Tabling a previously voted on motion

[Richard Brown]

Quote from tsmyth:

 

"Section 6: Voting
Each membership which is current and in good standing shall be entitled to one indivisible vote per
membership site either in person, proxy or ballot. If multiple votes are submitted, all votes of that
membership shall be considered void."

 

 

Okay, so proxies are valid, but so far it appears mail voting is not.  That might make it easier to gather enough votes to at least make it possible to adopt a bylaw amendment.

 

I'm not convinced that mail voting is not permitted.  I believe that although it is poorly written, the quoted provision can be interpreted as allowing mail ballots.  It refers to voting "in person" and by "proxy" and by "ballot".  Voting in person can be by any number of ways: show of hands, voice vote, roll call, rising vote, rising counted vote, ballot, etc.  But, a mail vote is almost always....and maybe always... by means of a "ballot".  I think that provision is ambiguous and must be interpreted by the organization.  They have obviously been interpreting it in the past to allow for mail votes.

 

I think Tsmyth may be misinterpreting another provision in the bylaws.  For a bylaw amendment, the bylaws apparently provide as follows:   "These Bylaws may be amended by a majority (220) vote of the membership. The amendment(s) must
have been made available to the holders of memberships in writing/email/website or other means at
thirty (30) days prior to the vote."

 

Tsmyth seems to think that provision requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the entire membership. I'm not so sure that is what the bylaws require.  It says "a majority (220) vote of the membership".  I don't know what the # 220 in parenthesis means, but the language used is pretty much the standard wording in RONR for an ordinary majority vote, i.e., the majority vote of those members present and voting".   I believe it is up to the society itself to interpret whether that provision requires the actual affirmative vote of the majority of all the members or a regular majority vote of those present and voting.  

 

If the society has exactly 438 or 439 members, then the figure of 220 in parenthesis could indeed indicate that it is referring to the affirmative vote of a majority of the entire membership.  To Tsmyth I ask:  Is that figure of 220 in parenthesis actually in the bylaws?   How many members does the organization actually have?

 

Lastly, Godel is right with his reference to my comment about referring the matter to a committee:  I certainly did not mean to imply that the bylaw amendment must be referred to a committee!!!  I was merely making the point that postponing something beyond a quarterly time interval is possible only by referring it to a committee.   In the alternative, the same bylaw amendment can simply be proposed anew (and properly noticed) prior to the next meeting as if it had never been proposed before.

[Gödel Fan]

I'll grant that the ballot provision is ambiguous; all I can say is that what I wrote above is what I would advise/rule, depending on my role.  I tend to interpret that sort of ambiguity in favor of better parliamentary behavior.  Votes in meetings can be by ballot, so I don't think that allowing balloted voting (as unnecessary as it is) establishes an exception to the deliberative assembly standard.

 

I'm a bit thrown by your feelings on the voting threshold, though.  By itself, "a majority vote of the membership" doesn't strike me as ambiguous.  If it said full membership, everyone would agree.  If it said present and voting, everyone would agree.  I am having trouble reading that phrase as anything other than the former.  Also, if it is ambiguous, it is up to the organization to interpret - and it seems, from what we know, that the organization has interpreted it as a majority of the entire membership.  If the 220 is actually in the bylaws, then it's certainly a clue that it's supposed to mean entire membership, although the words would take priority in the event that less members than camping spots exist and so a majority falls below 220.  If it's not, and it's our OP's interpretation, it seems a strong clue as to how the organization has interpreted the bylaw, again.

[Tsmyth]

When I was first on the Rules/Bylaws Committee, the Bylaw actually read....

... Majority (51%)

And I knew that was not correct as they mean two different things/amounts.

It took me 3 years to get that changed. 

 

 

>>Is that figure of 220 in parenthesis actually in the bylaws?     yes

 

>>How many members does the organization actually have?

Our membership is 438 voting members, and half of that is 219 so majority, being anything over half.... BUT i do not believe it should even include a number, it should just say "Majority".   Though I believe it was put there some members would know the exact number of affirmative votes.

[Richard Brown]

When I was first on the Rules/Bylaws Committee, the Bylaw actually read....

