counting votes cast

[Sandy Ykema]

Our by-laws say "a candidate must receive a two-thirds affirmative vote by secret ballot of the active voting members present.  An abstention shall not be considered a vote cast."  I read RONR (12th ed.) 44, looking especially at 44.3 and the example in 44.8, as requiring that the "active voting members present" means those who actually vote.  Thus, the 2/3 affirmative vote is 2/3 of the votes cast; am I right? 

To give an example, if 100 members are present, and 10 abstain, then 2/3 will be 60 votes out of 90 votes cast.  The alternative is to say that if 100 members are present, and 10 abstain, then 2/3 will be 67, but that is 2/3 of the members present, not the "voting members present."  It seems that 2/3 in this case should be 60.

I appreciate your insights.

[Josh Martin]

On 11/20/2021 at 7:12 AM, Sandy Ykema said:

Our by-laws say "a candidate must receive a two-thirds affirmative vote by secret ballot of the active voting members present.  An abstention shall not be considered a vote cast."  I read RONR (12th ed.) 44, looking especially at 44.3 and the example in 44.8, as requiring that the "active voting members present" means those who actually vote.  Thus, the 2/3 affirmative vote is 2/3 of the votes cast; am I right? 

Yes, this is certainly correct so far as RONR is concerned.

While it is ultimately up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws, I think it is also certainly correct so far as your bylaws are concerned. If your bylaws simply said "A candidate must receive a two-thirds affirmative vote by secret ballot of the active voting members present," then there may be some ambiguity as to whether this refers to 2/3 of the votes cast or to 2/3 of the members present. Since your bylaws further provide, however, that "An abstention shall not be considered a vote cast," I think there is no doubt that it refers to 2/3 of the votes cast. If it referred to the members present, there would be no reason for that sentence.

The one caveat is that I don't know what the word "active" means in this context, so it may be that word adds some meaning to this provision I am not aware of. On the other hand, the word "active" may be redundant.

I will note that in the long run, it may be best to simplify the rule in question so that it simply provides "A candidate must receive a two-thirds affirmative vote by secret ballot." The additional words seem to simply restate the rules in RONR in a very roundabout fashion, and they seem to be causing confusion rather than clarity.

Finally, I am curious as to whether the provision in question relates to admitting new members to the society (or something similar) or whether it relates to electing officers (or something similar). In the former case, this provision seems fine (other than the wording issues). In the latter case, it seems problematic, since it appears to imply a "yes/no" vote for the election of officers (which is improper) and because it requires a 2/3 vote for election (which will likely lead to some very long elections in the future).

On 11/20/2021 at 7:12 AM, Sandy Ykema said:

To give an example, if 100 members are present, and 10 abstain, then 2/3 will be 60 votes out of 90 votes cast.  The alternative is to say that if 100 members are present, and 10 abstain, then 2/3 will be 67, but that is 2/3 of the members present, not the "voting members present."  It seems that 2/3 in this case should be 60.

The phrase "voting members present" standing alone is ambiguous, because the phrase "voting member" could mean either 1) a member who is voting on the pending question OR 2) a member who has the right to vote. Because of the sentence "An abstention shall not be considered a vote cast," however, I agree that the proper interpretation is that it refers to the votes cast. As a result, if 90 votes are cast, then 60 votes in the affirmative would be required.

Edited November 20, 2021 at 01:40 PM by Josh Martin

[Sandy Ykema]

Thanks for your insights.  It refers to a vote of affirmation for church elders.  Complicating the situation is that it is not an election, where, say 4 candidates are presented for 3 positions.  Rather, it is an affirmation, with 4 candidates presented for 4 positions. 

I think the clearest way to present this on the ballot is to have the option, as to each candidate, "for affirmation/not for [or against] affirmation/abstain".  That way, the vote recorders will know which ballots indicate a preference, and which are abstentions.  See 45.31.

