Question about Parliamentary Procedure v. Bylaws when defining majority

[Guest christinaw]

Hello. I'm going to try to word this as well as I possibly can, but that may not be saying much as I'm only somewhat familiar with Robert's Rules and Parliamentary Procedure.

I'm trying to figure out what defines a majority for the sake of filling a vacancy in the student senate at my college, and running into what I regard as conflicting information.

In regards to filling a vacancy, the constitution states (Article VI Section 2) that "If a vacancy beyond the President occurs, the Student Senate by a majority vote may fill the vacancy with an officer of the Student Senate, or any student from the student body at large" A vote was taken on a potential senator. The final vote was 3 yea, 1 nay, 3 abstentions, and the motion was deemed a failure. I feel like the motion should have passed based on the (admittedly vague) language in the constitution.

The constitution states, in Article IV Section 4, which outlines procedure for meetings that "All business shall be conducted according to Parliamentary Procedure as outlined in Robert’s Rules of Order and according to the procedures established by this Constitution". The constitution itself does not otherwise define a majority, or touch on voting, but states in Article IX Section 5 that "Any procedure not defined herein shall be defined in the Student Senate By-Laws."

The bylaws do discuss voting, in a section regarding officer responsibilities, where it defines a majority as "A. Majority: A majority is defined as 50% plus one (1) of the total voting membership of the Student Senate at the time of the vote, whether present of not, during a properly called meeting."

Now, my interpretation of this situation is that because of the wording of the constitution, the senate does not have the authority to outline the rules of voting, because that would be in conflict with the constitution. In my reading, voting falls under the umbrella of business conducted during a meeting, which the constitution clearly states is dictated by parliamentary procedure and the constitution. I don't believe that Article IX Section 5 comes into play because the procedure on voting is defined by referencing parliamentary procedure.

I'm concerned with the idea that the senate can change the voting methods by changing the bylaws, because, quite frankly, that could end in disaster. I'm under the impression that if the senate wants to adopt a different definition of majority (and other voting rules) they would be required to go through the process for a constitutional amendment to change Article IV, which is much more laborious, and rightfully so.

I appreciate any advice on this matter, and hope I worded this in a way that makes sense!

[Guest Nancy N.]

I think Guest Christina w makes enough sense; it's the constitution and bylaws that are somewhat lacking in it. Some points (but note that on this Robert's Rules forum, we distinctly do not venture to interpret your bylaws, constitution, or other rules -- your own organization must do that):

1. According to parliamentary law, as codified in RONR, "majority" means "more than half" (which is not the same as 50% + 1, or 51%), and "majority vote" "means more than half of the votes cast by persons entitled to vote, excluding blanks or abstentions, at a regular or properly called meeting."

2. When what is said in RONR is in conflict with what the bylaws or constitution say, then the bylaws or constitution win. When the bylaws and the constitution are in conflict, the constitution wins.

3. I will say that, as far as I can see, the quoted language in the constitution about a majority vote is distinctly not vague at all. The motion about the prospective senator clearly would have passed if an ordinarily-defined majority vote was used; but it failed, because an idiosyncratic definition of a majority vote seems to govern. (If you think it might be vague because it does not address abstentions one way or the other, it is not. Abstentions are not a kind of vote -- they are an absence of voting. They do not count at all -- unless your own rules say they should. But vagueness is, indeed, introduced, in that apparently your bylaws do provide their own distorted version of what a majority vote is, involving "the total voting membership of the Student Senate.")

And my use of weasel words, like "seems" and apparently, is necessitated by my not interpreting your senate's rules.

8!!

[David A Foulkes]

3. I will say that, as far as I can see, the quoted language in the constitution about a majority vote is distinctly not vague at all.

I disagree. Although an argument could be made to support the idea of election of the senator, I think it (the definition) could be easily interpreted as a vote of the entire membership, in which case the correct result was announced. I'd recommend to Christina that the bylaws be amending to remove this hideous construct in favor of whatever RONR-approved language would unambiguously clarify the desired voting threshold.

[Dan Honemann]

I disagree. Although an argument could be made to support the idea of election of the senator, I think it (the definition) could be easily interpreted as a vote of the entire membership, in which case the correct result was announced. I'd recommend to Christina that the bylaws be amending to remove this hideous construct in favor of whatever RONR-approved language would unambiguously clarify the desired voting threshold.

