anon Posted December 26, 2019 at 10:02 PM Report Share Posted December 26, 2019 at 10:02 PM 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)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Goodwiller, PRP Posted December 26, 2019 at 10:14 PM Report Share Posted December 26, 2019 at 10:14 PM 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atul Kapur Posted December 27, 2019 at 03:24 AM Report Share Posted December 27, 2019 at 03:24 AM (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anon Posted December 27, 2019 at 10:21 PM Author Report Share Posted December 27, 2019 at 10:21 PM 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted December 27, 2019 at 10:30 PM Report Share Posted December 27, 2019 at 10:30 PM 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." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zev Posted December 27, 2019 at 11:45 PM Report Share Posted December 27, 2019 at 11:45 PM 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted December 31, 2019 at 02:44 PM Report Share Posted December 31, 2019 at 02:44 PM (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anon Posted January 1, 2020 at 01:44 AM Author Report Share Posted January 1, 2020 at 01:44 AM 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zev Posted January 1, 2020 at 03:54 AM Report Share Posted January 1, 2020 at 03:54 AM Thank you. And Happy New Year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts