Majority of votes or majority of members

[jstackpo]

"Simple" as in "simple majority" has its uses, however...

It is always a pleasure to point out to a recently elected winner who is a tad puffed up over his sucess that he was, after all, elected by a simple majority.

[jstackpo]

As opposed to an intellligent majority.

[Guest Louise]

As opposed to an intellligent majority.

Snort!

[Shmuel Gerber]

Regarding the questions in post #1, although I agree with other posters (Mr. Novosielski, for example) that RONR already covers much of this stuff, I think it can be helpful to include some redundant words in the bylaws, along the lines of 'two-thirds vote of those members present and voting' (assuming that's what you are after in some specific instance). Yes, the present and voting part is clearly included in RONR, but it is not always crystal clear to people who have minimal acquaintance with Robert's Rules.

"Two-thirds vote of those members present and voting" is sort of a mishmash. If a longer wording is desired, it ought to be more like "[a vote of] [at least] two-thirds of the members present and voting." The danger in using such wording is that if the bylaws anywhere else use the recommended unqualified language of "a two-thirds vote", people will be trying to figure out what difference in voting requirements might be implied by the difference in wording.

[Trina]

"Two-thirds vote of those members present and voting" is sort of a mishmash. If a longer wording is desired, it ought to be more like "[a vote of] [at least] two-thirds of the members present and voting." The danger in using such wording is that if the bylaws anywhere else use the recommended unqualified language of "a two-thirds vote", people will be trying to figure out what difference in voting requirements might be implied by the difference in wording.

Thanks for providing the improved language. In theory I'm all in favor of not repeating material from RONR in the bylaws at all. However, in practice, I've seen confusion in several organizations over the meaning of a 'two-thirds vote' needed for adopting a bylaws amendment -- some people always seem to think this means two-thirds of the members in the room at the meeting. As long as the redundant language is carefully chosen (as you point out), it may be helpful in organizations that are not very familiar with Robert's Rules. It's a good thing to have all the members on the same page (so to speak) about something as important as the required vote for bylaws amendment in an organization.

[Dan Honemann]

Thanks for providing the improved language. In theory I'm all in favor of not repeating material from RONR in the bylaws at all. However, in practice, I've seen confusion in several organizations over the meaning of a 'two-thirds vote' needed for adopting a bylaws amendment -- some people always seem to think this means two-thirds of the members in the room at the meeting. As long as the redundant language is carefully chosen (as you point out), it may be helpful in organizations that are not very familiar with Robert's Rules. It's a good thing to have all the members on the same page (so to speak) about something as important as the required vote for bylaws amendment in an organization.

I disagree entirely. It's a bad idea.

[George Mervosh]

And I don't think SG endorsed using it any way, by my reading of his reply.

[Dan Honemann]

And I don't think SG endorsed using it any way, by my reading of his reply.

I agree, and I certainly didn't mean to imply otherwise.

[Trina]

I disagree entirely. It's a bad idea.

It's a bad idea to include 'present and voting' in the bylaws as a clarification? If the theory is that nothing should be restated in the bylaws that is already clear in RONR, why do we find the recommendation on p. 574 ll. 22-26? After all, RONR is already quite clear on the meaning of 'and' versus 'or' in the definition of terms of office -- why bother adding any language to bylaws on that particular topic?

The answer is right there -- 'Because [the effect] is unlikely to be clear to most members...'

Similarly, in many organizations, the meaning of 'two-thirds vote' is unclear to a significant portion of the members. Just look at the number of questions that come up on this forum related to such confusion.

[George Mervosh]

"Two-thirds vote of those members present and voting" is sort of a mishmash.

Thanks for providing the improved language.

Trina, right here is an excellent example of why it's a bad idea. Personally, I think you would explain it in the bylaws better than most people, but if this example doesn't convince you it isn't so easy and potentially a recipe for disaster if those doing it aren't as skilled as you in the writing arena, nothing will.

[Dan Honemann]

It's a bad idea to include 'present and voting' in the bylaws as a clarification? If the theory is that nothing should be restated in the bylaws that is already clear in RONR, why do we find the recommendation on p. 574 ll. 22-26? After all, RONR is already quite clear on the meaning of 'and' versus 'or' in the definition of terms of office -- why bother adding any language to bylaws on that particular topic?

The answer is right there -- 'Because [the effect] is unlikely to be clear to most members...'

Similarly, in many organizations, the meaning of 'two-thirds vote' is unclear to a significant portion of the members. Just look at the number of questions that come up on this forum related to such confusion.

RONR says what it says on page 574, lines 22-26, to call attention to the significant changes made in this regard in the 11th Edition. A totally different situation.

[Trina]

Trina, right here is an excellent example of why it's a bad idea. Personally, I think you would explain it in the bylaws better than most people, but if this example doesn't convince you it isn't so easy and potentially a recipe for disaster if those doing it aren't as skilled as you in the writing arena, nothing will.

Thanks, you make a good point.

I still think the point is to be extremely careful when adding clarifying language to the bylaws. In theory, any restatements or clarifications of rules in RONR are an invitation to trouble, and should be avoided. From an algorithmic point of view I entirely agree.

In practice, in an organization where members abide by a folk knowledge version of Robert's Rules, and where virtually no one has ever looked at a copy of RONR or RONRIB, extra words in the bylaws can help. However, I can see that this problem (i.e. the problem of members unwilling to read or consult their own parliamentary authority) is essentially beyond the scope of the forum, which deals with the application and interpretation of the rules in RONR.

I do find the example on p. 574 interesting, in that it recognizes a possibility of confusion about a particular rule, and a possible need for clarifying language in the bylaws. However, I'm apparently wrong in extending this example to the case of other potentially confusing rules.

[jstackpo]

And don't forget, that the proportion of the members who have never even looked at RONR, is approximately the same as those who have never looked at the bylaws.

[Dan Honemann]

I do find the example on p. 574 interesting, in that it recognizes a possibility of confusion about a particular rule, and a possible need for clarifying language in the bylaws. However, I'm apparently wrong in extending this example to the case of other potentially confusing rules.

The suggested additional bylaw language on page 574 (and that contained in the footnote on page 580, for another example) simply explains an effect which the use of certain terms will have, and notes that this will be an effect of using these terms whether the additional language is included or not. This is something entirely different than suggesting use in the bylaws of a different term altogether (which it appears that you may be trying to do), or the use of the same term as the one defined in RONR, and then attempting to add additional language to it to define it.

There is more that could be said to further clarify the differences between what RONR has suggested on pages 754 and 580, and what it seems that you are trying to do, but as far as I am concerned the opportunity for simultaneous aural communication is essential to explaining stuff (if I may borrow a phrase).