majority needed to pass a motion

[Guest Mike Smith]

Our by-laws state that in order to send charges forward against another member it requires "a majorty vote of the members in attendence at the regular or special meeting." After a voice vote was inconclusive a standing vote was requested and the result was a 15-10 vote to send them forward.

There were 43 members present and i raised the question that the motion did not carry a majorty of the members present. After consideration the Chairman ruled that the motion passed. Who was right?

Also, it has since been determined that 7 of the yea votes came from members with "a direct personal interest" in the outcome. The member filing the charges and 6 members named as witnesses. If these members had not voted, the outcome would have been 10-7 to reject the motion.

What to do?

[jstackpo]

"What to do?"

Nothing, at this point.

You were correct in your understanding of the "majority of members present" requirement. However, the time to appeal the ruling of the chair (who was wrong) has past and his ruling stands.

The "direct personal interest" is not relevant -- as members they cannot be prohibited from voting. (Unless you have a special rule in your bylaws about that.)

[Tim Wynn]

Our by-laws state that in order to send charges forward against another member it requires "a majorty vote of the members in attendence at the regular or special meeting." After a voice vote was inconclusive a standing vote was requested and the result was a 15-10 vote to send them forward.

There were 43 members present and i raised the question that the motion did not carry a majorty of the members present. After consideration the Chairman ruled that the motion passed. Who was right?

Also, it has since been determined that 7 of the yea votes came from members with "a direct personal interest" in the outcome. The member filing the charges and 6 members named as witnesses. If these members had not voted, the outcome would have been 10-7 to reject the motion.

What to do?

The language in your bylaws is ambiguous and should be amended to be clear.

You could have appealed from the decision of the chair to turn the matter over to the judgement of the assembly (perhaps the members present could have deciphered the meaning). See RONR (11th ed.), Section 24. It is now too late.

[Tim Wynn]

You were correct in your understanding of the "majority of members present" requirement.

However, the bylaw language that was quoted unfortunately does not say "majority of members present."

[Guest Edgar]

The language in your bylaws is ambiguous and should be amended to be clear.

However, the bylaw language that was quoted unfortunately does not say "majority of members present."

And perhaps is not as ambiguous as it might first appear.

[David A Foulkes]

However, the bylaw language that was quoted unfortunately does not say "majority of members present."

But is it definitively stated in RONR that that phrase ("of members present") must be used in the language of a rule or bylaw? Or does RONR use that language to express the concept? For instance, RONR repeatedly uses "entire membership" to express that concept, but uses the phrase "total membership"at least once (p. 402 l.31), and I understand that to mean "entire membership." I think the phrases "members present" and "members in attendance" sound pretty much like the same thing. I'd be hard pressed to interpret them differently.

[Guest Edgar]

I think the phrases "members present" and "members in attendance" sound pretty much like the same thing. I'd be hard pressed to interpret them differently.

I agree but I think the key phrase in the bylaw excerpt quoted is "majority vote" and we all know what that means. The addition of "of the members in attendance" is merely superfluous.

[David A Foulkes]

I agree but I think the key phrase in the bylaw excerpt quoted is "majority vote" and we all know what that means. The addition of "of the members in attendance" is merely superfluous.

Take a look at p. 402 ll. 22-28, particularly the beginning of the second sentence beginning with "Two elements..." The elements mentioned are (1) the vote requirement (majority, 2/3, 3/4 etc) and (2) the set of members to which the proportion applies (members present, total membership, or some other grouping.

A majority vote (1) of the members in attendance (2) seems to satisfy this explanation. If you can be present but not in attendance, or not present but in attendance, I'd welcome an example of how to pull that off.

[Guest Edgar]

Take a look at p. 402 ll. 22-28, particularly the beginning of the second sentence beginning with "Two elements..."

Okay. Done that. But I think the key phrase in the bylaw excerpt quoted is "majority vote" and we all know what that means. The addition of "of the members in attendance" is merely superfluous.

[David A Foulkes]

Okay. Done that. But I think the key phrase in the bylaw excerpt quoted is "majority vote" and we all know what that means. The addition of "of the members in attendance" is merely superfluous.

And so, with reference to p. 400 ll. 8-9 ("when the term majority vote is used without qualification"), it's your position that the bylaw language "of the members in attendance" does not serve as a qualification?

[Guest Edgar]

And so, with reference to p. 400 ll. 8-9 ("when the term majority vote is used without qualification"), it's your position that the bylaw language "of the members in attendance" does not serve as a qualification?

Exactly. It's my position that the phrase "of the members in attendance" is simply re-stating the obvious. It neither limits nor expands the meaning of "majority vote".

[Tim Wynn]

You two have done a marvelous job pointing out the ambiguity of the language.

[David A Foulkes]

You two have done a marvelous job pointing out the ambiguity of the language.

