, I was just asking for clarification, in case I was missing something, which is not a rare case unfortunately.Moving on.....(fwiw, those aren't gerbils, they're Arvicanthis niloticus - African grass rats) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted October 6, 2011 at 05:57 PM Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 at 05:57 PM Oh. So let me see if I have this right. I wrote "double the non-nays" when I meant, and should have written, "double the non-ayes." And this. -- THIS.-- -- THIS is what you choose to quibble about.O What are things coming to? Board members all over are being eaten by crocodiles trained by registered parliamentarians; postal workers and UPS drivers and Amazon.com shipment officers being ravished in hysterical sublime worshipful gratitude as the still ink-soggy copies of RONR 11th dribble out across this great nation (and parts of Canada) so that these, the elite, the cognoscenti, can in ecstatic rapturous glee can ... can ... can post citations on the Robert's Rules Website using page numbers different from the boring ol' pages they've been using since 2000.Great Steaming Cobnuts. Fine, David, I admit it, I made a mistake. I'm sorry, okay? Can we move on now, like gentlemen, or gerbils if you prefer?Gary, are you experimenting with a new recipe for this year's Christmas party punch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted October 6, 2011 at 05:59 PM Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 at 05:59 PM Oh. So let me see if I have this right. I wrote "double the non-nays" when I meant, and should have written, "double the non-ayes." And this. -- THIS.-- -- THIS is what you choose to quibble about.O What are things coming to? Board members all over are being eaten by crocodiles trained by registered parliamentarians; postal workers and UPS drivers and Amazon.com shipment officers being ravished in hysterical sublime worshipful gratitude as the still ink-soggy copies of RONR 11th dribble out across this great nation (and parts of Canada) so that these, the elite, the cognoscenti, can in ecstatic rapturous glee can ... can ... can post citations on the Robert's Rules Website using page numbers different from the boring ol' pages they've been using since 2000.Great Steaming Cobnuts. Fine, David, I admit it, I made a mistake. I'm sorry, okay? Can we move on now, like gentlemen, or gerbils if you prefer?My quibble is with the fact that you log in as various guests, which makes it difficult to search for your posts with which I can enrapture myself for entertainment and edification (and to distract myself from the looming danger of the crocodiles). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.