2/3 Voting questions

[Guest Jedi Knight]

Our group is voting on a new bylaws and Constitution and I need to make sure I'm going in the right direction in some scenario.  

 

At this meeting we are only voting to pass it or not.  We already held discussion previously so it is only a vote.  

 

Someone may want to read a letter in this business meeting....do I have to let them read it?

 

Any changes to our Bylaws and Constitution states we must have 2/3 majority and it does not call for a ballot vote.  IF I as moderator can not tell when the voice vote is taken, do I go by raised hand or should I do ballots to protect myself?

 

If someone calls for a ballot vote, it must be made a motion and seconded, non-debatable then voted on by majority?

 

Can i just say....I hate being moderator.  I just want to do it right.

[Josh Martin]

Someone may want to read a letter in this business meeting....do I have to let them read it?

It's not up to you. The member may request permission to read the letter, and the assembly will decide whether to grant the request. Such requests are often granted by unanimous consent, but a majority vote will settle the issue if there is disagreement.

Any changes to our Bylaws and Constitution states we must have 2/3 majority and it does not call for a ballot vote. IF I as moderator can not tell when the voice vote is taken, do I go by raised hand or should I do ballots to protect myself?

For a motion which requires a 2/3 vote, you should skip the voice vote and go directly to a rising vote. For a motion to amend the constitution or bylaws, unless the vote is nearly unanimous, you should proceed to take a counted rising vote to ensure an accurate result. A show of hands vote is sometimes used as an alternative to a rising vote, but only in small assemblies. You cannot order a ballot vote - only the assembly can do that.

If someone calls for a ballot vote, it must be made a motion and seconded, non-debatable then voted on by majority?

Yes.

[Guest Jedi Knight]

Thank you for your help.  One last question....when I tell every to rise for voting, do I warn them ahead of time?  Well, I guess 2 questions, if I as people to rise and then someone asks for a ballot what do I do?

[Bruce Lages]

If you are in the process of taking the vote - and asking first for those in favor to rise clearly indicates the voting process has begun - then any motion will be out of order. Once voting has begun it cannot be interrupted. A motion for a ballot vote must be made before voting begins.

[Josh Martin]

If you are in the process of taking the vote - and asking first for those in favor to rise clearly indicates the voting process has begun - then any motion will be out of order. Once voting has begun it cannot be interrupted. A motion for a ballot vote must be made before voting begins.

It could also be made immediately after voting ends - that the vote be retaken by ballot.

[Richard Brown]

If you are in the process of taking the vote - and asking first for those in favor to rise clearly indicates the voting process has begun - then any motion will be out of order. Once voting has begun it cannot be interrupted. A motion for a ballot vote must be made before voting begins.

 

It could also be made immediately after voting ends - that the vote be retaken by ballot.

I agree with Mr. Martin on this point.  I don't find anything in RONR that prohibits re-taking a vote by ballot or as a counted vote after voting by a rising vote has started, but several provisions do indicate that a vote can be verified by re-taking it in a different manner, including by ballot, roll call vote and counted rising vote.  See particularly page 410.  I note, however, that a majority will have to agree to re-take the vote by any of those methods except when it is ordered by the chair as noted below.

 

It seems clear that the chair has the authority to order that a rising vote be re-taken as a counted rising vote if he believes the results of the rising vote are inconclusive.  From page 410:

 

"VERIFYING A VOTE. In connection with the methods of voting by voice, by rising, or by show of hands, as explained in Chapter II, if the chair is in doubt on a voice vote or a vote by show of hands, he should retake it as a rising vote and, if necessary to satisfy himself of the result, he should obtain a count of it. Any member, by demanding a Division (29), can require a voice vote or a vote by show of hands to be retaken as a rising vote—but no individual member can compel it to be counted. If the chair does not obtain a count at his own instance and a member thinks one is desirable, he should move that the vote be counted; and if this motion is seconded, the chair must put the question on ordering the count."

[Dan Honemann]

Thank you for your help.  One last question....when I tell every to rise for voting, do I warn them ahead of time?  Well, I guess 2 questions, if I as people to rise and then someone asks for a ballot what do I do?

 

 

If you are in the process of taking the vote - and asking first for those in favor to rise clearly indicates the voting process has begun - then any motion will be out of order. Once voting has begun it cannot be interrupted. A motion for a ballot vote must be made before voting begins.

 

To be just a bit more precise, interruptions during the taking of a vote are permitted only before any member has actually voted (RONR, 11th ed., p. 408, ll. 9-14).

