Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Amending Bylaws requires 2/3 of council in favor


Recommended Posts

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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).

Edited by George Mervosh
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...