Non-standard terminology in voting threshold

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I am looking at some bylaws, in the section about proposals to amend the bylaws moved from the floor, this is stated:

"An absolute 2/3 vote is required for passage of any such proposal."

The problem is the word "absolute."  It appears they mean a 2/3 vote of all of a certain number so that an abstention has the same effect as a "no."  This is the first problem.  The second problem is what number?  All the persons on the floor (this is an annual convention of a society) at that time, or all persons registered though some of them may be temporarily absent from the floor.

Thoughts?

[puzzling]

On 1/17/2023 at 5:43 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

I am looking at some bylaws, in the section about proposals to amend the bylaws moved from the floor, this is stated:

"An absolute 2/3 vote is required for passage of any such proposal."

The problem is the word "absolute."  It appears they mean a 2/3 vote of all of a certain number so that an abstention has the same effect as a "no."  This is the first problem.  The second problem is what number?  All the persons on the floor (this is an annual convention of a society) at that time, or all persons registered though some of them may be temporarily absent from the floor.

Thoughts?

Absolute 2/3 vote could mean:

2/3 vote  of the (meeting) membership.

2/3 vote of members present

2/3 vote of members invited

2/3 vote of members mentioned in the bylaws (like maximum number of delegates)

Let the meeting  decide (they did accept the bylaws)

[J. J.]

On 1/17/2023 at 12:43 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

I am looking at some bylaws, in the section about proposals to amend the bylaws moved from the floor, this is stated:

"An absolute 2/3 vote is required for passage of any such proposal."

The problem is the word "absolute."  It appears they mean a 2/3 vote of all of a certain number so that an abstention has the same effect as a "no."  This is the first problem.  The second problem is what number?  All the persons on the floor (this is an annual convention of a society) at that time, or all persons registered though some of them may be temporarily absent from the floor.

Thoughts?

It is ambiguous and could mean a 2/3 vote of the votes cast, 2/3 vote of the members casting ballots, 2/3 vote of the members in the room, or a vote of 2/3 of the entire membership.  There may be other interpretations . 

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

On 1/17/2023 at 11:33 AM, J. J. said:

It is ambiguous and could mean a 2/3 vote of the votes cast, 2/3 vote of the members casting ballots, 2/3 vote of the members in the room, or a vote of 2/3 of the entire membership.  There may be other interpretations . 

Greaaaaattttttt.  I have a call scheduled with the Chair.  I will find out how they have interpreted this in the past.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

You know how much I love, and by love I mean hate with the heat of a thousand burning suns, when the terms "majority" or "2/3" are modified with unclear terms.  At least it doesn't say "simple absolute 2/3 majority."

Edited January 17, 2023 at 06:43 PM by Caryn Ann Harlos

[Richard Brown]

On 1/17/2023 at 11:58 AM, puzzling said:

Absolute 2/3 vote could mean:

2/3 vote  of the (meeting) membership.

What exactly is the “meeting membership“? That is a term not used in RONR.

On 1/17/2023 at 11:58 AM, puzzling said:

2/3 vote of members invited

Seriously, have you ever heard that term used before? It is certainly not in RONR. I personally have never heard it used in a parliamentary procedure sense.  Socially, I have heard similar expressions used to calculate how many invited guests one actually expects to show up at a party or other gathering. 

On 1/17/2023 at 11:58 AM, puzzling said:

2/3 vote of members mentioned in the bylaws (like maximum number of delegates)

That’s A new one, too.

The one very real possibility that you failed to mention is a regular “two-thirds vote of those members present and voting” as described in RONR.

 

[Richard Brown]

I agree with JJ that the term is somewhat ambiguous and could mean any of the things he suggested and that it is ultimately up to the membership to interpret the provision.  However, without knowing more, I would say that it is an ordinary 2/3 vote of those members present and voting.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

On 1/17/2023 at 12:49 PM, Richard Brown said:

I agree with JJ that the term is somewhat ambiguous and could mean any of the things he suggested and that it is ultimately up to the membership to interpret the provision.  However, without knowing more, I would say that it is an ordinary 2/3 vote of those members present and voting.

It is ambiguous as hell but my instinct is that it is a 2/3 vote of all registered delegates (because the context is unnoticed bylaws amendments which I know I did not give) and noticed bylaws amendments (of course mentioned in an entirely different section) is a typical 2/3 vote.

Edited January 17, 2023 at 07:58 PM by Caryn Ann Harlos

[Richard Brown]

On 1/17/2023 at 1:58 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

It is ambiguous as hell but my instinct is that it is a 2/3 vote of all registered delegates (because the context is unnoticed bylaws amendments which I know I did not give) and noticed bylaws amendments (of course mentioned in an entirely different section) is a typical 2/3 vote.

You can’t expect us to give accurate and meaningful answers if information that is pertinent to arriving at the answer is withheld.   Ultimately, this is still a matter of bylaws interpretation which is up to the membership to resolve.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

It wasn't intentional, I had not gotten to that part of the bylaws yet.  #grumpypants

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/17/2023 at 12:58 PM, puzzling said:

"An absolute 2/3 vote is required for passage of any such proposal."

It's clearly referring to "absolute value", so either at least two thirds, or at most negative two thirds.

🤠

[Josh Martin]

On 1/17/2023 at 9:43 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

I am looking at some bylaws, in the section about proposals to amend the bylaws moved from the floor, this is stated:

"An absolute 2/3 vote is required for passage of any such proposal."

The problem is the word "absolute."  It appears they mean a 2/3 vote of all of a certain number so that an abstention has the same effect as a "no."  This is the first problem.  The second problem is what number?  All the persons on the floor (this is an annual convention of a society) at that time, or all persons registered though some of them may be temporarily absent from the floor.

Thoughts?

I concur with your suggestion that the inclusion of the word "absolute" here is presumably intended to "mean a 2/3 vote of all of a certain number so that an abstention has the same effect as a 'no.'", but I don't have the slightest idea what that "certain number" is supposed to be, based solely upon the facts provided. The organization will have to determine what is meant here, and in the long run, it would obviously be advisable to amend the rule so that it is clear.

On 1/17/2023 at 10:33 AM, J. J. said:

It is ambiguous and could mean a 2/3 vote of the votes cast, 2/3 vote of the members casting ballots, 2/3 vote of the members in the room, or a vote of 2/3 of the entire membership.  There may be other interpretations . 

I suppose I am skeptical that it would mean "2/3 of the votes cast," since in that instance the word "absolute" doesn't seem to add anything to the meaning of the sentence, and it is generally assumed that words are included in the bylaws for a reason. Although with particularly poorly written bylaws, I suppose it may be prudent to give less weight to that assumption.

I am in agreement that any of the other interpretations you list are entirely plausible.

[Richard Brown]

I stand by my earlier comment that without more information I interpret the bylaw provision "An absolute 2/3 vote is required for passage of any such proposal" to mean an ordinary two-thirds vote as defined in RONR.  I base that primarily on §44:10 of RONR (12th ed.) which reads as follows:

Whenever it is desired that the basis for decision be other than a majority vote or (where the normal rules of parliamentary law require it) a two-thirds vote or a vote of a majority of the entire membership, the desired basis should be precisely defined in the bylaws or in a special rule of order.  (Emphasis added).

Here, the bylaws clearly do not define a different basis for determining the vote threshold required.  Therefore, without clear evidence that something else was intended by the drafters of the bylaws, I think the provision should be read as requiring an ordinary two-thirds vote of those members present and voting.   I agree that the provision is ambiguous, but I also believe §44:10 tells us the definition in RONR should be used unless the bylaws precisely define a different vote threshold or it can be proved that the drafters intended a different definition or threshold. 

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I have an appointment with the Chair tomorrow - I will keep you all posted as to what I find out about this provision.

[Gary Novosielski]

I think the word absolute may mean just about anything in this context.  One interpretation is that it is intended emphasize that it means "at least two-thirds" rather than "more than two-thirds".

I agree that it doesn't belong there if it doesn't qualify the vote in some way.  But we have all seen the phrase "simple majority", which is in countless bylaws and has no useful purpose.  Ironically, it is usually included to emphasize that the "majority vote" is not qualified in any way, while appearing to qualify it in the process.

This is not unlike the brain teaser:  Is the statement "This sentence is false." true, or false?

[Bruce Lages]

Caryn - Do you have any insights into how this statement was interpreted in the past? If there were any bylaw amendments moved from the floor in past conventions how was this voting requirement handled in those cases?

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

On 1/18/2023 at 12:03 PM, Bruce Lages said:

Caryn - Do you have any insights into how this statement was interpreted in the past? If there were any bylaw amendments moved from the floor in past conventions how was this voting requirement handled in those cases?

I am going to ask the Chair that and will let you guys know.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Talked to the Chair, he doesn't know the intent and it has not been interpreted recently.  If it comes up he will need to make a ruling.  Funny enough because its about bylaws amendments on the floor, if someone makes a bylaws amendment from the floor to clarify this provision, the body will have to interpret this provision to fix this provision.  Parliamentary Inception.