[Guest Jedi Knight]

Good stuff guys.  I was about to ask more questions and you guys really answered my other questions about if vote was taking pace and someone asked at that point for a ballot.  I was looking for a reference.  thanks again as this will help me moderate our meeting better.

.  

[Richard Brown]

Regarding the re-taking of a vote by another method, the following language on pages 408-409 makes clear that re-taking a vote by another method is appropriate, subject to strict time constraints:

 

"TIME LIMITS ON EFFORTS TO CHALLENGE, RETAKE, OR CHANGE A VOTE. After the result of a vote has been announced, members can still propose or demand certain actions that may change the result. A member may raise a point of order regarding the conduct of the vote, demand a division of the assembly, move to retake the vote under another method, move for a recapitulation of a roll-call vote, or request unanimous consent to change his vote. With the exception of a point of order raised against a breach of a continuing [page 409] nature (p. 251, ll. 3–23), if any of these actions is to apply to a vote after the result has been announced, it must be taken immediately after the chair's announcement, before any debate or business has intervened."

 

Edited to add:  I do have a couple of questions for Guest Jedi:  You said, "At this meeting we are only voting to pass it or not.  We already held discussion previously so it is only a vote. "

 

That is a rather unusual method of considering and adopting bylaws (or any other motion).  How was it determined that there will be no discussion (debate) and only a vote at this meeting?

 

Also, what about amendments to the proposed new bylaws?   Will they be allowed at this meeting?  Have amendments already been taken up?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

And if there's no debate, what's the purpose of reading a letter?

[Guest Jedi Knight]

Regarding the re-taking of a vote by another method, the following language on pages 408-409 makes clear that re-taking a vote by another method is appropriate, subject to strict time constraints:

 

"TIME LIMITS ON EFFORTS TO CHALLENGE, RETAKE, OR CHANGE A VOTE. After the result of a vote has been announced, members can still propose or demand certain actions that may change the result. A member may raise a point of order regarding the conduct of the vote, demand a division of the assembly, move to retake the vote under another method, move for a recapitulation of a roll-call vote, or request unanimous consent to change his vote. With the exception of a point of order raised against a breach of a continuing [page 409] nature (p. 251, ll. 3–23), if any of these actions is to apply to a vote after the result has been announced, it must be taken immediately after the chair's announcement, before any debate or business has intervened."

 

Edited to add:  I do have a couple of questions for Guest Jedi:  You said, "At this meeting we are only voting to pass it or not.  We already held discussion previously so it is only a vote. "

 

That is a rather unusual method of considering and adopting bylaws (or any other motion).  How was it determined that there will be no discussion (debate) and only a vote at this meeting?

 

Also, what about amendments to the proposed new bylaws?   Will they be allowed at this meeting?  Have amendments already been taken up?

We held a meeting for our members to ask questions or make suggests to the committee that is re-writing our bylaws and constitution.   The committee then took those suggestions and either added them or modified or did nothing.  

[Josh Martin]

We held a meeting for our members to ask questions or make suggests to the committee that is re-writing our bylaws and constitution.   The committee then took those suggestions and either added them or modified or did nothing.

That's all well and good, but it must be understood that when the revision is considered at the meeting, debate and amendments are still in order. If it is desired to skip straight to the vote, a member will need to move for the Previous Question, which requires a 2/3 vote for adoption.

[Guest Jedi Knight]

That's all well and good, but it must be understood that when the revision is considered at the meeting, debate and amendments are still in order. If it is desired to skip straight to the vote, a member will need to move for the Previous Question, which requires a 2/3 vote for adoption.

According to our current bylaws and any amendment must take 28 days.........we would have never ending meetings.  I really appreciate all of your help and I'm not be combative.  We are a small church and I just have 2 people that are.....well questioning every little detail.  It is a very personal thing they have against members of the bylaws committee.  I'm just a pastor trying to preach God's word on Sunday and I'm more concerned about the gospel.

[Edgar Guest]

Can i just say....I hate being moderator.  I just want to do it right.

 

I'm just a pastor trying to preach God's word on Sunday and I'm more concerned about the gospel.

 

Perhaps a separation of church and state is in order?

 

In other words, having the same person serve as both pastor and moderator might not be the best arrangement.

 

There's The Good Book, and then there's The Right Book.

[Guest Jedi Knight]

If someone calls for a ballot vote, it must be made a motion and seconded, non-debatable then voted on by majority?

Where is this in in Roberts Rules of order?

