Guest Chuck Adkins Posted May 9, 2017 at 09:52 PM Report Share Posted May 9, 2017 at 09:52 PM Commenting as a Guest I belong to an organization which is currently changing its By Laws. A paragraph included is: "3) A super majority of three-fourths (3/4) of all members eligible to vote is required to remove an elected officer.". Nowhere in Robert Rules of Order (Roberts Rules of Order Now Revised) to I find any mention of a super majority. RRONR states a 2/3s vote is required to remove an individual from office. Can you clarify? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted May 9, 2017 at 10:11 PM Report Share Posted May 9, 2017 at 10:11 PM It is just a harmless (in my view) phrase denoting a higher threshold for the adoption of a measure than a "majority", which just means "more than half" (simple, or not). It is best to just state the higher threshold numerically as your bylaws do without bothering with any "super" business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted May 9, 2017 at 11:23 PM Report Share Posted May 9, 2017 at 11:23 PM To address what I suspect might be the underlying question: it is fine for your rules to give a different threshold for this than RONR (this rule not only gives a different threshold, but a different basis too). Your bylaws prevail in that case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted May 10, 2017 at 01:42 AM Report Share Posted May 10, 2017 at 01:42 AM I would be VERY concerned about a rule worded the way that one is. I interpret that provision as requiring the vote of three fourths of the ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP. That can be awfully hard to obtain. That rule means that if you have 100 members, you must have 75 yes votes to remove an officer, not just 3/4 of those present and voting. That's an almost impossible requirement in most organizations. Are you sure that's what you want? Can you even get 75 percent of your members to go to a meeting? Maybe others view the rule as harmless, but I view it as perhaps impossible to obtain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted May 10, 2017 at 01:53 AM Report Share Posted May 10, 2017 at 01:53 AM 9 minutes ago, Richard Brown said: Maybe others view the rule as harmless, but I view it as perhaps impossible to obtain. Well, all I said was it's okay to differ from RONR. It's hard for me to say if it's harmless without knowing more about the organization. On the other hand, you bring up something I hadn't noticed originally: the rule doesn't exactly say "entire membership." I agree with your reading, but I think it's possible the organization didn't mean that and doesn't want that, in which case they certainly should change the language. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted May 10, 2017 at 02:41 AM Report Share Posted May 10, 2017 at 02:41 AM I would say that, in a society that adopted RONR, the society would either have to define the type of majority in text, or use the RONR definition for the particular term. For example, if the bylaws use the words "good majority," and didn't define it in text, it would mean "majority" in RONR. If they used, "the majority of the members present," that would mean what RONR defines as that. A plurality is not necessarily a majority, so I doubt if "simple majority" would mean "plurality," unless the bylaws went on to describe it as such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts