LJUDSON Posted May 22, 2015 at 05:24 PM Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 at 05:24 PM We recently held our AGM and were looking to pass several bylaw changes. Our bylaws state that we require a 3/4 majority of the members present to pass changes. We now have in dispute two changes that actually only had 72% majority but were recorded as passed and no one disputed at the time. My question is if it is too late dispute once they are recorded as passed or if we need to change them to not passed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted May 22, 2015 at 05:50 PM Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 at 05:50 PM I think it is too late to raise a point of order in this case. Official Interpretation 2006-18 may be of use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted May 22, 2015 at 06:01 PM Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 at 06:01 PM Our bylaws state that we require a 3/4 majority of the members present to pass changes. That's unfortunate, since majority and 3/4 vote mean different things. You can have a majority vote, or a 3/4 vote, but a majority 3/4 vote is like an invisible red hat. It can be invisible, or it can be red, but it can't be both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted May 22, 2015 at 06:09 PM Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 at 06:09 PM That's unfortunate, since majority and 3/4 vote mean different things. You can have a majority vote, or a 3/4 vote, but a majority 3/4 vote is like an invisible red hat. It can be invisible, or it can be red, but it can't be both. A majority is more than half. Three-fourths is more than half. Therefore three-fourths is a majority (one of an infinite number of possible majorities). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ljudson Posted May 22, 2015 at 06:30 PM Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 at 06:30 PM Okay sorry, they state "a three quarters vote of the voting members present " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted May 22, 2015 at 06:43 PM Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 at 06:43 PM A majority is more than half. Three-fourths is more than half. Yes, with respect to actual votes, that's certainly true. I was addressing the voting threshold for a particular decision. Therefore three-fourths is a majority (one of an infinite number of possible majorities). Surely not an infinite number, unless the club has an infinite number of members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted May 22, 2015 at 07:36 PM Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 at 07:36 PM Our bylaws state that we require a 3/4 majority of the members present to pass changes. Okay sorry, they state "a three quarters vote of the voting members present " This is an even more unfortunate wording (but I'm sure it's not your fault). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted May 22, 2015 at 08:36 PM Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 at 08:36 PM Our bylaws state that we require a 3/4 majority of the members present to pass changes. That's unfortunate, since majority and 3/4 vote mean different things. You can have a majority vote, or a 3/4 vote, but a majority 3/4 vote is like an invisible red hat. It can be invisible, or it can be red, but it can't be both. Okay sorry, they state "a three quarters vote of the voting members present " This is an even more unfortunate wording (but I'm sure it's not your fault).I'm glad you see it that way. I do, too. I felt confident about the meaning of the first statement, but have no clue what the second one means. I keep flip-flopping on how I would interpret it. Unless someone knows something I don't, it looks to me like LJudson's organization is going to have to interpret that provision itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted May 26, 2015 at 07:05 PM Report Share Posted May 26, 2015 at 07:05 PM The problem there is that the term "voting member" can be interpreted two ways: A member who has voted.A member who has the right to vote.The second interpretation is the one used (almost?) exclusively in RONR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KloakandDaggerNupe Posted June 3, 2015 at 04:36 PM Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 at 04:36 PM My question is concerned with "voting by ballot". If not specified in the bylaws but the chair sends an email to members stating that during the upcoming vote on potential members, current members MUST be present for the entire presentation of the potential members' application prior to receiving a ballot to vote. Is this a legal request when this is NOT stated in the bylaws. If members who working have to come late but miss the start of the application presentation will not be able to vote. This seems anathematic to RONR. Bobby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted June 3, 2015 at 04:46 PM Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 at 04:46 PM Bobby, it would be best if you would post your question as a new topic. You can find instructions here: http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/25416-important-read-this-first-information-for-new-members-and-guests/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted June 3, 2015 at 04:47 PM Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 at 04:47 PM My question is concerned with "voting by ballot". If not specified in the bylaws but the chair sends an email to members stating that during the upcoming vote on potential members, current members MUST be present for the entire presentation of the potential members' application prior to receiving a ballot to vote. Is this a legal request when this is NOT stated in the bylaws. If members who working have to come late but miss the start of the application presentation will not be able to vote. This seems anathematic to RONR. Bobby Nothing in RONR gives the chair the right to demand this. It's completely improper. The member only needs to be present to cast his vote before the polls close. " It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the right to vote is limited to the members of an organization who are actually present at the time the vote is taken in a regular or properly called meeting, although it should be noted that a member need not be present when the question is put." RONR (11th ed.), p. 423 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Suzanne Leone Posted June 5, 2015 at 06:56 PM Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 at 06:56 PM Our awards committee selected a woman of the year with 3/4 majority. One month later, the chair of the committee presented the award to someone else. The committee was upset and asked for a ruling by the state parliamentarian, and she said the vote should stand. Everyone felt terrible and the committee voted to have two women of the year. Now there is a new administration, and the chair is President. She has called a meeting to vote on having just one woman, the woman she chose, not the committee. Is this correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted June 5, 2015 at 07:00 PM Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 at 07:00 PM Suzanne, would you post your question as a new topic? The forum works best that way. This post (the only pinned post in the general discussion forum) gives you instructions: http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/25416-important-read-this-first-information-for-new-members-and-guests/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest New Guest Posted June 7, 2015 at 03:44 PM Report Share Posted June 7, 2015 at 03:44 PM Can the president just appoint a new board member without a motion and vote taken from floor on that appointment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted June 7, 2015 at 03:46 PM Report Share Posted June 7, 2015 at 03:46 PM Can the president just appoint a new board member without a motion and vote taken from floor on that appointment? Please start a new topic to ask your question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dick Lotz Posted June 10, 2015 at 09:44 PM Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 at 09:44 PM In a committee meeting with the President as a member of that committee does the President have voting rights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted June 10, 2015 at 09:57 PM Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 at 09:57 PM In a committee meeting with the President as a member of that committee does the President have voting rights . . . it would be best if you would post your question as a new topic. You can find instructions here: http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/25416-important-read-this-first-information-for-new-members-and-guests/ . . .would you post your question as a new topic? The forum works best that way. This post (the only pinned post in the general discussion forum) gives you instructions: http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/25416-important-read-this-first-information-for-new-members-and-guests/ Please start a new topic to ask your question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.