Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Abstention within a Quorum


Guest SMBowen

Recommended Posts

I have searched the forum and read the results regarding abstention and quorum voting and also FAQ#6 and I am still a little confused.
 
FAQ#6 states:
"On the other hand, if the vote required is a majority or two thirds of the members present, or a majority or two thirds of the entire membership, an abstention will have the same effect as a “no” vote. Even in such a case, however, an abstention is not a vote and is not counted as a vote."

 

 
I am confused because it says an abstention will be a no vote then follows up with abstention is not counted as a vote, so which is it?
 
Our situation that is being debated is this:
 
100 current voting members
60 in attendance
 
30 vote yes
15 vote no
15 abstain
 
Under strict Roberts Rules of Order does it pass or not?
 
Now with a direct quote from our bylaws:
 
SECTION 4: Quorum/Majority & Plurality Votes:
A. Quorum: Fifty-one percent (51%), but never less than twenty (20), of the voting members shall constitute a quorum. A quorum is essential to conduct any meeting. In the absence of a quorum for a monthly meeting, the Board of Directors shall be authorized to pay and all bills due at that time.
B. Majority Vote: All matters shall be considered passed after approval of a two-thirds majority (66%) of the voting members present at any meeting except in those instances noted in these By-Laws where a different percentage is required.

 

 
I think that if we are going to follow Roberts Rules our Section 4:B should be updated so that it doesn't state 66% of voting members present, because that negates the abstention vote.
 
Any thoughts or comments would be greatly appreciated!
 
Thanks!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under the scenario you gave us, the 30 yes votes are not sufficient for a motion to pass.  Your bylaws require the affirmative vote of 66 percent of the members present.  60 members were present.  30 is less than 66 percent of 60.  It is exactly 50 percent of 60.

 

The motion WOULD pass if your vote requirement was an ordinary majority vote (which means a majority of those present and voting, ignoring abstentions) or even a two thirds vote. 30 to 15 is exactly a two thirds vote.   But it would NOT pass if your requirement is 66 percent of the members PRESENT rather than members present and voting.

 

btw, 66 percent is not two thirds, although it is  close.  Two thirds is 66.66 percent.   A two thirds vote of 100 is 67, but 66 percent of 100 is only 66.   Two thirds of 1,000 is 667, but 66 percent of 1,000 is only 660.    It makes a difference.  A difference of seven votes if you have 1,000 people voting  at a convention.

 

An easy way to calculate whether you have two thirds of those present and voting (rather than of those present) is to double the no votes.  If you have a two thirds vote, the yes votes will be at least twice the no votes.  Thus, in your example, a vote of 30 to 15 is exactly a two thirds vote of those members present and voting, but  not of members present.

 

Your bylaws erroneously refer to  a two thirds vote as being 66 percent.  As I said above, it's not.  It's 66.66 (or 66.66666666 on to infinity).  That erroneous definition leads to another problem: Since a two thirds vote and 66 percent are not the same thing, which one should be used?  The two-thirds  figure or the 66 percent figure?  They can lead to a different result  with a base of as few as 50 votes.  66 percent of 50 is 33, but two thirds of 50 is 34.

 

It's up to your organization if it wants to require a two thirds (or  66 percent) vote of members present rather than the customary majority vote to adopt motions.  The RONR default is that a motion passes with a majority vote (which, remember, is a majority of those present and voting....not  of those present).  And majority means simply "more than half".... not 51 percent.  Big difference.

 

See FAQ No's 4 and 5:  http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#4

 

btw, FAQ No 6 does not say that an abstention is a no vote.  It says that when the vote is based on the members present or on the entire membership, rather than the normal "members present and voting", an abstention has the EFFECT of a no vote.  But, it is not a vote.  It also  doesn't matter, because if you need two thirds of 60 members PRESENT to vote yes in order for a motion to pass, all that matters is whether you have 40 yes votes.  It doesn't matter whether the other votes are no votes or abstentions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's possible that the motion did pass, given the details, though it goes to the matter of interpreting bylaws.

