What is meant by a majority vote "shall be the act of this club"?

[Guest David Clarke]

A constitution has the following wording in it:

"Unless a greater vote is required by this Constitution or by the Bylaws of this club in a particular matter, the affirmative vote of at least a majority of those active individual members who are present and voting at a duly held business meeting at which a quorum is present shall be the act of this club."

Does this mean that motions that would normally (by RONR) require a 2/3 vote, such as moving the previous question or amending something previously adopted, would only require a majority vote? (Assuming, of course, that a greater vote was not required in the Constitution and/or Bylaws. RONR is the Parliamentary Authority.)

Dave Clarke

[jstackpo]

Sure looks that way to me, but, ultimately, this has to be a matter for your association to settle -- quoting a poster not heard from here for some time: "They are your bylaws; you tell us."

And the way (or one way, anyway) for deciding how to interpret your bylaws is to start reading on p. 588.

Other ways, involving fisticuffs or worse, are not found in RONR.

[Chris Harrison]

It is beyond this forum's purview to interpret your bylaws or constitution (see RONR pp. 588-591 for some principles to help you all do the interpreting). However, if the bylaws have named RONR as the parliamentary authority you all have in effect adopted over 650 pages of additional rules beyond what the bylaws say (though the bylaws supersede RONR when there is a conflict). So it might be reasonable to argue that absent some conflict between RONR and the bylaws that the rules in RONR would still apply.

[Guest David Clarke]

This is an organization in which the individual Club constitution is set by the parent (international) organization and can be changed only by a vote of the delegates at the international organization's yearly convention. (The bylaws, on the other hand, have some leeway for the individual club to change them, but only in a "fill-in-the-blank" manner.

Therefore, I assume only the delegates at international organization's yearly convention can interpret the Constitution, not the local club or chapter. Correspondence with the International organization's office on this matter have not resulted in an answer that clarifies the matter.

The reason for my post was that, although an organization has the responsibility to interpret its own Constitution and Bylaws, my understanding is that it can only do this if there is an ambiguity to begin with. The wording was such that it seemed to me that this might be a common wording and though it is ambiguous to me, it might not be ambiguous to others here.

Thanks for your help.

Dave

[jstackpo]

In my experience, your "all-things-by-majority" wording is not at all common in bylaws (and Constitutions). And where it is present it engenders the same questions you are raising.

Next National meeting do your best to simply strike out that provision, then RONR will consistently apply.

[Gary c Tesser]

This is an organization in which the individual Club constitution is set by the parent (international) organization and can be changed only by a vote of the delegates at the international organization's yearly convention. (The bylaws, on the other hand, have some leeway for the individual club to change them, but only in a "fill-in-the-blank" manner.

It looks to me as if Dr Stackpole and Chris H said "bylaws" in the RONR sense: that is, not discriminating between your constitution and your bylaws. So their not specifying what one document or the other says is of no significance.

Therefore, I assume only the delegates at international organization's yearly convention can interpret the Constitution, not the local club or chapter. ...

I don't think so. Robert's Rules is not designed to hobble the organizations that adopt it as their parliamentary authority. I think p. 588 means that organizations should resolve ambiguities as soon as possible, so that they can move on and get their job done. And yes, the definitive resolution of ambiguities would be made at the annual international meeting. -- but if the annual international didn't get to it, do you think you would then have to wait till next year's meeting before you could get anything done regarding the matters that the ambiguities are about?

The reason for my post was that, although an organization has the responsibility to interpret its own Constitution and Bylaws, my understanding is that it can only do this if there is an ambiguity to begin with. The wording was such that it seemed to me that this might be a common wording and though it is ambiguous to me, it might not be ambiguous to others here.

Thanks for your help.

Dave

Dave, when five of you think there's an ambiguity and five of us don't, what more does it take to establish that there's an ambiguity?

[Gary c Tesser]

Type slower, Stackpole!

[jstackpo]

I'm just more concise. not faster with the fingers.

[Shmuel Gerber]

A constitution has the following wording in it:

"Unless a greater vote is required by this Constitution or by the Bylaws of this club in a particular matter, the affirmative vote of at least a majority of those active individual members who are present and voting at a duly held business meeting at which a quorum is present shall be the act of this club."

Does this mean that motions that would normally (by RONR) require a 2/3 vote, such as moving the previous question or amending something previously adopted, would only require a majority vote? (Assuming, of course, that a greater vote was not required in the Constitution and/or Bylaws. RONR is the Parliamentary Authority.)

Dave Clarke

I wouldn't lump amending something previously adopted into the same category as ordering the previous question. The former is a main motion, whereas the latter is merely a subsidiary motion. I would say you have two questions to determine:

(1) Are the voting requirements found in RONR "required by this Constitution or by the Bylaws of this club in a particular matter"?

(2) If not, is ordering the previous question, or adopting other motions that require more than a majority vote, an "act of this club"?