Liason member on the Board has the right to vote on eveything except money.

[Guest Margaret]

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

[Hieu H. Huynh]

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?

[Joshua Katz]

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.

[Richard Brown]

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

[Meggie906]

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%

 

[Joshua Katz]

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.

[Meggie906]

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

[Joshua Katz]

The idea of being quorate on some topics and not on others interests me. 

[Meggie906]

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

[Hieu H. Huynh]

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.

[Meggie906]

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

[Joshua Katz]

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.

[Meggie906]

Royal Canadian Mounted Police 

[Joshua Katz]

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? 

[Hieu H. Huynh]

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.

[Meggie906]

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

[Meggie906]

59 minutes ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

This vote was a majority vote.

Thank You for your input :-)

 

[Joshua Katz]

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?

[Meggie906]

unfortunately not

[Joshua Katz]

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.

[Richard Brown]

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

[Meggie906]

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

[Meggie906]

2 hours ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

This vote was a majority vote.

Thank You for your input Hieu

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

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.

[Joshua Katz]

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.