Rounding

[aranbee]

I am having difficulty trying to explain tthe bases for determining a voting result as described in RONR, 11th ed., pp 400-406. We have a board member who believes that if the requirement stated in the bylaws results in a fractional number, that the resulting number must be rounded up or down to the nearest integer. I've tried to explain that when the requirement ends up a fractional number, RONR doesn't permit rounding the fractional number up or down because that would result in changing the requirement, which is not permitted. The voting results, which are always an integral number, either exceeds the fractional number requirement, or they don't. Although I believe the numerical examples in RONR are quite clear, I could find no specific references to "rounding."

Has anyone ever encountered a similar situation and is there a simpler explanation that might make make it easier for this person to understand?

[George Mervosh]

Do the examples on p. 400, lines 16-18 (where they show a fractional parenthetic number on line 16 and 18) help for a majority vote? Also point him to the words "at least" on p. 401 line 9.

[David A Foulkes]

I could find no specific references to "rounding."

That's because, of course, there is none. But I suspect you knew that.

Has anyone ever encountered a similar situation....

Yes, many have posted this same type of question (i.e. rounding).

....is there a simpler explanation that might make make it easier for this person to understand?

Probably not. But stay tuned.

[g40]

I am having difficulty trying to explain tthe bases for determining a voting result as described in RONR, 11th ed., pp 400-406. We have a board member who believes that if the requirement stated in the bylaws results in a fractional number, that the resulting number must be rounded up or down to the nearest integer. I've tried to explain that when the requirement ends up a fractional number, RONR doesn't permit rounding the fractional number up or down because that would result in changing the requirement, which is not permitted. The voting results, which are always an integral number, either exceeds the fractional number requirement, or they don't. Although I believe the numerical examples in RONR are quite clear, I could find no specific references to "rounding."

Has anyone ever encountered a similar situation and is there a simpler explanation that might make make it easier for this person to understand?

Have you given this board member the relevant sections of RONR or RONRIB that explain "majority" and "2/3 vote"? Do you have any other fractional requirements in your bylaws other than the ones in RONR?

[Guest Edgar]

Although I believe the numerical examples in RONR are quite clear, I could find no specific references to "rounding."

You'll find the r-word here.

As Mr. Mervosh noted, the key words are "at least".

Ask your numerically challenged board member this: If he were in charge of safety at a playground and the sign said, "You must weigh at least two-thirds of your friend's weight to go on the seesaw" and the kid's friend weighed 101 pounds, would he let a kid who weighed 67 pounds on the seesaw? If he says "yes" ask him what he'll say to the judge when he's sued for the injuries the underweight kid sustained by being thrown from the seesaw.

[Tim Wynn]

Ask your numerically challenged board member this: If he were in charge of safety at a playground . . .

. . . is there a simpler explanation . . .?

Maybe try telling him that all the parliamentarians agree with you . . . even the good ones.

[aranbee]

Fortunately, our bylaws have no requirements other than a majority and 2/3. I have indicated to this individual where in RONR he can find numerical examples. Apparently, he does not own a copy to refer to. I guess I will have to bring my copy to the next board meeting and hope that helps.

I believe this member’s confusion stems from the fact that at one time he served on a board or committee where the voting results were misinterpreted. When a question came up on how to interpret the results of a vote, another member reasoned that since you couldn’t have a fractional vote you rounded the requirement to the nearest integer. Because of this other member’s profession, everyone accepted the incorrect interpretation and, as described to me, rounded the requirement to the nearest integer (down). Thus, a motion was declared as having passed that shouldn’t have been.

[jstackpo]

"Because of this other member’s profession..."

A lawyer?

[g40]

A lawyer?

I had the same thought.

[David A Foulkes]

Thus, a motion was declared as having passed that shouldn’t have been.

I believe, with this little tidbit of information, it's too late to do anything about the incorrect voting result announcement. A Point of Order would have had to be timely, which is to say made at the time of the announcement prior to next item of business being placed on the floor. Some options that are available (assuming the meeting has been adjourned by now) are to Rescind the motion, or to move to Amend Something Previously Adopted, if any changes to the adopted motion might be acceptable to the assembly.

[Shmuel Gerber]

I am having difficulty trying to explain the bases for determining a voting result as described in RONR, 11th ed., pp 400-406. We have a board member who believes that if the requirement stated in the bylaws results in a fractional number, that the resulting number must be rounded up or down to the nearest integer. I've tried to explain that when the requirement ends up a fractional number, RONR doesn't permit rounding the fractional number up or down because that would result in changing the requirement, which is not permitted. The voting results, which are always an integral number, either exceeds the fractional number requirement, or they don't. Although I believe the numerical examples in RONR are quite clear, I could find no specific references to "rounding."

Has anyone ever encountered a similar situation and is there a simpler explanation that might make make it easier for this person to understand?

Perhaps your friend is not the only one that is confused. It's true that the fractional number of votes required doesn't get rounded up or down, but it may effectively get rounded up -- as you can see in the examples in RONR, 11th ed., pp. 400-401, where more than 9½ becomes 10, more than 10½ becomes 11, 20⅔ becomes 21, and 21⅓ becomes 22.

You might also want to take a look at the first two lines of the sample Tellers' Report on page 417, where the numerical limit of "more than 48½" is uncouthly disguised as its older integer brother 49.

[Weldon Merritt]

I believe, with this little tidbit of information, it's too late to do anything about the incorrect voting result announcement. A Point of Order would have had to be timely, which is to say made at the time of the announcement prior to next item of business being placed on the floor. Some options that are available (assuming the meeting has been adjourned by now) are to Rescind the motion, or to move to Amend Something Previously Adopted, if any changes to the adopted motion might be acceptable to the assembly.

I think B. Formhals was referring to a previous meeting of another organization at which the improper rounding down had occured, and where the confused member's confusion arose, rather than to a meeting of B. Formhals' own organization. Or maybe you have it right and I am confused (about the meeting, not about the impropriety of rounding down).

[aranbee]

I think B. Formhals was referring to a previous meeting of another organization at which the improper rounding down had occured,

Yes, that is correct.

I was told the "other" member of the other organization was a lawyer which was why, I believe, everyone accepted his reasoning

I understand that the fractional requirement is effectively rounded up but I thought my fellow board member was confused enough that I felt it would be easier for him to understand if I simply said that you don't round the fractional requirement at all because that would mean you would be changing the requirement, which is not permitted. The vote is either less than the fraction (motion fails) or greater than the fraction (motion passes).

[Gary Novosielski]

Perhaps your friend is not the only one that is confused. It's true that the fractional number of votes required doesn't get rounded up or down, but it may effectively get rounded up -- as you can see in the examples in RONR, 11th ed., pp. 400-401, where more than 9½ becomes 10, more than 10½ becomes 11, 20⅔ becomes 21, and 21⅓ becomes 22

I think it's confusing to suggest that rounding is involved here.

The fact that 10 is more than 9½ does not mean that rounding occurred; it merely means that two numbers can be compared, and one may be found to be greater than the other, even though one of the numbers happens to be an integer.

At no time does 20⅔ "become" 21, simply because someone has noticed that 21 is greater than 20⅔. In general, when comparing two numbers, whether integers, fractions, or even irrational numbers, it is only necessary to note the difference between them, if any. It is never necessary to change either one.

[sMargaret]

Something that may or may not help with the confused friend - it is possible to have fractional votes (albeit not common). If 20.5 votes are cast, and 20⅓ is required, then you definitely wouldn't be rounding up to 21 votes required.

"The vote is either less than the fraction (motion fails) or greater than the fraction (motion passes)." - perfect synopsis.

[Dan Honemann]

I think it's confusing to suggest that rounding is involved here.

In the ordinary case, if a ballot vote is taken on a motion requiring a two-thirds vote for its adoption and 53 votes are cast, the tellers’ report should show, as the number of votes necessary for adoption, 36 and not 35 1/3.

So if rounding isn’t involved here, what do you call it (as a matter of parliamentary law)?

[George Mervosh]

I remember the good ole days when that guy from the Briarcliff Theosophical Society used to ride in on his white horse and nail down these tricky math questions with one post......

[Tim Wynn]

In the ordinary case, if a ballot vote is taken on a motion requiring a two-thirds vote for its adoption and 53 votes are cast, the tellers’ report should show, as the number of votes necessary for adoption, 36 and not 35 1/3.

So if rounding isn’t involved here, what do you call it (as a matter of parliamentary law)?

Translating.