Majority of a quorum

[Guest V. Kay]

Our neighborhood association's by-laws state "These By-laws may  be amended, at a regular or special meeting of the Members, by a vote of a majority of a quorum of Members present in person or by proxy."  What is a "majority of a quorum" as mentioned above?  We have 260 homes, and a quorum is defined as "the presence at the meeting of Members or of proxies entitled to cast a majority of all the votes of membership."  Each home (or lot) is entitled to one vote.

[George Mervosh]

24 minutes ago, Guest V. Kay said:

Our neighborhood association's by-laws state "These By-laws may  be amended, at a regular or special meeting of the Members, by a vote of a majority of a quorum of Members present in person or by proxy."  What is a "majority of a quorum" as mentioned above?  We have 260 homes, and a quorum is defined as "the presence at the meeting of Members or of proxies entitled to cast a majority of all the votes of membership."  Each home (or lot) is entitled to one vote.

That term is not defined by RONR.

[Greg Goodwiller, PRP]

The way this would generally be stated is more like, "by majority vote at a meeting at which a quorum is present."

"Majority of a quorum" is not RONR language, and therefore, your organization will have to determine how to interpret the line. There are obviously several options. One is to treat it an an in-artfully stated version of what is in RONR. In that case, as long as a quorum is present at the meeting (in person or by proxy, per your bylaws), a majority of those present and voting is required.

The other main option, it seems to me, is that is an in-artfully stated way to say "a majority of all those present at a meeting" (again, either in person or by proxy).

The difference in the two interpretations is the effect of abstaining. In the first case, abstaining doesn't affect the vote - because only those who vote are counted; whereas in the second interpretation, abstaining has the same effect as voting no.

I suppose it could also be interpreted to mean an actual static number (a majority of the minimum quorum - which would be 66 - majority of 260 is 131, and majority vote of 131 is 66). But that doesn't make any sense, because if 200 people vote, there could be more negative votes cast than positive, and the threshold could still be met.

I would recommend that you consider amending your bylaws so that they state clearly what the organization wants to be the case.

Edited May 9, 2018 at 06:57 PM by Greg Goodwiller, PRP
spelling

[Richard Brown]

There have been a few threads in this forum discussing the meaning of "majority of a quorum" and "majority of the quorum".  If you find those threads by doing a search or do a google search and review the history of the term, I think you will find that the generally accepted definition is just what Dr. Goodwiller stated:  a regular majority vote, assuming the presence of a quorum.  It is considered antiquated now and we all recommend STRONGLY that it be avoided.  Ultimately, however, if it is contained in your bylaws, it is something your own membership will have to decide.

[J. J.]

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

There have been a few threads in this forum discussing the meaning of "majority of a quorum" and "majority of the quorum".  If you find those threads by doing a search or do a google search and review the history of the term, I think you will find that the generally accepted definition is just what Dr. Goodwiller stated:  a regular majority vote, assuming the presence of a quorum.  It is considered antiquated now and we all recommend STRONGLY that it be avoided.  Ultimately, however, if it is contained in your bylaws, it is something your own membership will have to decide.

I have seen the phrase used in a legal, as opposed to a parliamentary, situation.  There may be a definition out there someplace. 

[Atul Kapur]

6 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I think you will find that the generally accepted definition is just what Dr. Goodwiller stated:  a regular majority vote, assuming the presence of a quorum.

Without commenting on the advisability of the wording, I will note that there is another definition that resolves Dr. Goodwiller's last objection. That is: a majority vote (as defined in RONR) with the additional requirement that the votes in favour must be a majority of the number required for a quorum. So, in his example of an assembly of 260 members (quorum is 131)a, to achieve a majority of a quorum, a motion can be adopted by a majority vote, as long as there are at least 66 votes in favour (66 being a majority of 131).