[Guest Jedi Knight]

Perhaps a separation of church and state is in order?

 

In other words, having the same person serve as both pastor and moderator might not be the best arrangement.

 

There's The Good Book, and then there's The Right Book.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!   You got that right!!  I'm trying to get someone else to be the moderator

[Hieu H. Huynh]

If someone calls for a ballot vote, it must be made a motion and seconded, non-debatable then voted on by majority?

Where is this in in Roberts Rules of order?

 

See RONR 11th ed., pp. 283-286 regarding "Motions relating to methods of voting and the polls".

[Richard Brown]

If someone calls for a ballot vote, it must be made a motion and seconded, non-debatable then voted on by majority?

Where is this in in Roberts Rules of order?

Mr. Huynh gave you the right answer in post No 17.  It's covered over several pages in RONR.  We can't give you a single page citation.  But, in case you don't have the book, here are a couple of pertinent provisions:

 

From  page 71:

 

"A member can move that a vote be taken (a) by ballot, ( b ) by roll call, or © by a counted standing vote, especially if a division of the assembly has appeared inconclusive and the chair neglects to order a count. This grouping also includes a motion (d) that the polls be closed or reopened in a ballot vote. All these motions are grouped under the heading of Motions Relating to Methods of Voting and the Polls (30)."

 

From page 283:

 

"§30. MOTIONS RELATING TO METHODS OF VOTING AND THE POLLS

The object of these motions is to obtain a vote on a question in some form other than by voice, by show of hands, or by Division (rising); or to close or reopen the polls. These motions include those that the vote be taken by ballot, that it be taken by roll call (the yeas and nays), and that a standing vote be counted (tellers). Similarly, unusual voting methods are included, such as the use of black and white balls or a signed ballot (see p. 420).

A motion prescribing the method of voting, or to close or reopen the polls, is an incidental motion—and subject to the rules given here—only when a motion or election is pending or the vote on it has just been taken; otherwise, it is an incidental main motion."

 

And from pages 283-284 re standard descriptive characteristics of those motions:

 

"Standard Descriptive Characteristics

Incidental motions relating to methods of voting and the polls:

     (1 - 3 omitted from this copy and paste)

    4.    Must be seconded.

    5.    Are not debatable.

    6.    Are amendable.

    7.    Require a majority vote, except a motion to close the polls, which requires a two-thirds vote."

 

Any member may move to take the vote by ballot.  It must be seconded.  It is not debatable.  It can be amended, such as to add details as to the form of the ballot and the method of distributing, collecting and counting the ballots.  And it takes a majority vote to adopt.

 

Incidentally, I urge you to follow the advice Josh Martin gave you in posts 2 and 12.

[Tom Coronite]

According to our current bylaws and any amendment must take 28 days.........we would have never ending meetings.  I really appreciate all of your help and I'm not be combative.  We are a small church and I just have 2 people that are.....well questioning every little detail.  It is a very personal thing they have against members of the bylaws committee.  I'm just a pastor trying to preach God's word on Sunday and I'm more concerned about the gospel.

Unless that's about all you have, two folks shouldn't be able to hogtie the process. Moving the previous question should help keep things moving as long as you have 4 people who'll vote to do that, over the 2 that want to keep debating.

[Guest Jedi Knight]

Unless that's about all you have, two folks shouldn't be able to hogtie the process. Moving the previous question should help keep things moving as long as you have 4 people who'll vote to do that, over the 2 that want to keep debating.

1st Church thank you for the encouragement....those 2 people control 15 people (hold hostage).  We will use pervious question this morning to move the process along this morning.

 

Mr. Huynh gave you the right answer in post No 17.  It's covered over several pages in RONR.  We can't give you a single page citation.  But, in case you don't have the book, here are a couple of pertinent provisions:

 

From  page 71:

 

"A member can move that a vote be taken (a) by ballot, ( b ) by roll call, or © by a counted standing vote, especially if a division of the assembly has appeared inconclusive and the chair neglects to order a count. This grouping also includes a motion (d) that the polls be closed or reopened in a ballot vote. All these motions are grouped under the heading of Motions Relating to Methods of Voting and the Polls (30)."

 

From page 283:

 

"§30. MOTIONS RELATING TO METHODS OF VOTING AND THE POLLS

The object of these motions is to obtain a vote on a question in some form other than by voice, by show of hands, or by Division (rising); or to close or reopen the polls. These motions include those that the vote be taken by ballot, that it be taken by roll call (the yeas and nays), and that a standing vote be counted (tellers). Similarly, unusual voting methods are included, such as the use of black and white balls or a signed ballot (see p. 420).