[Josh Martin]

On 11/20/2021 at 7:46 AM, Sandy Ykema said:

Thanks for your insights.  It refers to a vote of affirmation for church elders.  Complicating the situation is that it is not an election, where, say 4 candidates are presented for 3 positions.  Rather, it is an affirmation, with 4 candidates presented for 4 positions. 

Let me clarify further. Is there a set number of church elders that the church must elect? Or can the church elect as many (or as few) church elders as it fees fit?

If the number of church elders to elect is not fixed, then the process the church is using seems appropriate. If the number of church elders to elect is fixed, the process the church is using does not seem appropriate.

On 11/20/2021 at 7:46 AM, Sandy Ykema said:

I think the clearest way to present this on the ballot is to have the option, as to each candidate, "for affirmation/not for [or against] affirmation/abstain".  That way, the vote recorders will know which ballots indicate a preference, and which are abstentions.  See 45.31.

If there is no fixed number of church elders to elect, I agree that there should be options for each candidate "for affirmation/against affirmation." There is no need for an "abstain" option on the ballot, as members may abstain by simply leaving that portion of the ballot blank.

If there is a fixed number of church elders to elect, then what should occur instead is for members to vote for a number of candidates of their choice (up to the number of elders to elect), and there should be an option to "write-in" candidates who have not been nominated. When a fixed number of candidates are to be elected, the only question is who to elect, not whether to elect. Therefore, a "yes/no" vote is not appropriate.

[Sandy Ykema]

There is no fixed number of elders to elect, so the question is indeed "whether to elect".

[Richard Brown]

On 11/20/2021 at 7:12 AM, Sandy Ykema said:

Our by-laws say "a candidate must receive a two-thirds affirmative vote by secret ballot of the active voting members present.  An abstention shall not be considered a vote cast." 

I agree with Josh Martin's analysis and responses.  The language used in your bylaws for this vote requirement really is ambiguous and should be clarified at some point, as I see it continuing to be a source of controversy.  In RONR, the term "a two-thirds vote", when unqualified, means two thirds of the votes cast, excluding blanks and abstentions, etc.  But when you add "of the active voting members present", you create a huge ambiguity.  It is not at all clear whether the vote requirement is a regular two thirds vote or "the vote of two thirds of the members present" or something else.   Ultimately it is up to the members of your church to interpret its own bylaws when there is an ambiguity.   We cannot do that for you.  We can only give our personal opinions.

For what it is worth,  if I had a say in this (and Josh and I don't.... only the members of your church do), I would take the same position Josh took.  My personal interpretation is that a regular two thirds vote as defined in RONR is the requirement.  I imagine, though, that there are probably members of your church who disagree.  There may be members of this forum who disagree.  That is why I suggest that the ambiguous language be clarified.

Until such time as the bylaws are amended to clarify the position, it can be "clarified" or interpreted for the record (i.e., for your minutes) by someone raising a point of order as to the vote requirement and the chair ruing on the point of order.  The point of order and the ruling of the chair should be included in the minutes.  That will establish a precedent for guidance in the future.  If the ruling is appealed, the outcome of the appeal should be in the minutes.  See sections 23:10-21 of RONR for more information on establishing (and changing) a precedent by means of a point of order. Note also that according to RONR the chair's response to a parliamentary inquiry does not establish a precedent as it is not the same thing as an actual ruling of the chair.  Raising a point of order is required for that.

 

[Sandy Ykema]

Thank you for the very helpful comments, including pointing me to the point of order possibility.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 11/20/2021 at 11:20 AM, Richard Brown said:

Until such time as the bylaws are amended to clarify the position, it can be "clarified" or interpreted for the record (i.e., for your minutes) by someone raising a point of order as to the vote requirement and the chair ruing on the point of order. 

A point of order would be appropriate "when a member thinks that the rules of the assembly are being violated" (RONR 12th ed. 23:1). In this case, that would be only if the chair has announced a result that a member thinks is improper. It is not appropriate to raise a point of order to resolve a theoretical question about the meaning of a particular bylaw provision.