3/4 "majority" vote

[keefe]

Our congregation is in the early stages of have Constitution and Bylaw amendments proposed.  In regards to this we have several areas where the phrase "and requires a three-fourths (3/4) majority vote of those confessing members present and voting."  For my first question is it necessary to include the word "majority" in front of three-fourths (3/4)?  It seem redundant but I would like to hear thoughts on it.  Second question is regarding the phrase "of those confessing members present and voting."  So does the 3/4 only refer to the 3/4 who are voting rather than the 3/4 of the quorum present?

Full text:  "This Constitution can be amended by the Congregation at its (sic) Annual Meeting only, and requires a three-fourths (3/4) majority vote of those confessing members present and voting."

Underlined portions are the areas being considered as amendments.

I know most in this forum don't interpret Bylaws but if you have any recommendations regarding the question I would greatly appreciate it.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

I think it could simply be "a three-fourths vote". This would refer to those present and voting.

[Richard Brown]

You should omit the word "majority".  It is a three-fourths vote.  You also do not need to add "of those confessing members present and voting" as the term "three-fourths vote"  (or majority vote or two-thirds vote) by definition means of those present and voting.  However, I personally see no harm in it because some members who are not familiar with RONR might question whether some other standard should be applied, such as "three-fourths of the members present" or "three fourths of the entire membership". 

RONR makes plain what the term "three-fourths vote" means, but your members may or may not know that.

Other regular contributors to this forum might suggest you also omit "of those confessing members present and voting", so  stay tuned.

Edited to add:  The fact that your definition mentions "confessing" members present and voting indicates to me that you might have both "confessing" and "non-confessing members".  If you have different classes of membership, then you should definitely define which members are to be included.  But, if the term "confessing member" really means "member" and there is only one class of member, then the phrase is not needed.  It's needed only if you also have "non-confessing members".

[Rev Ed]

1)  The word majority needs to show up to indicate what you mean by 3/4 - 3/4 of what?  3/4 of redheads, or 3/4 of those under 65?  The word majority simply defines what you mean by 3/4.  It's always better to make it clear what you mean.

2)  By-law interpretation is up to the organization.  However, based on the wording I'd take it to mean the votes cast.  But yes, it is better to make it a "3/4 majority of members present" or "3/4 majority of votes cast" to make the intent unambiguous.

[Richard Brown]

1 minute ago, Rev Ed said:

1)  The word majority needs to show up to indicate what you mean by 3/4 - 3/4 of what?  3/4 of redheads, or 3/4 of those under 65?  The word majority simply defines what you mean by 3/4.  It's always better to make it clear what you mean.

Really??   RONR does not suggest that the term majority be used when requiring a two thirds vote, so why do you think it should be used when requiring a three fourths vote?    Most of us in this forum say repeatedly that there is no such thing as a two thirds majority.  It is either a majority vote or a two thirds vote (or  a three-fourths vote), but never a "two thirds majority" (or three fourths majority).

If I'm mistaken, then please point me to a citation in RONR where it suggests using the term  "two thirds majority".

[Richard Brown]

The following language from page 400 of RONR regarding the definition of "majority" might be helpful when deciding whether to include the language about "members present and voting":  "The word majority means "more than half"; and when the term majority vote is used without qualification—as in the case of the basic requirement—it means more than half of the votes cast by persons entitled to vote, excluding blanks or abstentions, at a regular or properly called meeting."

The bases of determining a voting result  are covered in RONR on pages 400-406.

[Shmuel Gerber]

3 hours ago, keefe said:

"This Constitution can be amended by the Congregation at its (sic) Annual Meeting only, and requires a three-fourths (3/4) majority vote of those confessing members present and voting."

A few remarks about this.

1. The quoted provision does not quite say what it means. The literal meaning of these words is this:

• This Constitution can be amended by the Congregation at its Annual Meeting only; and
• This Constitution requires a three-fourths (3/4) majority vote of those confessing members present and voting.

It doesn't literally say anything about the requirement for amendment of the constitution. You may want to take a look at the provision for amendment of bylaws given in the sample bylaws in RONR (p. 588) for an idea of better wording.

2. I agree that the word "majority" should be omitted.

3. Everyone who will be reading this knows what the numerals 3 and 4 look like, so there is no good reason to have "(3/4)" in there.

4. Assuming that the "confessing members present" are the only ones ever entitled to vote, the words "of those confessing members present and voting" are entirely superfluous according to RONR. However, if for some reason those words are deemed necessary or helpful, the qualification would be better phrased as "a vote of the three-fourths of the confessing members present and voting".

5. RONR strongly suggests that previous notice be one of the requirements for amending the bylaws: "The bylaws should always prescribe the procedure for their amendment, and such provision should always require at least that advance notice be given in a specified manner, and that the amendment be approved by a two-thirds vote." (RONR, 11th ed., pp. 580-81). This advice would certainly also apply to a constitution (which, if separate from the bylaws, should have even greater requirements for amendment than the bylaws).

(Edited to fix my "better" phrasing.)

