Guest One Half Posted March 20, 2015 at 12:35 AM Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 at 12:35 AM We have a body of 11 members. Our constitution defines quorum as "one more than one-half of the total." Half of 11 is 5.5. One more than half of 11 is 6.5. What is our quorum? Since you cannot have half a person, must we round up to 7? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted March 20, 2015 at 12:48 AM Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 at 12:48 AM Your bylaws use non-standard language for defining a quorum and a majority, so the members of your organization will have to interpret that provision for themselves. RONR defines a majority as "more than half". That would be 6 in your case.... if you were using the RONR definition. But, you're not. However, using the definition of a majority in RONR as a starting point, I would say "one more than one-half of the total" would be 7 if you have 11 members. Just as with the RONR definition of a majority, you can't have half a person, so you round up. Since one more than half of 11 is 6 1/2, but you can't have half a person, you round up. 6 people would not be one more than half. it would be one-half more than half. You must have AT LEAST one more than half using using the definition in your bylaws.... in my opinion. Since it is outside the RONR definition of majority, what I think doesn't really matter. What matters is what the majority of your membership thinks. Or "one more than one half of the total" membership. You get to sort that one out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Coronite Posted March 20, 2015 at 12:54 AM Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 at 12:54 AM We have a body of 11 members. Our constitution defines quorum as "one more than one-half of the total." Half of 11 is 5.5. One more than half of 11 is 6.5. What is our quorum? Since you cannot have half a person, must we round up to 7? well, if you round down to 6, you won't meet your threshold of 6.5, so...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanielEHayes Posted March 20, 2015 at 02:07 AM Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 at 02:07 AM See FAQ #5: http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#5Edit: I had it like that which Mr Brown posted and I was trying to imbed the link in some text..it didnt work apparently and my internet Went out about then, so I wasn't able to check. Thanks to him for covering my back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted March 20, 2015 at 02:35 AM Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 at 02:35 AM We have a body of 11 members. Our constitution defines quorum as "one more than one-half of the total." Half of 11 is 5.5. One more than half of 11 is 6.5. What is our quorum? Since you cannot have half a person, must we round up to 7? See FAQ #5Try this link instead for FAQ # 5: http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#5 Edited to add: The same principle will apply to calculating your quorum requirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted March 20, 2015 at 12:02 PM Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 at 12:02 PM Your bylaws use non-standard language for defining a quorum and a majority . . . The cited bylaws make no mention of a majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted March 20, 2015 at 02:03 PM Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 at 02:03 PM The cited bylaws make no mention of a majority.And that's part of the problem. I'm willing to bet that whoever drafted that provision was trying to define a majority (or to require a majority of members for a quorum), but didn't know how to go about it or how to say it and didn't know that the word "majority" has a clearly defined meaning in parliamentary procedure. I'm also quite confident that the math and process involved in calculating a majority is the same as the math and process used in calculating "one more than one-half of the total", the key being that you do the math and then round up... which is what Guest One Half was wondering about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted March 20, 2015 at 06:02 PM Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 at 06:02 PM I'm willing to bet that whoever drafted that provision was trying to define a majority (or to require a majority of members for a quorum), but didn't know how to go about it or how to say it and didn't know that the word "majority" has a clearly defined meaning in parliamentary procedure. Well, whatever they were trying to do, they ended up with a quorum requirement that is not at all ambiguous and doesn't rely on the proper meaning of "majority". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.