Nancy was referring to something in the constitution. Are you?

[Tim Wynn]

3. I will say that, as far as I can see, the quoted language in the constitution about a majority vote is distinctly not vague at all. The motion about the prospective senator clearly would have passed if an ordinarily-defined majority vote was used; but it failed, because an idiosyncratic definition of a majority vote seems to govern.

Nancy,

Where do you see a definition of "majority vote"? All I see is a strange definition of "majority."

And I agree with your first sentence of section 3.

[Dan Honemann]

Nancy,

Where do you see a definition of "majority vote"? All I see is a strange definition of "majority."

And I agree with your first sentence of section 3.

Christinaw tells us that "The bylaws do discuss voting, in a section regarding officer responsibilities, where it defines a majority as "A. Majority: A majority is defined as 50% plus one (1) of the total voting membership of the Student Senate at the time of the vote, whether present of not, during a properly called meeting."

I guess Nancy is relying upon that initial phrase.

[Tim Wynn]

Christinaw tells us that "The bylaws do discuss voting, in a section regarding officer responsibilities, where it defines a majority as "A. Majority: A majority is defined as 50% plus one (1) of the total voting membership of the Student Senate at the time of the vote, whether present of not, during a properly called meeting."

I guess Nancy is relying upon that initial phrase.

Nancy will do well to remember that Christinaw is providing the questions, not the answers.

The quoted text could be defining majority for another purpose; it could be a sloppy attempt to define a quorum, instead of a sloppy attempt to define a majority vote.

[Tim Wynn]

Nancy will do well to remember that Christinaw is providing the questions, not the answers.

The quoted text could be defining majority for another purpose; it could be a sloppy attempt to define a quorum, instead of a sloppy attempt to define a majority vote.

It could also be an attempt to define a vote of a majority of the entire membership.

[David A Foulkes]

Nancy was referring to something in the constitution. Are you?

No, my mistake. In my defense, I was only on my first cup. I now agree with the last sentence in post #3 #5.

Edited to correct typo. Thanks tc.

[tctheatc]

The constitution states, in Article IV Section 4, which outlines procedure for meetings that "All business shall be conducted according to Parliamentary Procedure as outlined in Robert’s Rules of Order and according to the procedures established by this Constitution". The constitution itself does not otherwise define a majority, or touch on voting, but states in Article IX Section 5 that "Any procedure not defined herein shall be defined in the Student Senate By-Laws."

The bylaws do discuss voting, in a section regarding officer responsibilities, where it defines a majority as "A. Majority: A majority is defined as 50% plus one (1) of the total voting membership of the Student Senate at the time of the vote, whether present of not, during a properly called meeting."

Now, my interpretation of this situation is that because of the wording of the constitution, the senate does not have the authority to outline the rules of voting, because that would be in conflict with the constitution.

I'm not as sure that the two are in conflict. I think a case can be made that the bylaws expand upon what's stated in the constitution, especially whereas the constitution provides for the bylaws defining procedures not otherwise defined.

[tctheatc]

No, my mistake. In my defense, I was only on my first cup. I now agree with the last sentence in post #3.

Post 3 or item 3 in post 2?

[sMargaret]

Now, my interpretation of this situation is that because of the wording of the constitution, the senate does not have the authority to outline the rules of voting, because that would be in conflict with the constitution. In my reading, voting falls under the umbrella of business conducted during a meeting, which the constitution clearly states is dictated by parliamentary procedure and the constitution. I don't believe that Article IX Section 5 comes into play because the procedure on voting is defined by referencing parliamentary procedure.

I'm concerned with the idea that the senate can change the voting methods by changing the bylaws, because, quite frankly, that could end in disaster. I'm under the impression that if the senate wants to adopt a different definition of majority (and other voting rules) they would be required to go through the process for a constitutional amendment to change Article IV, which is much more laborious, and rightfully so.

Christina, I don't think that this argument will work - it is quite proper for the bylaws to have more specific language in them than the constitution in terms of how to vote.

