Guest Margaret Posted August 16, 2018 at 04:07 PM Report Share Posted August 16, 2018 at 04:07 PM On our Board we have a liaison member who has the right to vote on everything except items that have a money content. We are 6 members in total including the liason member. A vote of 51% is a majority vote (4 votes) When we vote on the money issue (5 people) is our majority based on the 6 people or the 5 eligible voters hence 3 votes out of 5 would meet the majority requirement Thank you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted August 16, 2018 at 04:42 PM Report Share Posted August 16, 2018 at 04:42 PM 34 minutes ago, Guest Margaret said: On our Board we have a liaison member who has the right to vote on everything except items that have a money content. Where does it say this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted August 16, 2018 at 05:40 PM Report Share Posted August 16, 2018 at 05:40 PM 1 hour ago, Guest Margaret said: When we vote on the money issue (5 people) is our majority based on the 6 people or the 5 eligible voters hence 3 votes out of 5 would meet the majority requirement Well, the general principle is that a majority vote is simply more voting yes than no. It has nothing to do with how many are present, i.e. if all but one abstain, and that one votes yes, then the motion carries (if it requires a majority vote). So I think the simple answer is that this is not an issue; you just count how many voted yes and no on each motion. However, your rules apparently have some extra wrinkles, and may define a majority differently. Do they? For instance, you said something about 51%. According to RONR, the definition of a majority has nothing to do with 51%. Do your rules say they do? Do your rules require a vote of the entire membership of the board for certain items? I think, if the answer is not the easy one I gave, we need more information. I'm more curious how quorum is defined in this group, personally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted August 16, 2018 at 05:41 PM Report Share Posted August 16, 2018 at 05:41 PM (edited) Unless your bylaws specify otherwise, a regular majority vote (and a two thirds vote) is based on the number of members present and voting. So, assuming for the sake of this discussion your information is correct about one member not being able to vote on money issues, a majority vote of the remaining five members is what is required. If all five vote, it would take a vote of 3 to 2. But, not all members have to be present or vote. A vote of 3 to 1 or 2 to 1 and even a vote of 1 to 0 would all constitute a majority vote. BTW, unless your bylaws specify that a majority of the board is 51 percent, you are not calculating a majority correctly. A majority is simply "More than half". Period. Not 51 percent or 50 percent plus one, but simply "more than half". A majority of 200 is 101. But if you require 51 percent, you would need 102. But that is the wrong answer. Edited August 16, 2018 at 05:42 PM by Richard Brown Corrected line spacing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meggie906 Posted August 18, 2018 at 05:25 PM Report Share Posted August 18, 2018 at 05:25 PM On 8/16/2018 at 11:40 AM, Joshua Katz said: Well, the general principle is that a majority vote is simply more voting yes than no. It has nothing to do with how many are present, i.e. if all but one abstain, and that one votes yes, then the motion carries (if it requires a majority vote). So I think the simple answer is that this is not an issue; you just count how many voted yes and no on each motion. However, your rules apparently have some extra wrinkles, and may define a majority differently. Do they? For instance, you said something about 51%. According to RONR, the definition of a majority has nothing to do with 51%. Do your rules say they do? Do your rules require a vote of the entire membership of the board for certain items? I think, if the answer is not the easy one I gave, we need more information. I'm more curious how quorum is defined in this group, personally. Thank you for your response. The Bylaws state a quorum is 51% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted August 18, 2018 at 05:49 PM Report Share Posted August 18, 2018 at 05:49 PM 23 minutes ago, Meggie906 said: Thank you for your response. The Bylaws state a quorum is 51% That doesn't impact the definition of majority (in case you're wondering), but my question was actually whether the partial member counts towards (and against) quorum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meggie906 Posted August 18, 2018 at 06:07 PM Report Share Posted August 18, 2018 at 06:07 PM (edited) 18 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said: That doesn't impact the definition of majority (in case you're wondering), but my question was actually whether the partial member counts towards (and against) quorum. On everything except money. I have an example recently where we had to vote on a money issue which was urgent as we were purchasing the services of a Consultant. Two of the members were on vacation so the 3 of us who were here voted yes. The Liaison person could not vote . Based on 3 out of 5 voting yes we approved the Consultant hiring. Now one of the members who was on vacation is saying the vote is invalid, and will be brought up at the next Board Meeting. Edited August 18, 2018 at 06:12 PM by Meggie906 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted August 18, 2018 at 06:08 PM Report Share Posted August 18, 2018 at 06:08 PM The idea of being quorate on some topics and not on others interests me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meggie906 Posted August 18, 2018 at 06:14 PM Report Share Posted August 18, 2018 at 06:14 PM 4 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said: The idea of being quorate on some topics and not on others interests me. It is written in the Memorandum of Understanding Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted August 18, 2018 at 06:21 PM Report Share Posted August 18, 2018 at 06:21 PM A member has all the rights of membership unless the bylaws say otherwise. A Memorandum of Understanding would not be able to limit those rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meggie906 Posted August 18, 2018 at 06:26 PM Report Share Posted August 18, 2018 at 06:26 PM (edited) On 8/16/2018 at 10:42 AM, Hieu H. Huynh said: Where does it say this? RCMP Memorandum of Understanding. I ain't going up against those guys:-) Edited August 18, 2018 at 06:28 PM by Meggie906 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted August 18, 2018 at 06:29 PM Report Share Posted August 18, 2018 at 06:29 PM 1 minute ago, Meggie906 said: RCMP Memorandum of Understanding There is something going on here we're not fully understanding. What is RCMP? I don't need to know what it stands for, but is it some sort of public body? With whom does it have an MOU? An MOU may govern if it is akin to articles or to a procedural statute, or it might not. Still, though, so far as I can tell, none of this relates to the original question about majority. Nothing I've seen changes my opinion that I fully answered that, until I see something different in the bylaws or other governing documents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meggie906 Posted August 18, 2018 at 06:32 PM Report Share Posted August 18, 2018 at 06:32 PM Royal Canadian Mounted Police Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted August 18, 2018 at 06:34 PM Report Share Posted August 18, 2018 at 06:34 PM Just now, Meggie906 said: Royal Canadian Mounted Police As I suspected, there's more going on than just parliamentary issues. So the organization at question here has an MOU with the Mounties placing a representative of the Mounties on the board who can vote on all but money? Is the organization itself a public body? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted August 18, 2018 at 06:50 PM Report Share Posted August 18, 2018 at 06:50 PM 42 minutes ago, Meggie906 said: I have an example recently where we had to vote on a money issue which was urgent as we were purchasing the services of a Consultant. Two of the members were on vacation so the 3 of us who were here voted yes. The Liaison person could not vote . Based on 3 out of 5 voting yes we approved the Consultant hiring. Now one of the members who was on vacation is saying the vote is invalid, and will be brought up at the next Board Meeting. Edited 33 minutes ago by Meggie906 This vote was a majority vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meggie906 Posted August 18, 2018 at 07:49 PM Report Share Posted August 18, 2018 at 07:49 PM 1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said: As I suspected, there's more going on than just parliamentary issues. So the organization at question here has an MOU with the Mounties placing a representative of the Mounties on the board who can vote on all but money? Is the organization itself a public body? Victim Services Not For Profit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meggie906 Posted August 18, 2018 at 07:50 PM Report Share Posted August 18, 2018 at 07:50 PM 59 minutes ago, Hieu H. Huynh said: This vote was a majority vote. Thank You for your input :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted August 18, 2018 at 07:51 PM Report Share Posted August 18, 2018 at 07:51 PM Well, the underlying organization not being a public body simplifies things somewhat. The MOU likely still governs, in practice even if not according to RONR. Does anything, MOU, bylaws, or otherwise, give a special definition of majority? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meggie906 Posted August 18, 2018 at 07:54 PM Report Share Posted August 18, 2018 at 07:54 PM unfortunately not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted August 18, 2018 at 07:59 PM Report Share Posted August 18, 2018 at 07:59 PM Then I stand by my original answer, despite all these complications: a majority is more in favor than against. Note: Your organization might consider amending any documents, including the MOU, referring to a quorum as 51%, and adopting a single definition of quorum that does not depend on the pending question. I would suggest simply adopting the RONR definition of quorum, and specifying that it applies at all times. It is less than ideal for quorum to depend on the pending question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted August 18, 2018 at 08:25 PM Report Share Posted August 18, 2018 at 08:25 PM (edited) 2 hours ago, Meggie906 said: On everything except money. I have an example recently where we had to vote on a money issue which was urgent as we were purchasing the services of a Consultant. Two of the members were on vacation so the 3 of us who were here voted yes. The Liaison person could not vote . Based on 3 out of 5 voting yes we approved the Consultant hiring. Now one of the members who was on vacation is saying the vote is invalid, and will be brought up at the next Board Meeting. Agreeing with Mr. Katz and Mr. Huynh, and with my own earlier post, based on the information you have provided and the rules in RONR, the motion in question received a majority vote and was adopted. I'm curious: on exactly what basis does the dissenter claim that the vote was invalid and that the motion was not adopted? Edited to add: I'm inserting a big caveat here. We have not read your bylaws or this memorandum of understanding that you have spoken of. It is quite possible there is language in one or the other of those documents that would cause us to change our opinions. However, not having seen that language, we can base our answers only on what you have told us and on the rules in RONR . Edited August 18, 2018 at 08:40 PM by Richard Brown Added last paragraph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meggie906 Posted August 18, 2018 at 08:58 PM Report Share Posted August 18, 2018 at 08:58 PM 57 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said: Then I stand by my original answer, despite all these complications: a majority is more in favor than against. Note: Your organization might consider amending any documents, including the MOU, referring to a quorum as 51%, and adopting a single definition of quorum that does not depend on the pending question. I would suggest simply adopting the RONR definition of quorum, and specifying that it applies at all times. It is less than ideal for quorum to depend on the pending question. Thank You Joshua Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meggie906 Posted August 18, 2018 at 08:59 PM Report Share Posted August 18, 2018 at 08:59 PM 2 hours ago, Hieu H. Huynh said: This vote was a majority vote. Thank You for your input Hieu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Who's Coming to Dinner Posted August 18, 2018 at 11:33 PM Report Share Posted August 18, 2018 at 11:33 PM It was a majority vote but it's an open question whether a quorum was present. If a quorum was not present, then the action is null and void until later ratified. The answer hinges on whether you consider the membership to change depending on the motion before the meeting. This business about an MOU is a custom rule and only your organization can decide how to apply it. The complaining member may raise a Point of Order at the next meeting and the chair will decide, such ruling possibly being overturned by the members if the ruling is appealed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted August 18, 2018 at 11:42 PM Report Share Posted August 18, 2018 at 11:42 PM 6 minutes ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said: It was a majority vote but it's an open question whether a quorum was present. If I understand the rule and the situation correctly, there are 5 full members, and 1 liason. At the meeting, there were 3 full members, and 1 liason. If the question is one where the liason may not vote, a quorum is defined (for some reason) as 51% of the full members, so 3/5 is enough. If the question is one where the liason may vote, it seems they define quorum as 51% of the full and liason members, so 4/6 is enough. Even if I'm wrong, though, the only way for this meeting to have been inquorate would be (if I'm following correctly) if the liason counts against quorum (that is, towards the total) but not for quorum (that is, as present). While such a rule could certainly be made, and the description we've been given is consistent with it, it would be...odd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts