Constitutional Change

[PastorDan]

Recently an issue came up in a meeting that generated a fair amount of discussion among several people familiar with Roberts Rules of Order who have functioned as parliamentarians in various organizations and I would like to get some clarification if I may. It involves a question of whether something qualifies as a constitutional change which would require a 2/3 majority vote, or if a simple 51% majority is sufficient.

The specifics are this:

Several churches in our area provide constituent support for a Christian school that we jointly operate. The Constitution lists the specific churches in the Constituency. Another church has requested to become a member of the Constituency. Some in the group believe, that since the Constitution specifically lists the members of the Constituency, that adding a constituent church would be a change in the constitution. The other group believes that a simple majority is all that is necessary and that adding a specific, listed church, is not a constitutional change.

Can anyone shed any light on this?

Thanks in advance for your help,

Dan M. Appel, Pastor

[Gary c Tesser]

Including some other thoughts:

1. When the Original Poster, PastorDan, writes, "The Constitution lists the specific churches", I would guess that we're talking about the constitution of the school. But I would rather not guess (there's an apt bromide that breaks the word "guess" into its smaller units, to telling effect. But it's somehow not making sense right now. Maybe nothing makes sense at 4 in the morning. That's when I shine).

2. A majority vote and 51% are often not the same. I hope the bylaws don't think they are, and that the OP nodded for a moment.

3. With apologies, we do not discuss specific bylaws of particular organizations on this, the world's premiere Internet parliamentary forum (Reg. Penna. Dept. Agr.). There are probably amenable nearby websites; I myself have occasionally ventured thereabouts, with little discernible loss except to my hitherto impeccably virtuous repute.

4. Wishing to appear not to take sides on this disagreement, nor to go anywhere near interpreting bylaws over the Internet, I have to muse. You got a list here. You want to add a name to this list. And you have some people saying that when you add the name to the list, the list will not be changed.

Seriously?

Would you like a RONR citation?

(If you just sit mum, PastorDan, most likely 20 minutes after the sun comes up on the US East Coast you'll probably have three or four. I'd offer one or two citations that immediately come to mind, but I'm over here at the desk tapping at the keyboard while my copy of RONR, 11th Ed, which probably very much resembles PastorDan's own copy except his doesn't have my name written on the flyleaf by a preeminent used-dictionary salesman, notwithstanding which, it is likely that his copy provides some tastily pertinent reading, such as lines 28 - 32 or so on p. 568; principles of interpretation 2 and 4, and maybe 6, on p. 589 - 590; and maybe, by implication, p. 598 - 599, is way over there by the ottoman, under my elbow.)

[Guest Edgar]

Some in the group believe, that since the Constitution specifically lists the members of the Constituency, that adding a constituent church would be a change in the constitution.

Agreeing with Mr. Tesser's point #4, I'd say you could move that from the "belief" column to the "makes perfect sense" column.

63GYFF

[PastorDan]

Wanted to clarify a couple of things.

I had no desire to ask anyone to chime in on a particular situation - rather used it as an example. Sorry if I was out of order.

And I too do not always express things well after a particularly hard day, so sorry if some of my percentages were off. And, apologies for not clarifying that the constitution in question was the school constitution. I also am working from an older edition of Roberts Rules - didn't realize that there was a new one out. I am ordering it today. But I am not certain that the issue I am describing is specifically addressed - hence my desire for input.

That does not negate the larger issues - it could be the constitution of any organization that has constituent bodies supporting it. Are there changes to a constitution of any organization that can be made that are not considered changes to the constitution? (I know that that sounds ridiculous when I write it, but that is the contention of some in a hypothetical situation I am hoping that you can clarify for me.) Are there specific changes, such as addition or subtraction of punctuation, that do not require a 2/3 majority, or do any and all changes require it? I think that Mr. Guest's response makes sense, but am seeking clarification of whether the 2/3 majority is optional or required.

Thanks.

[Guest Edgar]

Are there changes to a constitution of any organization that can be made that are not considered changes to the constitution? (I know that that sounds ridiculous when I write it, but that is the contention of some in a hypothetical situation I am hoping that you can clarify for me.) Are there specific changes, such as addition or subtraction of punctuation, that do not require a 2/3 majority, or do any and all changes require it?

The only changes that could be made to the bylaws (or constitution) without going through the formal amendment process would be such things as re-numbering the articles when a new article was inserted (or an existing article deleted). Such "conforming corrections" are discussed on pp.598-599.

But such things as adding or removing punctuation requires formal amendment. When in doubt, amend.

[Gary c Tesser]

What happens when the panda eats, shoots, and leaves?

[Sean Hunt]

p. 599 l. 9

[David A Foulkes]

What happens when the panda eats, shoots, and leaves?

Well, about 135 days later (on average)..... oh, never mind.

[Gary Novosielski]

Recently an issue came up in a meeting that generated a fair amount of discussion among several people familiar with Roberts Rules of Order who have functioned as parliamentarians in various organizations and I would like to get some clarification if I may. It involves a question of whether something qualifies as a constitutional change which would require a 2/3 majority vote, or if a simple 51% majority is sufficient.

The specifics are this:

Several churches in our area provide constituent support for a Christian school that we jointly operate. The Constitution lists the specific churches in the Constituency. Another church has requested to become a member of the Constituency. Some in the group believe, that since the Constitution specifically lists the members of the Constituency, that adding a constituent church would be a change in the constitution. The other group believes that a simple majority is all that is necessary and that adding a specific, listed church, is not a constitutional change.

Can anyone shed any light on this?

Thanks in advance for your help,

Dan M. Appel, Pastor

There's a principle of interpretation that says that if a certain list of things are specifically enumerated in the bylaws, then other things of that class that were omitted are presumed to have been omitted intentionally.

I feel safe in saying that the rules in RONR would require a bylaws amendment to add another constituent organization to that list. Of course the rules for amending your bylaws are contained IN your bylaws, so it's remotely possible that there's some special provision to do this, but it's a long shot. Only a thorough reading of your bylaws (by your membership, not by those here assembled) can rule that out, or in.

[Guest Jovial Jon]

Including some other thoughts:

2. A majority vote and 51% are often not the same. I hope the bylaws don't think they are, and that the OP nodded for a moment.

Please elucidate: what is the difference?

4. . . .

I'd offer one or two citations that immediately come to mind, but I'm over here at the desk tapping at the keyboard while my copy of RONR, 11th Ed, . . . is way over there by the ottoman, under my elbow.)

I hope you manage to get your elbow back; it may help as you type.

[sMargaret]

Please elucidate: what is the difference?

A traditional simple majority is anything over 50%. Over 51% is not the same as over 50%.

True, this doesn't really matter in a situation where you have only a few votes. Suppose, though, you have 200 members voting. 51% of 200 is 102. If you have 101 votes in favour, then this would pass with a simple majority, but fail with a requirement of 51%.

Likewise, do avoid any definition of majority as 50% plus 1, as this is only correct if you have an even number of votes.