The bylaws do discuss voting, in a section regarding officer responsibilities, where it defines a majority as "A. Majority: A majority is defined as 50% plus one (1) of the total voting membership of the Student Senate at the time of the vote, whether present of not, during a properly called meeting."

Yuck.

I mean, seriously, yuck.

Let us start with an example of how a vote might work based on the default for RONR, and how it would work based on that language. Let's suppose we have 11 members of the Student Senate, 9 of them show up for a vote, with 2 absentations.

Default rules - you need a majority of those voting in order to pass. 7 members are voting (the 2 absentations don't count), so you need 4 votes in order to pass.

Your rules - you need 50% + 1 of the total voting membership in order to pass, whether or not they're there or voting. That would be 5.5 + 1, so you would need at least 6.5 votes to pass something, which means you would need 7 votes in favour to pass anything. In the example above, everyone who showed up and voted would need to be unanimous in order to pass this.

This isn't to say that your bylaws are wrong, they could be very specifically worded in order to make it very difficult to do anything.

(OK, 50%+1 is by and large just plain wrong, but your bylaws at least don't define 50%+1 as a simple majority. Which it isn't.)

[Trina]

Hello. I'm going to try to word this as well as I possibly can, but that may not be saying much as I'm only somewhat familiar with Robert's Rules and Parliamentary Procedure.

I'm trying to figure out what defines a majority for the sake of filling a vacancy in the student senate at my college, and running into what I regard as conflicting information.

In regards to filling a vacancy, the constitution states (Article VI Section 2) that "If a vacancy beyond the President occurs, the Student Senate by a majority vote may fill the vacancy with an officer of the Student Senate, or any student from the student body at large" A vote was taken on a potential senator. The final vote was 3 yea, 1 nay, 3 abstentions, and the motion was deemed a failure. I feel like the motion should have passed based on the (admittedly vague) language in the constitution.

This phrase is unambiguous, as others have stated (or maybe they just said it was un-vague ). Majority vote has a clear meaning.

The constitution states, in Article IV Section 4, which outlines procedure for meetings that "All business shall be conducted according to Parliamentary Procedure as outlined in Robert’s Rules of Order and according to the procedures established by this Constitution". The constitution itself does not otherwise define a majority, or touch on voting, but states in Article IX Section 5 that "Any procedure not defined herein shall be defined in the Student Senate By-Laws."

OK, so for any procedures not defined in the Constitution or in RONR, look in the Bylaws. I see that it doesn't say anything about terms not defined in the Constitution.

The bylaws do discuss voting, in a section regarding officer responsibilities, where it defines a majority as "A. Majority: A majority is defined as 50% plus one (1) of the total voting membership of the Student Senate at the time of the vote, whether present of not, during a properly called meeting."

That, read in isolation, looks like a definition of the term 'majority', not a definition of a procedure.

Now, my interpretation of this situation is that because of the wording of the constitution, the senate does not have the authority to outline the rules of voting, because that would be in conflict with the constitution. In my reading, voting falls under the umbrella of business conducted during a meeting, which the constitution clearly states is dictated by parliamentary procedure and the constitution. I don't believe that Article IX Section 5 comes into play because the procedure on voting is defined by referencing parliamentary procedure.

I'm concerned with the idea that the senate can change the voting methods by changing the bylaws, because, quite frankly, that could end in disaster. I'm under the impression that if the senate wants to adopt a different definition of majority (and other voting rules) they would be required to go through the process for a constitutional amendment to change Article IV, which is much more laborious, and rightfully so.

I appreciate any advice on this matter, and hope I worded this in a way that makes sense!

One can't give a definite opinion without reading your governing documents in their entirety (and that is beyond the scope of this forum). RONR does say:

'In organizations that have both a constitution and bylaws as separate documents, however, the constitution is the higher of the two bodies of rules and supersedes the bylaws.' (11th ed. p. 14 ll. 22-25).

Thus, if it is determined that the language in the bylaws actually contradicts what is said in the constitution, the contradictory language in the bylaws would carry no weight. On the same page as cited above, RONR points out that 'there are decided advantages in keeping all of the provisions relating to each subject under one heading within a single instrument -- which results in fewer problems of duplication or inconsistency, and give a more understandable and workable body of rules.' (ll. 12-16)