A motion prescribing the method of voting, or to close or reopen the polls, is an incidental motion—and subject to the rules given here—only when a motion or election is pending or the vote on it has just been taken; otherwise, it is an incidental main motion."

 

And from pages 283-284 re standard descriptive characteristics of those motions:

 

"Standard Descriptive Characteristics

Incidental motions relating to methods of voting and the polls:

     (1 - 3 omitted from this copy and paste)

    4.    Must be seconded.

    5.    Are not debatable.

    6.    Are amendable.

    7.    Require a majority vote, except a motion to close the polls, which requires a two-thirds vote."

 

Any member may move to take the vote by ballot.  It must be seconded.  It is not debatable.  It can be amended, such as to add details as to the form of the ballot and the method of distributing, collecting and counting the ballots.  And it takes a majority vote to adopt.

 

Incidentally, I urge you to follow the advice Josh Martin gave you in posts 2 and 12.

Thank you so much as I was getting lost in all the verbiage.  I really needed to know this as we had a meeting were someone called for a ballot vote and I didn't know we were to vote on that method.  I got curious about ballot voting and started reading, and I found some people on here that are a lot smarter than I am when it come to procedures.  Your explanation 

 

That's all well and good, but it must be understood that when the revision is considered at the meeting, debate and amendments are still in order. If it is desired to skip straight to the vote, a member will need to move for the Previous Question, which requires a 2/3 vote for adoption.

Josh, thank you for taking time time to help me with this as all the information you have provided will help me speed the meeting along.

 

 

See RONR 11th ed., pp. 283-286 regarding "Motions relating to methods of voting and the polls".

 

 Thank your for pointing me in the right direction.  

 

 

 

I really want to say thanks for everyone's help in this process to make our meeting smoother this morning.  It has really helped my nerves and help me concentrate on what really matters this morning which is the gospel.  I can not tel you enough how much all this has helped.  Thank you

[Josh Martin]

According to our current bylaws and any amendment must take 28 days.........we would have never ending meetings. I really appreciate all of your help and I'm not be combative. We are a small church and I just have 2 people that are.....well questioning every little detail. It is a very personal thing they have against members of the bylaws committee. I'm just a pastor trying to preach God's word on Sunday and I'm more concerned about the gospel.

Amendments to the proposed amendments are still in order, provided they are within the scope of the notice. Even if your bylaws prohibit any amendments to the proposed amendments (which I doubt), debate is still in order.

[Guest Dan Curran]

Amendments to the proposed amendments are still in order, provided they are within the scope of the notice. Even if your bylaws prohibit any amendments to the proposed amendments (which I doubt), debate is still in order.

 

New visitor here - apologies in advance if I should have started my own topic.  Anyway, I was part of a bylaws committee of a non-profit hobbyist organization. We completed a draft of a bylaws revision and ran it by the board and then published the proposed revision with a rational for the changes in our newsletter.  The bylaws revision was to be considered at the next general meeting.  The notice was shared with the membership about a week ahead of the meeting.

 

A member asserted that we could not vote on the revision because a provision that was in the original bylaws was left out.  My view was that it was not possible to leave something out because a revision is essentially a new set of bylaws.  The vote was not held as a result of the difference in opinion. The same member, if I am characterizing his opinion correctly, also believes that if the proposed bylaw change was amended at the meeting after the original notification, a new notification would have to be sent out and the vote held at a future meeting.  He believes that the current bylaws support his view (see below).  I would agree with him if the amendments were out of scope but I don't think it is possible to be out of scope with a revision.

 

I know the wording below is klunky, but hopefully you can offer us some guidance.  Thank you!

 

 

ARTICLE VI    ALTERATIONS AND AMENDMENTS

 

Alterations and amendments to the Constitution and By-laws may be made, at any general membership meeting, providing three days notice is given.  To each member of such proposed alterations, and also provided that it is adopted by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the members present at such meeting.

[Dan Honemann]

 

New visitor here - apologies in advance if I should have started my own topic.  Anyway, I was part of a bylaws committee of a non-profit hobbyist organization. We completed a draft of a bylaws revision and ran it by the board and then published the proposed revision with a rational for the changes in our newsletter.  The bylaws revision was to be considered at the next general meeting.  The notice was shared with the membership about a week ahead of the meeting.