 

The OP states the bylaws require "a two-thirds majority (66%) of the voting members present" for a motion to be adopted.  It's somewhat unclear if that refers to a vote of 2/3 of the members present (likely) or a 2/3 vote and the bylaws are specifying that the voting is to be done only by members who are present (probably less likely).  It would be much clearer if the bylaws contained the RONR language specified on p. 403.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have searched the forum and read the results regarding abstention and quorum voting and also FAQ#6 and I am still a little confused.

 

FAQ#6 states:

 

"On the other hand, if the vote required is a majority or two thirds of the members present, or a majority or two thirds of the entire membership, an abstention will have the same effect as a “no” vote. Even in such a case, however, an abstention is not a vote and is not counted as a vote."

  

I am confused because it says an abstention will be a no vote then follows up with abstention is not counted as a vote, so which is it?

 

No, it does not say that an abstention is a No vote.  It says that in some specific narrow instances, an abstention can have the effect of a no vote.  But an abstention is not a vote, never was, never will be.

 

Just as a right turn is not a left turn, and never will be.  Yet making three right turns can have the effect of making a left turn.  That does not mean that left is the same as right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 66% piece was already one of my many red inked items. This discussion has come up because I have argued the counting of the votes were incorrect and the response has always been we are following Robert's Rules and abstentions are the same as "No", just like voting "present" so I would argue back that is the case with a standing number of voters, but because we are basing the numbers out of a quorum abstentions are not "present, but not voting". They eventually pulled up the bylaws and then the 2/3 of voters present was written so they were correct, but with the incorrect source.

 

This along with a few other of my contentions with our bylaws has landed me on the Bylaws Committee, so I will be proposing quite a few changes. There will be the correction of 2/3 versus 66% and also change of counting from 2/3 of present voters to 2/3 of present and voting. One other major change I am going to propose is to set up a bicameral system; this is all for a volunteer fire department and we regularly have votes that go back and forth between associate members and operational members and the operational members are regularly outnumbered by the associate members by 2-1.

 

Thanks all for the comments!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This along with a few other of my contentions with our bylaws has landed me on the Bylaws Committee, so I will be proposing quite a few changes. There will be the correction of 2/3 versus 66% and also change of counting from 2/3 of present voters to 2/3 of present and voting. One other major change I am going to propose is to set up a bicameral system; this is all for a volunteer fire department and we regularly have votes that go back and forth between associate members and operational members and the operational members are regularly outnumbered by the associate members by 2-1.

 

Glad we could help. 

 

If you don't already have it, I urge you to get a copy of the 11th edition (the current edition) of RONR.  I also urge you, when amending the bylaws, to use provisions which closely mirror the provisions in RONR.  I have learned that almost every word in RONR is there for a reason and most of the provisions have been time tested.  For example, there is no need for the bylaws to try to further define "majority vote" or "two thirds vote" or "vote of two thirds of the members present" as those terms are clearly defined in RONR and leave no room for ambiguity.  (See pages 4 and 400-405). 

 

When you start tinkering with the language....even in a minor way....  in an attempt to add clarity, you very often only create additional confusion because your bylaws then say something different from the standard in RONR.  I strongly urge you to use language straight out of RONR whenever possible, especially in voting thresholds.

 

RONR has absolutely nothing to say about a "bicameral" system (the word does not appear in the book even once), so you're on your own there.

 

Edited to add:  I have a question.  Why do you want a two thirds vote requirement for the adoption of routine motions rather than the standard majority vote?   That's up to your organization to decide, but it is rather unusual and has me curious.  Usually a two thirds vote requirement is used only for such things as bylaw amendments, suspending the rules, limiting debate, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RONR has absolutely nothing to say about a "bicameral" system (the word does not appear in the book even once), so you're on your own there.

The only parliamentary authority I am aware of which discusses procedures for a bicameral system is Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure. This is, however, primarily used by state legislatures, and is probably overkill for a volunteer fire department.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have searched the forum and read the results regarding abstention and quorum voting . . . 

 

. . .  because we are basing the numbers out of a quorum abstentions are not "present, but not voting".

 

I think you are misusing the word "quorum". It does not refer to the number of members present. It's the minimum number of members who must be present in order for any substantive business to be conducted.

