Members abstaining from voting, how does that count for or against

[Laura A]

At a club meeting to remove a member if members choose not to vote either way they still count as members in attendance there fore it could change the way a vote would go is this correct? The bi laws state simple majority. So if the vote is 9 for and 8 against with 2 abstained does the against win? 

[Hieu H. Huynh]

If a majority vote was required, then the motion passed. Abstentions are not counted (see FAQ #6).

[Richard Brown]

I agree with Mr. Huyhn, unless your bylaws specify that removal requires the vote of a majority of the members present (or a majority of the entire membership).   The regular majority vote definition would apply unless your bylaws are clear that some other standard applies.  The answer to the FAQ that Mr. Huynh gave you the link to explains the difference.  What exactly do the bylaws say about the vote required? 

[Kim Goldsworthy]

5 hours ago, Laura A said:

At a club meeting to remove a member if members choose not to vote either way they still count as members in attendance there fore it could change the way a vote would go is this correct?

The bylaws state simple majority.

So if the vote is 9 for and 8 against with 2 abstained

does the against win? 

Laura A,

A run-on sentence is incredibly difficult to decipher.

Nonetheless, there are a couple of points which can be made.

***

1.) You cannot "remove a member" by majority vote, if your parliamentary authority is Robert's Rules of Order (and if you have no customized bylaws-level rule in place.)

You would need a two-thirds vote. And a trial.

Little things like that.

***

2.) You said "the bylaws state" but you failed to actually quote the language.

This is important. The actual text can make a big, big difference.

(Donald Trump would say, "Huge!")

Analogy:

That is like saying, "The Bible says, it is okay to kill children." -- Well, yes, there are biblical passages where children are to die a lawful death under Old Testament rules. But the actual language proves a very necessary context.

The devil is in the details. < pun >

***

[Laura A]

Being so very new at this I appreciate all  your help and we do fall into the Majority of those present group. I suppose there is no such thing as "Everyone must vote one way or the other" Sorry if this question seems ridiculous but being thrown into this situation suddenly I am totally at a loss here. I suppose I should say that the vote is to remove a member of a club. All the other procedures have been followed correctly and I just want to make sure the vote is done correctly

[Richard Brown]

18 minutes ago, Laura A said:

Our Bi Laws state," A member of the club may be removed from the membership for cause by majority vote of the members present at a duly constituted meeting of the Club."  My question now is in what way does it affect the vote if people at the meeting choose not to vote either way.  (Emphasis added)

Ahhh.... the plot thickens.  You are getting at the point I raised in my post right below the one by Mr. Huynh:  Majority vote of what??

The vote of a majority of the members  present is not the same thing as a "majority vote".  But, because of the language used in your bylaws, "by majority vote of the members present" is not the recommended language used in RONR for requiring the "vote of a majority of the members present", your assembly will have to interpret that.  

However, speaking  personally, I interpret it to mean "a vote of a majority of the members present".  If that is the case, you still don't count abstentions, but they have the effect of a no vote as explained in FAQ No 6:  http://robertsrules.com/faq.html#6

Since it appears that there were 19 members present, and the vote was 9 to 8 in favor of removal, there was NOT a vote of a majority of the members present for removal so the motion failed.   If 19 members  were present, it would take 10 yes votes to remove a member.  The number of no votes and abstentions actually don't matter in that scenario.  A majority of 19 is 10, so it takes 10 votes.

This is an example where the careful choice of words and terminology is critical... as is the importance of accurately quoting the relevant  provision.  

[Gary Novosielski]

I think there is a difference between a majority vote of the members present and a vote of a majority of the members present.

I think the former is a badly worded and arguably ambiguous provision, but I would interpret it as a majority vote, as described in RONR, in which case a 9-8 vote would be approval.  

But i'm not a member of the organization, so my interpretation ambiguous wording in the bylaws would carry no weight.

[Richard Brown]

26 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

I think there is a difference between a majority vote of the members present and a vote of a majority of the members present.

I think the former is a badly worded and arguably ambiguous provision, but I would interpret it as a majority vote, as described in RONR, in which case a 9-8 vote would be approval.  

But i'm not a member of the organization, so my interpretation ambiguous wording in the bylaws would carry no weight.

Hmmm.  I agree wholeheartedly that it is poorly worded, does not conform to the suggested language in RONR, and is ambiguous and subject to interpretation.   Unfortunately, it is wording that is frequently used.

However, I interpret it differently.  Because it refers specifically to "of the members present", I interpret it to mean a "vote of two thirds majority vote of the members present".   I believe that takes it out of the default RONR definition of a majority vote.   I believe the words "of the members present" were added for a reason, that reason being to provide that two thirds a majority of those members present must vote yes in order for an amendment to be adopted.

I also agree that it is ultimately up to the organization itself to interpret this provision and, hopefully, to amend  the bylaws to clarify the language and to use the wording suggested in RONR.  Doing so would remove the ambiguity. 

Edited to change "two thirds" to "majority".  I got this thread confused with another one with similar issues.  Thanks to Mr. Novosielski for catching my mistake.

[Richard Brown]

9 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

How did 2/3 get into this?

Oops.  It got into it because I confused this thread with another one. 

I think the rest of my post still applies, though.  I'll go back and correct the 2/3 mistake, now that Shmuel has found what the problem was with me not being able to use strikeout when in edit mode.