[keefe]

Thank you all for your input it is very valuable and helpful...  To clarify a few questions that have been asked there are only one classification of members and only the members have the privilege to vote.  As for previous notice of amending the bylaws we currently have "Such an Amendment must be proposed at least six months prior to the Annual Meeting.  Such proposals shall be submitted to the Board of Elders for review and processing for the Annual Meeting."

 

[Shmuel Gerber]

26 minutes ago, keefe said:

As for previous notice of amending the bylaws we currently have "Such an Amendment must be proposed at least six months prior to the Annual Meeting.  Such proposals shall be submitted to the Board of Elders for review and processing for the Annual Meeting."

This doesn't make it clear how the members are ever notified of the specific proposal before the annual meeting. Also, it doesn't provide any upper limit to how far in advance an amendment can be proposed. Theoretically, it could be interpreted to mean that a proposal for amending the bylaws at an annual meeting five years from now could be submitted now.

[keefe]

Shmuel,

Thank you that is great input and I am noting it for discussion. 

[Richard Brown]

Keefe:  FYI re using the term "three fourths majority vote":

I just did a word search in RONR for certain terms using the CD-ROM.  Here's what I found regarding how often certain terms appear:

"two thirds":  175 times

"two thirds vote": 152 times

"three fourths": 3 times

"three fourths vote":  2 times

"two thirds majority":  Not once

"three fourths majority":  Not once

That should tell you something.  The correct term in this case would be "three fourths vote".   Drop the word "majority".  "Majority" has its own definition, being "more than half".  Saying "three fourths majority" only adds confusion. 

Stick to the tried and true RONR recommended language:  "three fourths vote".

btw, Mr. Gerber's advice is right on:  The bylaw provisions you quoted do not seem to provide for any notice to the members of proposed bylaw changes.  Also, it is not clear just what authority the Board of Elders has with regard to the proposed bylaw amendments that it reviews.  Can it only make a recommendation to the membership?  Can it "veto" a proposal and keep it from even reaching the membership?  Can it amend the proposal so it no longer does exactly what the proponent wanted?

Your amendment provisions should be clarified so that those issued are addressed.

[keefe]

Richard,

I don't have the CD-ROM but I did look through the 11th Edition and could find no mention of the term "3/4 majority" or "2/3 majority", it is great to hear that you were able to dig deeper and come up with the same result.  Regarding your comment on the bylaw provision you are exactly right and this is something that we are going to need to make clear.  The Church has hired a lawyer and he is recommending many changes to the bylaws and some of which I have been advocating for for a while now but with no response but now he has gotten the attention so it is a good thing.

[jstackpo]

"Supermajority" isn't in RONR either, but at least it makes sense as "2/3 supermajority", &c.  Its proper (or root) meaning is just "more than a majority" or, somewhat redundantly, "more than more than half"  and the number involved (2/3, 3/4, &c.) suggests how much more. Various on-line dictionaries define it, too.  Without the prefix number, it seems to mean a "lot" more than "just half" as the required approval threshold which must be exceeded.

[Weldon Merritt]

2 hours ago, keefe said:

The Church has hired a lawyer and he is recommending many changes to the bylaws and some of which I have been advocating for for a while now but with no response but now he has gotten the attention so it is a good thing.

Unless the lawyer has had training in parliamentary procedure (and I don't mean just some exposure to it; I mean actual training), you'd probably be better off hiring a parliamentarian.

[Dan Honemann]

1 minute ago, Weldon Merritt said:

Unless the lawyer has had training in parliamentary procedure (and I don't mean just some exposure to it; I mean actual training), you'd probably be better off hiring a parliamentarian.

I doubt it.

[keefe]

On 4/16/2016 at 7:01 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

Unless the lawyer has had training in parliamentary procedure (and I don't mean just some exposure to it; I mean actual training), you'd probably be better off hiring a parliamentarian.

Weldon,

I agree and I am going to recommend that we contact a parliamentarian to assist in this.  The lawyer did state in his notes that Roberts Rules is very thorough but cumbersome and unless we have a parliamentarian in the congregation who is "registered" or is a "professional" that the congregation may want to consider a simpler body of parliamentary procedure.  Our body has used Roberts Rules since the 1950's so I don't see any point in changing now.  I hope this idea doesn't gain any momentum.

[Gary Novosielski]

8 minutes ago, keefe said:

Weldon,

I agree and I am going to recommend that we contact a parliamentarian to assist in this.  The lawyer did state in his notes that Roberts Rules is very thorough but cumbersome and unless we have a parliamentarian in the congregation who is "registered" or is a "professional" that the congregation may want to consider a simpler body of parliamentary procedure.  Our body has used Roberts Rules since the 1950's so I don't see any point in changing now.  I hope this idea doesn't gain any momentum.

You're right.  That's a bogus argument.   "Simpler" rules, combined with Murphy's Law, means that as soon as you have a problem you can bet that it will not be covered in your off-brand parliamentary authority, and you'll waste time dealing with the resulting cans of worms.

This emphasizes what others have said, that if you want advice on parliamentary procedure, your first stop should not be a lawyer.