 

If, for example, there are 100 members in an organization and the quorum requirement is 20%, at least 20 members must be present. If 30 members are present the quorum isn't 30.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you all again!

 

I do have a copy of the RONR and the RROB. I completely agree that if we establish we will follow the current RONR at the beginning of our bylaws we need to thin out our current bylaws to only articulate what we need explained not attempt to restate RONR.

 

My plan with the bicameral is to reduce the voting to standard majority within both bodies for routine motions and leave two thirds for amendments, funding, etc. I agree that Mason's Manual would be overkill. I am not looking to have different rules for each of the bodies, just that it has to pass majority of each body for shared items and that Operational Members vote on wholly operational items (operational member of the year, staffing or rig changes, etc.), Associates vote on associate related items. The only exception may be Member of the Year and do a simple majority across the whole department. I am still working some of the scenarios out on paper to see how best to address it all but it is frustrating seeing the back and forth between the two sides. Last meeting we had a motion to open up board positions for nominations (so we could attempt to put operational members on the board and try to even it out a little) and our motion was denied because the associates voted against the motion so incumbents (majority are associates) ran unopposed.

 

You are correct I am misusing quorum, I know that the quorum is the minimum number, I was trying to use it as an adjective for the voting situation of an achieved quorom then a voting by the eligible members that are present. I will make sure I fully and correctly articulate it when in the formal setting of bylaw discussion and documentation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My plan with the bicameral is to reduce the voting to standard majority within both bodies for routine motions and leave two thirds for amendments, funding, etc. I agree that Mason's Manual would be overkill. I am not looking to have different rules for each of the bodies, just that it has to pass majority of each body for shared items and that Operational Members vote on wholly operational items (operational member of the year, staffing or rig changes, etc.), Associates vote on associate related items. The only exception may be Member of the Year and do a simple majority across the whole department. I am still working some of the scenarios out on paper to see how best to address it all but it is frustrating seeing the back and forth between the two sides. Last meeting we had a motion to open up board positions for nominations (so we could attempt to put operational members on the board and try to even it out a little) and our motion was denied because the associates voted against the motion so incumbents (majority are associates) ran unopposed.

Most of this sounds fine, but a bicameral system is always going to be somewhat complicated. It's all well and good to say that particular motions have to be adopted by each body, but since there is the possibility of amendments, and therefore the motion adopted by one body might not be exactly the same as the motion adopted by the other body, this complicates the issue considerably.

I'm not necessarily saying a bicameral system is a bad idea (that will be for your organization to decide), but it is certainly a complex system which will require a number of special rules of order to function properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 . . .  we regularly have votes that go back and forth between associate members and operational members and the operational members are regularly outnumbered by the associate members by 2-1.

 

Then it seems unlikely the associate members will support a change to the bylaws that dilutes their authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then it seems unlikely the associate members will support a change to the bylaws that dilutes their authority.

Completely agree and know that it will be an uphill battle. Hopefully enough competent members will understand the intent and support it.

 

 

 

​Definitely going to be several iterations of bylaws to try and get it right if we are going to set up a bicameral system. I might be spending a lot more time here!

Thanks again for all the educational information!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might be spending a lot more time here!

 

Then you might want to become a member. No salesman will call.

 

As for a "bicameral" system, I can't help but think there might be a better way to achieve what you want. A little more "outside the box" thinking might do the trick. There's very little that hasn't been done before (nothing new under the sun?) so you might not need to reinvent the wheel. What, for example, do other fire companies do? Surely there must be some with a similar organizational structure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the subject of seperating the members of your department, in my old department we had active members (firefighters) and associate members (non-firefighters). It was celarly defined in the secion on associate members that they could not vote on firematic (operational) matters. This came to a head once when an associate member objected to buying a fire engine, and there was a screaming match on the meeting floor. However ultimately it came down to there being no prohibition on associate members speaking on such matters, they just could not vote.

 

That might solve your problem, in that they could then vote on all the other issues, but not on the operational issues. They can help decide on roast beef versus chicken at the annual dinner but can never tell you not to get new helmets to comply with an NFPA standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...