Guest Eric James Posted December 28, 2010 at 02:25 AM Report Share Posted December 28, 2010 at 02:25 AM How are voters treated that abstain from casting votes? Are all that abstain from voting still considered as a qourm? Example a qourm requires 26 eligible voting member members. 30 members are present and 5 decide not to vote,abstain. Is the qourm maintained and the vote official? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted December 28, 2010 at 02:30 AM Report Share Posted December 28, 2010 at 02:30 AM How are voters treated that abstain from casting votes?They're not voters if they abstain. See FAQ #6.Example a qourm requires 26 eligible voting member members. 30 members are present and 5 decide not to vote,abstain. Is the qourm maintained and the vote official?The quorum is determined by the number of members who are present, whether they vote or not. Quorums and voting are apples and oranges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted December 28, 2010 at 01:27 PM Report Share Posted December 28, 2010 at 01:27 PM How are voters treated that abstain from casting votes? Are all that abstain from voting still considered as a qourm? Example a qourm requires 26 eligible voting member members. 30 members are present and 5 decide not to vote,abstain. Is the qourm maintained and the vote official?Exactly how do your bylaws define a quorum? Is it actually "26 eligible voting members?" That would not be a good phrasing, and could lead to some ambiguity, as your question suggests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted December 29, 2010 at 02:20 AM Report Share Posted December 29, 2010 at 02:20 AM Exactly how do your bylaws define a quorum? Is it actually "26 eligible voting members?" That would not be a good phrasing, and could lead to some ambiguity, as your question suggests.Well, it would not create any ambiguity on the issue of whether abstentions affect the presence of a quorum. They do not.RONR says that a quorum can be satisfied by "voting members in good standing" which is equally ambiguous. But it is quite clear that a quorum refers only to the members being present; they are not required to vote. If they abstain from voting, they still count toward a quorum. Presuming you know how much a quorum actually is, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted December 31, 2010 at 08:51 AM Report Share Posted December 31, 2010 at 08:51 AM That would not be a good phrasing, and could lead to some ambiguity, as your question suggests.There's nothing wrong with the phrasing so long as the members know the definition of the word "quorum." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted December 31, 2010 at 09:35 AM Report Share Posted December 31, 2010 at 09:35 AM There's nothing wrong with the phrasing so long as the members know the definition of the word "quorum.""Eligible" contributes how, Josh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted December 31, 2010 at 09:47 AM Report Share Posted December 31, 2010 at 09:47 AM "Eligible" contributes how, Josh?Okay, I stand corrected. The wording isn't perfect, but its problem is one of redundancy, not ambiguity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted December 31, 2010 at 01:01 PM Report Share Posted December 31, 2010 at 01:01 PM Okay, I stand corrected. The wording isn't perfect, but its problem is one of redundancy, not ambiguity. While I understand what you're saying, and agree, the fact that Eric has asked the question - if fewer than 26 members vote, do we have a quorum? - more than suggests that an ambiguity exists in his mind, and that's what counts. It's not whether there is an ambiguity in our minds, but in those of the assembly. I'd say it's up to them to determine if there is ambiguity, regardless of our opinion on the matter.RONR does make the distinction that the term "voting members" is used to distinguish between members with the full rights of participation and those who do not enjoy such rights (honorary members, junior members, and such), according to the bylaw definitions of such. Whether that was the intent of Eric's bylaws is unknown. We may assume so, and as such, the ambiguity then disappears and we're left only with the questionable "eligible", which is best left to Eric's organization to figure out.Eric - any thoughts? Still with us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted December 31, 2010 at 10:05 PM Report Share Posted December 31, 2010 at 10:05 PM While I understand what you're saying, and agree, the fact that Eric has asked the question - if fewer than 26 members vote, do we have a quorum? - more than suggests that an ambiguity exists in his mind, and that's what counts. It's not whether there is an ambiguity in our minds, but in those of the assembly. I'd say it's up to them to determine if there is ambiguity, regardless of our opinion on the matter.RONR does make the distinction that the term "voting members" is used to distinguish between members with the full rights of participation and those who do not enjoy such rights (honorary members, junior members, and such), according to the bylaw definitions of such. Whether that was the intent of Eric's bylaws is unknown. We may assume so, and as such, the ambiguity then disappears and we're left only with the questionable "eligible", which is best left to Eric's organization to figure out.There is nothing ambiguous about the language so long as the meaning of the word "quorum" is understood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.