Abstentions and simple majorities

[Guest Charlie]

I made a motion at the last department meeting and there was a vote. 5 people voted in favor of my proposal and 0 voted against. 11 people abstained. 16 people is a quorum. I don't know why they abstained but it does not matter.

The bylaws of the constitution require just a simple majority and then defers to Robert's rules.

Here is what I can get from doing a little research:

1) Abstentions are not votes—in fact, it is an oxymoron because if you abstain, you are refusing to vote.

2) Therefore there are only two choices—to pass or to reject the motion.

3) There was a quorum present

4) A plurality is not mentioned in the bylaws nor is the requirement that a majority be of the persons present. It just calls for simple majority. Besides, an abstention is not a vote choice--it is a choice to not vote.

5) Majority vote is defined as more than half of the votes cast by those entitled to vote, excluding blanks or abstentions, at a meeting at which a quorum is present.

So, my motion passed. Am I wrong?

[Gary Novosielski]

You left out the most important part: Did the chair state that the motion was adopted, or not? And what if anything happened after that?

In general, under the conditions you mention, I would have expected the chair to have declared the motion adopted. But there's a lot of truth in what actually happens.

[jstackpo]

Correct on (almost) all counts.

The term "simple" majority is not found in RONR - it adds nothing to the meaning of "majority vote" which, as you correctly note, is more than half of the votes cast.

Of course, you could be referring to the intelligence level of the voters, but that is another story...

Did someone claim your motion was defeated? That would be a very "simple" claim.

[Guest Charlie]

The minutes of the meeting say this:

"Since a majority of those present and voting did not vote yes, the motion was defeated."

[jstackpo]

Well... now we, or rather you, may have a problem. The minutes appear to be simply wrong (based on what you posted initially) which can, and should, be corrected next meeting when they come up for approval.

However... As Gary (@ #2) asked you: Did the chair, right after the vote, actually say the words "Motion Defeated" or the equivalent?

And if he did, did anyone (you, one would hope) raise a point of order that the chair's declaration was in error?

Let us know the answers and we can figure out where to go next.

[Guest Guest]

Those who voted for were shocked by the abstentions and were busy trying to figure out what was going on. There was no point of order called. I will see if the meeting was recorded but I can't quote the chair for certain. I do not think he made a declaration. What if he did?

[jstackpo]

If he did -- and presumably someone must have declared something for the minutes to contain the cited information -- and no timely point of order was raised (it had to happen right away, p. 250) the defeat of your motion is final. It's a done deal.

However, you, or anybody else, is free to (simply!) make your motion again, next meeting, presuming the next meeting is also a new session. It's called "Renewing" the motion - p. 336.

But meanwhile give a copy of RONRIB to the chair as an Easter (or whatever) gift:

RONRIB:

"Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief", Updated Second Edition (Da Capo Press, Perseus Books Group, 2011). It is a splendid summary of all the rules you will really need in all but the most exceptional situations. And only $7.50! You can read it in an evening. Get both RONRIB and RONR (scroll down) at this link.

[Guest Guest]

I listened to the recording of the meeting. The vote was taken as a show of hands and the Chair counted 5 in favor and 0 opposed, and 11 abstentions. There was a brief pause and then he said "OK, next item on the agenda..." Nothing else was said.

Therefore, he did not declare. So, now what?

[jstackpo]

Now what? I dunno. RONR asumes that chairs do their job properly.

I suppose, when the minutes come up for approval next meeting, you could argue that, since no declaration was made, the secretary was incorrect in making the assertion of "defeat" written in the minutes. The minutes should be then corrected to simply state the vote numbers, and the chair at the current meeting should declare the motion adopted. The adoption of you motion would then be stated in the minutes of the current meeting, not those of the meeting just past.

BTW, RONR does not require that vote counts be entered in minutes, the only requirement is just a statement of the motion itself and whether it was adopted, defeated, (or other possibilties).

[Sean Hunt]

I suppose, when the minutes come up for approval next meeting, you could argue that, since no declaration was made, the secretary was incorrect in making the assertion of "defeat" written in the minutes. The minutes should be then corrected to simply state the vote numbers, and the chair at the current meeting should declare the motion adopted. The adoption of you motion would then be stated in the minutes of the current meeting, not those of the meeting just past.

I agree. The business was never resolved one way or the other, so it is technically unfinished. The chair should just declare the motion adopted once the next meeting gets to unfinished business.

[Guest Guest]

Thank you very much. This has been very interesting and quite fun!

I think the minutes are now considered draft because the secretary asked for corrections. I asked that they just say "The motion passed." They will need to be adopted next meeting.

I however, can imagine those who abstained might say they actually thought an abstention was a vote. But I suppose ignorance is no excuse once the vote is cast?

I also suppose if they adopt the minutes, I am good to go. But could they not adopt the corrected minutes and then ask for a re-vote on the motion?

[Guest Guest]

The bylaws of the constitution require just a simple majority and then defers to Robert's rules.

Please define "simple majority" by telling us what that sentence or two from your bylaws says, exactly. It may not be so simple.

[Guest Charlie]

Here is what the College bylaws say: Article II College Meetings Section 1. All-College Meetings

C) Motions shall be carried by simple majorities, unless otherwise specified by the most recent version of Robert’s Rules of Order, the College Constitution, or the Bylaws of the College Constitution

[Guest Charlie]

If I can anticipate your next answer, this is quite circular. The constitution refers to the bylaws from which I quoted and does not talk about voting at all.

[George Mervosh]

Here are the problems I see:

1) The bylaws use an undefined term - "simple majorities". Just this snippet seems to show they're not well worded overall.

2) The chair calls for abstentions.

3) The Secretary apparently (according to Charlie's listening of the tape recording) just adds things to the minutes that never occurred (the declaration of which side has it.)

4) The chair can't properly process a motion according to the six basic steps listed in RONR. (RONR, p. 32ff)

5) The members don't call the chair's attention to the omission, leaving the status of the motion up on the air.

6) Our good friend Charlie has a good heart and wants to get it right, but wants the Secretary to add things that never occurred (stating the motion passed when there was no declaration).

Something about Sean Hunt's post has me re-reading it.