Two-thirds vote present and cast

[anon]

My condominium bylaws, Section 2.7 Majority Vote, states "Except as otherwise provided by statute, by the Declaration, or by these Bylaws, passage of any matter submitted to vote at a meeting where a quorum is in attendance shall require the affirmative vote of at least fifty-one percent (51%) of the voting interest present." Bylaws Section 2.9 Parliamentary Authority, states "In the event of dispute, the parliamentary authority of meetings shall be the most current available edition of Robert's Rules of Order."

  When RONR requires a two-thirds vote for an incidental motion, such as limiting debate, is it safe to assume the count must be from votes present and cast (vice votes present)?

[Greg Goodwiller, PRP]

Since "these Bylaws" specify RONR as the parliamentary authority, I would make that assumption; however, as we often note in this forum, RONR also makes it clear that the interpretation of bylaws is ultimately the responsibility of the members of the assembly.

[Atul Kapur]

I'm not sure that what RONR says is at all relevant in this situation. Bylaws supersede the Parliamentary Authority and the bylaws here are pretty clear on the requirements for "passage of any matter submitted to vote."

Incidental motions would seem to be included in that term ("any matter submitted to vote"). So the vote requirement in the bylaws would seem to apply to them.

Edited December 27, 2019 at 03:26 AM by Atul Kapur

[anon]

Sounds like there may be a difference of opinion on this forum regarding how to interpret the bylaws.

Is the primary focus on the words "at least" 51% of the voting interest present? In other words, if RONR requires a two-thirds vote as a percentage of votes cast then this would apply as long as it exceeds 51% of the voting interest present?

What a mess...

[Joshua Katz]

6 minutes ago, anon said:

Sounds like there may be a difference of opinion on this forum regarding how to interpret the bylaws.

 

But we can't interpret your bylaws, only your organization can.

7 minutes ago, anon said:

Is the primary focus on the words "at least" 51% of the voting interest present? In other words, if RONR requires a two-thirds vote as a percentage of votes cast then this would apply as long as it exceeds 51% of the voting interest present?

 

No, I don't think that's the primary focus - nor does "at least 51%" imply that it must exceed 51%. The primary focus, if I were to attempt to interpret this bylaw, would be on the word "matter."

[Guest Zev]

The attempt of section 2.7 to redefine what constitutes a majority and to cast it in terms of fifty-one percent in the negative for rejection is highly unfortunate and has created a situation whereby the conundrum of less than a majority in favor and less than fifty-one percent against neither adopts nor rejects the measure. My suggestion is to simply delete section 2.7 and be done with this illogical experiment.

[Josh Martin]

On 12/26/2019 at 4:02 PM, anon said:

My condominium bylaws, Section 2.7 Majority Vote, states "Except as otherwise provided by statute, by the Declaration, or by these Bylaws, passage of any matter submitted to vote at a meeting where a quorum is in attendance shall require the affirmative vote of at least fifty-one percent (51%) of the voting interest present." Bylaws Section 2.9 Parliamentary Authority, states "In the event of dispute, the parliamentary authority of meetings shall be the most current available edition of Robert's Rules of Order."

  When RONR requires a two-thirds vote for an incidental motion, such as limiting debate, is it safe to assume the count must be from votes present and cast (vice votes present)?

On the contrary, it seems to me that unless otherwise provided by statute, by the declaration, or by the bylaws, “the affirmative vote of at least fifty-one percent (51%) of the voting interest present” is required, regardless of what RONR says. The bylaws take precedence over RONR.

On 12/27/2019 at 5:45 PM, Guest Zev said:

The attempt of section 2.7 to redefine what constitutes a majority and to cast it in terms of fifty-one percent in the negative for rejection is highly unfortunate and has created a situation whereby the conundrum of less than a majority in favor and less than fifty-one percent against neither adopts nor rejects the measure. My suggestion is to simply delete section 2.7 and be done with this illogical experiment.

I don’t see the part about 51% in the negative for rejection. It says that adoption “shall require the affirmative vote of at least fifty-one percent (51%) of the voting interest present.” I agree, however, that the simplest solution to this problem is to delete the section in question.

Edited December 31, 2019 at 02:47 PM by Josh Martin

[anon]

On 12/27/2019 at 3:45 PM, Guest Zev said:

The attempt of section 2.7 to redefine what constitutes a majority and to cast it in terms of fifty-one percent in the negative for rejection is highly unfortunate and has created a situation whereby the conundrum of less than a majority in favor and less than fifty-one percent against neither adopts nor rejects the measure. My suggestion is to simply delete section 2.7 and be done with this illogical experiment.

Sorry for the confusion Zev. I posted another thread "Absent a Quorum." That is where a negative vote scenario was discussed.

[Guest Zev]

Thank you. And Happy New Year.