woodlair Posted February 5, 2013 at 03:28 PM Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 at 03:28 PM Greetings!I am looking to send some proposals to amend the bylaws for our organization. During the draft of the proposals, I noticed where it says 2/3 of the council is needed to approve amendments rather than 2/3 of those voting. Problem is, we have not seen 2/3 of the votes being cast in years past, and bylaw amendments have been declared passed with less than the required votes. Therefore, even with an overwhelming majority of votes, the bylaw amendments will fail. How do we move forward to get needed amendments passed when the voters are not voting? Thanks,Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted February 5, 2013 at 03:32 PM Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 at 03:32 PM How do we move forward to get needed amendments passed when the voters are not voting? You don't. But you could try replacing the non-voters on the Council with voters. See FAQ #20. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodlair Posted February 5, 2013 at 03:42 PM Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 at 03:42 PM Problem is the members are the voters. There are about 420 voters. Last year we had around 230 votes cast and the bylaw amendment was considered 'passed'. We can't just remove the non-voters as they represent our membership and their organizations are paying dues. I guess we just need to get a campaign going to make sure everyone votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted February 5, 2013 at 03:45 PM Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 at 03:45 PM Problem is the members are the voters. There are about 420 voters. Last year we had around 230 votes cast and the bylaw amendment was considered 'passed'. We can't just remove the non-voters as they represent our membership and their organizations are paying dues. I guess we just need to get a campaign going to make sure everyone votes.You are proposing a bylaw amendment to change the vote required to amend the bylaws, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodlair Posted February 5, 2013 at 03:51 PM Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 at 03:51 PM Yes. Along with some other proposals to allow online voting, change voting structure, and to remove old crap that does not need to be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted February 5, 2013 at 04:03 PM Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 at 04:03 PM I haven't read woodlair's bylaws (and don't plan to, not at any $4.50 an hour I ain't), but from the snippet paraphrased, I'm not convinced that the requ9irement is, indeed, 2/3 of the whole ~420 membership.(George?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodlair Posted February 5, 2013 at 04:07 PM Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 at 04:07 PM Unfortunately, it is the 420. In our membership section, it states that all functioning entities affiliated shall comprise the Council.Later, it states, "These By-laws may be ammended or set aside by a 2/3 majority of the council" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted February 5, 2013 at 04:07 PM Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 at 04:07 PM I'm not convinced that the requirement is, indeed, 2/3 of the whole ~420 membership.And here I am assuming that woodlair knows what he's talking about. Go figure.jENuyp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Goopher Posted February 5, 2013 at 05:17 PM Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 at 05:17 PM How would (or should?) woodlair "cure" the problem of previous amendments being improperly declared as passed?If, indeed, there is a problem to cure, or has passage of time done that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted February 5, 2013 at 05:24 PM Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 at 05:24 PM How would (or should?) woodlair "cure" the problem of previous amendments being improperly declared as passed?If, indeed, there is a problem to cure, or has passage of time done that?There aren't enough solid facts to answer this. It depends on what the vote required to adopt the amendments is. woodlair has posted some language which may be seen as ambiguous. See Official Interpretation 2006-18 but note if the vote required is 2/3 of the entire council, the answer in the first paragraph of the interpretation would not apply (see the first sentence in paragraph 2 of the Authorship Team's answer). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted February 5, 2013 at 07:33 PM Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 at 07:33 PM There aren't enough solid facts to answer this. It depends on what the vote required to adopt the amendments is. woodlair has posted some language which may be seen as ambiguous. See Official Interpretation 2006-18 but note if the vote required is 2/3 of the entire council, the answer in the first paragraph of the interpretation would not apply (see the first sentence in paragraph 2 of the Authorship Team's answer).I don't understand this response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted February 5, 2013 at 07:42 PM Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 at 07:42 PM I don't understand this response. Ugh, reading it an hour later makes me wonder too.Guest Goopher wants to know what happens now.In OI 2006-18 it says:"It should be noted in this connection that a rule requiring a two-thirds vote (or any other fraction) of members present and voting (or of all members present) affords no protection at all to absentees; it affords protection only to a certain fraction of the members present at the time the vote is taken."If woodlair's vote requirement is "a two-thirds vote (or any other fraction) of members present and voting (or of all members present)", there would be no continuing breach. If a vote of 2/3 of his council is required a point of order can be made at any time that the motion did not received the required number of votes to adopt it.If I got it wrong, please help! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted February 5, 2013 at 07:59 PM Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 at 07:59 PM Ugh, reading it an hour later makes me wonder too.Guest Goopher wants to know what happens now.In OI 2006-18 it says:"It should be noted in this connection that a rule requiring a two-thirds vote (or any other fraction) of members present and voting (or of all members present) affords no protection at all to absentees; it affords protection only to a certain fraction of the members present at the time the vote is taken."If woodlair's vote requirement is "a two-thirds vote (or any other fraction) of members present and voting (or of all members present)", there would be no continuing breach. If a vote of 2/3 of his council is required a point of order can be made at any time that the motion did not received the required number of votes to adopt it.If I got it wrong, please help! No, you didn't get it wrong. Like I said, I didn't understand the response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.