 

A member asserted that we could not vote on the revision because a provision that was in the original bylaws was left out.  My view was that it was not possible to leave something out because a revision is essentially a new set of bylaws.  The vote was not held as a result of the difference in opinion. The same member, if I am characterizing his opinion correctly, also believes that if the proposed bylaw change was amended at the meeting after the original notification, a new notification would have to be sent out and the vote held at a future meeting.  He believes that the current bylaws support his view (see below).  I would agree with him if the amendments were out of scope but I don't think it is possible to be out of scope with a revision.

 

I know the wording below is klunky, but hopefully you can offer us some guidance.  Thank you!

 

 

ARTICLE VI    ALTERATIONS AND AMENDMENTS

 

Alterations and amendments to the Constitution and By-laws may be made, at any general membership meeting, providing three days notice is given.  To each member of such proposed alterations, and also provided that it is adopted by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the members present at such meeting.

 

 

It appears that your troublesome member was wrong on all counts. Nothing in the bylaw provision you quoted conflicts in any way with what is said on page 593 of RONR (11th ed.) concerning the nature of a proposed general revision and the complete freedom that the assembly has to amend it. As noted there:

 

"Notice of such a revision is notice that a new document will be submitted that will be open to amendment as fully as if the society were adopting bylaws for the first time. In other words, in the case of a revision, the assembly is not confined to consideration of only the points of change included in the proposed revision as submitted by the committee that has drafted it."

[DanC]

Your answer was very clear to me, and I relayed your response to the member but he did not buy it.  He proposed the language below which adds a new wrinkle, where the board of directors decides if any member comments about proposed amendments have merit.  If they do, the board revises the proposed amendments and sends them again to the membership.

I suppose if the proposal is approved by the members the board will be given additional powers and the bylaws amendment process could be gummed up in the future.  Are there any other practical arguments against these proposed changes?  Any ideas will be appreciated!

Dan 

ARTICLE VI ALTERATIONS AND AMENDMENTS

a. Alterations and amendments to the bylaws may be proposed at any general membership meeting by any Member in good standing.

b. Notice of a possible vote to adopt any proposed alterations and/or amendments must be made in writing to all the general membership at least three days before the general membership meeting. The notification is intended to allow for members to review proposed alterations and/or amendments, provide comments, and form an opposition.

c. Members may provide in writing any comments to the Board. If the Board of Directors determines that the comments have merit and would result in a revision to the proposed alterations and/or amendments, three day notice to all the general membership will again be provided.

d. Alterations and/or amendments shall be adopted by a two thirds (2/3) vote of the members present at a general membership meeting.

 

Original Language

Alterations and amendments to the Constitution and By-laws may be made, at any general membership meeting, providing three days notice is given. To each member of such proposed alterations, and also provided that it is adopted by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the members present at such meeting.

 

[Josh Martin]

31 minutes ago, DanC said:

Your answer was very clear to me, and I relayed your response to the member but he did not buy it.

Well, it's not up to him to decide what the society's bylaws mean. If he wishes to Appeal when you make a ruling on this subject, he is free to do so. If he can get a second, the decision will be in the hands of the assembly.

32 minutes ago, DanC said:

He proposed the language below which adds a new wrinkle, where the board of directors decides if any member comments about proposed amendments have merit.  If they do, the board revises the proposed amendments and sends them again to the membership.

I suppose if the proposal is approved by the members the board will be given additional powers and the bylaws amendment process could be gummed up in the future.  Are there any other practical arguments against these proposed changes?  Any ideas will be appreciated!

Dan 

ARTICLE VI ALTERATIONS AND AMENDMENTS

a. Alterations and amendments to the bylaws may be proposed at any general membership meeting by any Member in good standing.

b. Notice of a possible vote to adopt any proposed alterations and/or amendments must be made in writing to all the general membership at least three days before the general membership meeting. The notification is intended to allow for members to review proposed alterations and/or amendments, provide comments, and form an opposition.

c. Members may provide in writing any comments to the Board. If the Board of Directors determines that the comments have merit and would result in a revision to the proposed alterations and/or amendments, three day notice to all the general membership will again be provided.

d. Alterations and/or amendments shall be adopted by a two thirds (2/3) vote of the members present at a general membership meeting.

Original Language

Alterations and amendments to the Constitution and By-laws may be made, at any general membership meeting, providing three days notice is given. To each member of such proposed alterations, and also provided that it is adopted by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the members present at such meeting.

It is up to the society to determine whether to adopt the proposed amendment. I certainly think that, the merits of the amendment aside, the language needs to be clarified.