Well, in the absence of the night crew, we try to pick up the slack.

[Guest Edgar]

You two have done a marvelous job pointing out the ambiguity of the language.

However arguing that the language is not ambiguous while someone else insists that it is is not proof of ambiguity. Just as attempts to teach "intelligent design" along with evolution is not proof that there's a legitimate controversy.

[jstackpo]

Here's the ambiguity as concisely as I can formulate it: (this is written as penance for misreading the original post...) -- "majority vote of the members present"

1) "of the members present" is clearly superfluous -- who else can vote but the members who are at the meeting? Hence the phrase just means "majority vote".

However...

2) RONR p. 589-90: "There is a presumption that nothing has been placed in the bylaws without some reason for it." The only good reason (clearly introducing a superfluous redundancy is not a good reason) to include "of the members present" is to require the basis for the majority calculation ("more than half of what?") to be the members present at the meeting. So the phrase means "a vote of the majority of the members present." (RONR, p. 403).

Take your pick, and then amend the bylaws. (Bylaws need to be intelligently designed.)

[SaintCad]

"a majorty vote of the members in attendence at the regular or special meeting."

If the word "vote" is taken out, then it would be a majority of thos attending so in the OP, the motion did not pass. I would contend that the wording as given means that no proxy, email, phone votes etc. would be allowed.

[Guest Edgar]

If the word "vote" is taken out . . .

Why in the world would one do such a thing?

[SaintCad]

Why in the world would one do such a thing?

Exactly. My point was that to get the OP's interpretation, one would need to take out the key word "vote" and read it as "a majorty [sic] of the members in attendence at the regular or special meeting." and so I disagree with their interpretation.

[David A Foulkes]

Why in the world would one do such a thing?

Because then the bylaws would read "a majority of the members in attendance" which (in my oh so humble opinion) is close enough to "majority of the members present" (p. 403, l. 2 & ll. 13-14) IF that is what the desired (by the membership) "set of members to which the proportion applies" (p. 402 ll. 27-28) is. But only the membership can know what it is they want.

[Guest Edgar]

Because then the bylaws would read "a majority of the members in attendance" which . . . is close enough to "majority of the members present" . . . IF that is what the desired (by the membership) "set of members to which the proportion applies" . . . is.

Well, yeah, you can change the bylaws to mean what you want them to mean. But you can't do that without amending them.

I think I understand what Saint Cad (does he know Rev Ed?) was saying but I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. No doubt a problem with my understanding.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Just as attempts to teach "intelligent design" along with evolution is not proof that there's a legitimate controversy.

I agree. It's high time that the schools stop teaching evolution. :-)

[Trina]

I agree. It's high time that the schools stop teaching evolution. :-)

Ummm.... not funny, IMO.

The pretense (or even the genuine belief) that there is true scientific disagreement on key issues (such as evolution vs. intelligent design, as just one example) is a major social/political/ethical problem. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with RONR.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Ummm.... not funny, IMO.

The pretense (or even the genuine belief) that there is true scientific disagreement on key issues (such as evolution vs. intelligent design, as just one example) is a major social/political/ethical problem. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with RONR.

It was not intended to be funny. It was intended to rebut a comment that was highly inappropriate for this forum. Aside from being completely irrelevant here, the issue of evolution vs. intelligent design is a religious and philosophical one, not a scientific one, and it is naive to think that the policy of teaching evolution as scientific fact is the result of dispassionate, open, rational inquiry by an unbiased academic establishment. It is also a bit insulting to pretend that those who do not subscribe to the theory of evolution in any form (who are, according to the polls, nearly half of the U.S. population, including more than one-fifth of those holding postgraduate degrees) exist beyond the pale of valid discourse.

[Gary Novosielski]

It was not intended to be funny. It was intended to rebut a comment that was highly inappropriate for this forum. Aside from being completely irrelevant here, the issue of evolution vs. intelligent design is a religious and philosophical one, not a scientific one, and it is naive to think that the policy of teaching evolution as scientific fact is the result of dispassionate, open, rational inquiry by an unbiased academic establishment. It is also a bit insulting to pretend that those who do not subscribe to the theory of evolution in any form (who are, according to the polls, nearly half of the U.S. population, including more than one-fifth of those holding postgraduate degrees) exist beyond the pale of valid discourse.

You are correct that the "debate" is purely in the realm of religion and philosophy, because scientifically, evolution is as close as one can get to settled fact. It is arguably the most thoroughly proven theory in all of science, slightly surpassing the law of gravity.

Call me naive, but I think the those who paint science as other than rational inquiry are the ones doing the insulting. Science is inquiry based on fact, not on public opinion polls. Believe what you want on faith, but do not attempt to teach superstition to my kids, or demand that I teach nonsense to my students.

G. Novosielski

Science educator

[jstackpo]

Right on, Gary!!