[Richard Brown]

I agree with Weldon and Gary.  Sometimes you need a parliamentarian (or a lawyer well versed in parliamentary procedure and RONR) as opposed to just any attorney.  Courses in parliamentary procedure and Robert's Rules of Order are not part of the typical law school curriculum. 

You may have to do some asking around and make numerous inquiries to find an attorney licensed to practice in your state who is also knowledgeable about RONR. 

There is a national association of attorneys who are also credentialed parliamentarians with one of the two national parliamentary associations, but I don't know if they make referrals.  It's the "American College of Parliamentary Lawyers".  Here is a link to the website:  http://parliamentarylawyers.org/

You might also try the two national associations of parliamentarians, NAP and AIP to get referrals in your area. Both groups make referrals, but only to credentialed professional  parliamentarians.  You can also get information  about state associations and local units from both, but NAP is larger and has more local units and formal  state associations.  The state and local officers might be able to refer you to someone.  Note:  Although NAP and AIP make official referrals only to credentialed parliamentarians, there are many excellent parliamentarians who do not belong to either group or are not credentialed.

With a bit of research and asking around, you should be able to find a parliamentarian who can help you and maybe even an attorney who is well  versed in parliamentary procedure and RONR.

National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP)
213 South Main St.
Independence, MO  64050-3850
Phone: 888-627-2929
e-mail: hq@NAP2.org  
www.parliamentarians.org

 

American Institute of Parliamentarians (AIP)
618 Church Street, Ste 220
Nashville, TN 37219
Phone: 888-664-0428
e-mail: aip@aipparl.org
www.aipparl.org

 

[Dan Honemann]

On ‎4‎/‎15‎/‎2016 at 11:37 AM, keefe said:

Our congregation is in the early stages of have Constitution and Bylaw amendments proposed.  In regards to this we have several areas where the phrase "and requires a three-fourths (3/4) majority vote of those confessing members present and voting."  For my first question is it necessary to include the word "majority" in front of three-fourths (3/4)?  It seem redundant but I would like to hear thoughts on it.  Second question is regarding the phrase "of those confessing members present and voting."  So does the 3/4 only refer to the 3/4 who are voting rather than the 3/4 of the quorum present?

Full text:  "This Constitution can be amended by the Congregation at its (sic) Annual Meeting only, and requires a three-fourths (3/4) majority vote of those confessing members present and voting."

Underlined portions are the areas being considered as amendments.

I know most in this forum don't interpret Bylaws but if you have any recommendations regarding the question I would greatly appreciate it.

It takes neither a lawyer nor a parliamentarian to understand that the answer to your first question is no, it isn't necessary to include the word "majority", and that the answer to your second question is that the phrase "of those confessing members present and voting", means what it says, the vote of 3/4 of the confessing members present and voting is required for adoption. All that is needed is an ability to read.

My question is, why the "(sic)"? 

 

[Kim Goldsworthy]

 

Quote

>> Full text:  
>> "This Constitution can be amended by the Congregation at its (sic)
>> Annual Meeting only, and requires a three-fourths (3/4) majority vote
>> of those confessing members present and voting."
[. . .]
>> [...] there are only one classification of members and only the members
>> have the privilege to vote.

Then strike out the word "confessing".
There is no such term within Robert's Rules.

And, since you said you have only one class of membership, then the addition of an adjective ("confessing") creates an ambiguity, since there must be non-confessing members if you are limiting voting to confessing members.

Otherwise, your rule would have said, ". . . three-fourths [majority?] vote of those members present and voting."

 

[keefe]

On 4/19/2016 at 7:05 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

It takes neither a lawyer nor a parliamentarian to understand that the answer to your first question is no, it isn't necessary to include the word "majority", and that the answer to your second question is that the phrase "of those confessing members present and voting", means what it says, the vote of 3/4 of the confessing members present and voting is required for adoption. All that is needed is an ability to read.

My question is, why the "(sic)"? 

 

Daniel,

Initially I had the sic because my mind had contractions and possessive pronouns messed up.  My red pen was used inappropriately...

[keefe]

23 hours ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

 

Then strike out the word "confessing".
There is no such term within Robert's Rules.

And, since you said you have only one class of membership, then the addition of an adjective ("confessing") creates an ambiguity, since there must be non-confessing members if you are limiting voting to confessing members.

Otherwise, your rule would have said, ". . . three-fourths [majority?] vote of those members present and voting."

 

Kim,

Thank you.  Yes there would only be members and non-members so the "confessing" portion agreed is not necessary.

[keefe]

Update:  At our last council meeting I did speak about hiring a parliamentarian to assist with our bylaw changes.  Unfortunately my suggestion was met with major opposition so I don't believe we will be going that direction.  With such a major bylaw overhaul/revision taking place it would be nice to have assistance from a parliamentarian but many stated that RONR and parliamentarians have nothing to do with bylaws, I know otherwise.  I have begun re-reading chapter 18 to understand the bylaw amendment process so I may have some more questions coming in the future.  Thank you for all your help so far.