... Majority (51%)

And I knew that was not correct as they mean two different things/amounts.

It took me 3 years to get that changed. 

 

 

>>Is that figure of 220 in parenthesis actually in the bylaws?     yes

 

>>How many members does the organization actually have?

Our membership is 438 voting members, and half of that is 219 so majority, being anything over half.... BUT i do not believe it should even include a number, it should just say "Majority".   Though I believe it was put there some members would know the exact number of affirmative votes.

Your explanation that there are 438 voting members helps and the figure 220 in parentheses makes plain that the vote requirement is the vote of a majority of the entire membership.

 

My quibble is with the language used in describing the vote threshold:  It is non-standard language and is not the language suggested in several places in RONR for describing "the vote of a majority of the entire membership".  It is actually closer to the language used for describing an ordinary majority vote.  There are very subtle differences in the wording used on pages 402-404 for describing a majority vote and the vote of a majority of the entire membership.  I have found that many people who draft bylaws are not aware of the fine distinctions and of the precise wording they should use to avoid confusion.  The term "a vote of a majority of the entire membership" is used in many places in RONR.  The language used in these bylaws is slightly different.

 

to me, the term "a majority vote of the membership" is very ambiguous, especially in view of the repeated use of different wording in RONR when describing a vote threshold requiring the vote of a majority of the entire membership.  The language used in these bylaws could, for example, be used just to show that it is the membership, not the board of directors, that has the authority to amend the bylaws by a regular majority vote.  One final point:  It is rather unusual for bylaws to require the vote of two thirds or even a majority of the entire membership to amend the bylaws because such a high vote threshold is often very hard to achieve.  I believe a requirement  for an affirmative vote of the entire membership should be expressed in clear and unambiguous language.  This wording is not clear (except, perhaps, for the addition of the figure 220 in parentheses).  That helps...but only as long as there are 438 or 439 members!

 

The slight differences in wording used to specify the requirement of "a vote of a majority of the entire membership"  is discussed on pages pages 4, 5, 402, 403 and 581, among other places.

 

Edited to add:  To be clear and to conform to the suggested wording in RONR, the vote threshold should be expressed as: "the vote of a majority of the entire membership".

[Gödel Fan]

For what to do should the 219/220 matter be an issue:  there is a recent thread on that very topic (that is, disagreement between words and numbers placed in parenthesis.)  

[Tsmyth]

I understand our Bylaws are not written "clearly" - which to me, causes more problems than it should.  It should be "cut and dry". 

I had gotten an email from a Board Member who said "People need to realize the by laws were written vague for a reason, because it's a park! "

 

Honestly, to me, that makes no sense.   We may be a Park [RV Park] but we are still a business.

 

I really appreciate all this information and explanation of things.

 

Since I am "away" from the Park, I am supposed to be on vacation... I find it very hard to "hang up my hat".

I work in the office and have for 6 yrs, I just want to make sure things are done properly, and when I see they are not, my feathers get ruffled a bit.

 

I am going to try and enjoy my vacation now, but I will probably get myself the latest RONR and read up on it, and really try to get educated.

 

again... Thank you all so much.

 

Terese Smyth

[Gödel Fan]

I'm not aware of any reason parks have a great need for vague bylaws, as opposed to other organizations.

[Tsmyth]

I agree.  It makes absolutely no sense at all.

[jstackpo]

 

 

I am going to try and enjoy my vacation now, but I will probably get myself the latest RONR and read up on it, and really try to get educated.

 

Terese Smyth

 

 

Start out your reading adventures with this book  (it won't completely ruin your vacation.)

 

RONRIB:

"Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief", Updated Second Edition (Da Capo Press, Perseus Books Group, 2011). It is a splendid summary of all the rules you will really need in all but the most exceptional situations. And only $7.50! You can read it in an evening. Get both RONRIB and RONR (scroll down) at this link. Or in your local bookstore.

[Gary Novosielski]

But beware of other newish books with the words "Roberts", "Rules", "In", and "Brief" in the title, as they may be reprints old out-of-copyright versions.  I spotted my first phony "In Brief" just yesterday.