Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

two-thirds majority vote of the voting members present


Guest FRED MOLLWITZ

Recommended Posts

Guest FRED MOLLWITZ

Help!  Just came out of a "constitutional change" vote with a tally of 50 ballots--16/No; 34/Yes--with a sign-in attendance count of 54. 

In such matters our constitutional bylaw states:  "which shall be two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of the voting members present".

However, overriding this detail within our constitution is the following statement:
IN GENERAL, FOR PURPOSES OF ORDER, THE ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER NEWLY REVISED SHALL PREVAIL.
Accordingly, most descriptions I've seen in Roberts Rules explains a simple 2/3 majority among votes cast.
Is this cut and dry or does Roberts allow for the term "majority" total to be numerically applied to among those present--as in the case of our constitution? I find it difficult to understand the interpretation that non-participating voting members present can numerically influence the outcome of a vote?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not cut and dried at all, unfortunately.

 

Your bylaws quotation, which does supersede any conflicting rules in RONR, doesn't fit the precise definitions and specifications of various vote thresholds found in RONR, p. 400ff.  So it will be up to your association to interpret what your phrasing means (see p. 588 for how to initiate that process).

 

And after you do, be sure to amend your bylaws accordingly.

 

And, BTW, it is best if you ask a new question (even though on an old topic) in a "Start New Topic" thread.

 

So ask away when you run into your next problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See pages 400-404 for detailed information on the basis for determining a voting result.  Pay very close attention to the very slight difference in wording (and the arrangement of the words) between "a two thirds vote (of the members present and voting)" and "a vote of two thirds (of the members present). 

 

As Dr. Stackpole said, because of the non-standard wording, it is up to your organization itself to determine whether the wording in your bylaws is an awkward attempt to specify the normal "two thirds vote of the members present and voting" or to require "a vote of two thirds of the members present".     Using the first standard, the motion carried.  Using the second standard, it did not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The language in your bylaws is the result of nearly-worst-case sausage making.

 

 two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of the voting members present

 

  • First, two-thirds and (2/3) mean the same thing and are redundant (and silly-looking).
  • Second, a 2/3 vote and a majority vote are not the same, and don't belong in the same sentence.
  • Third, a 2/3 vote of any group is, by default, 2/3 of those present and voting, so that as long as there are twice as many Yes votes as No votes, the motion  is adopted.
  • Fourth, the phrase "voting members present" is ambiguous.  If it means those who actually vote, then it's simply a 2/3 vote.  If it means those that have the right to vote, I'd have to ask if you have any members without the right to vote?

That's why you're basically on your own when you put non-standard language in your bylaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However......    in either case, if the chairman declared the motion adopted or carried, then that is the end of it, even though he may have been in error.  The "constitutional change" is in place.

 

It is too late now, well after the fact, to raise a point of order about the "correctness" of the vote  (see p. 250 & 408) unless there was something much more egregiously wrong (see p. 251).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...