# Roberts Rules of Order expertise will be needed **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 8, 2006, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roberts-rules-of-order-expertise-will-be-needed/351846 "2006-04-08T11:36:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![rbroome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/838e76/32.png) [@rbroome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rbroome)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roberts-rules-of-order-expertise-will-be-needed/351846/21 "2006-04-09T21:42:25Z")
> [@pseudotriton ruber ruber](#): > > Our Bylaws specify that two-thirds of the voting members must approve a revision of the Bylaws. revising the bylaws usually requires a 2/3s vote, but that has nothing to do with setting a quorum. ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roberts-rules-of-order-expertise-will-be-needed/351846/22 "2006-04-09T21:50:25Z")
> [@pseudotriton ruber ruber](#): > > Okay, there is where I’m at now: > > I’m going to argue that the meeting, by definition, began with a quorum. Well, a meeting does not “by definition” begin with a quorum. A quorum is not present unless a quorum is present. > [@pseudotriton ruber ruber](#): > > 1. We had a quorum > > When we were ready to vote on the new Bylaws, we counted heads, came up with 16, and said, “Yes, we have a quorum.” IOW, the only mention of a quorum had to do with the fact that we agreed we had one. Maybe there were additional people in the room at that point who chose not to cast a vote at all, maybe there were 18 or 20 people in the room, or maybe we just made an arithmetical error, but the point is that NO ONE OBJECTED TO THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM. Sorry, but a quorumless meeting can’t bootstrap itself into a quorum just by the members present winking at each other and pretending that a quorum is present. A quorum is not present unless a quorum is present. The absence of objection does not establish a quorum. And the presumption of a quorum – that is, the presumption that a quorum is present until the chair or a member notices otherwise – does not arise until a quorum has been affirmatively and correctly established. > [@pseudotriton ruber ruber](#): > > 1. We voted, 16-0, in favor of the motion, with no objection voiced as to the absence of a quorum Again, what does the quorum rule have to do with the vote required? You never answered my question about why you think that the quorum is 18 members. All you have told us is that (in your words) “[o]ur Bylaws specify that two-thirds of the voting members must approve a revision of the Bylaws.” Do you understand the difference between a quorum and a supermajority? > [@pseudotriton ruber ruber](#): > > Thus, (I want to argue), the motion passed, and any attempt to amend the new Bylaws now requires a 2/3s vote, and not a simple majority (which is what both sets of Bylaws say). You wrote earlier that “[o]ur Bylaws specify that two-thirds of the voting members must approve a revision of the Bylaws.” Now you’re suddenly saying that “both sets of Bylaws” require a simple majority for amendment. Which is it? And if your bylaws really do say that “two-thirds of the voting members must approve a revision of the Bylaws,” then it doesn’t matter whether a quorum is present. A motion to revise the bylaws fails unless “two-thirds of the voting members” vote for it. Even if a quorum is present and those members unanimously support the revision, the revision still fails unless “two-thirds of the voting members” support it. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roberts-rules-of-order-expertise-will-be-needed/351846/23 "2006-04-09T23:02:04Z")
You make good points, Brian. Thank you. I’ll review the Bylaws to see if I’m correct about some of my assertions and assumptions. And thanks to everyone, not just Brian, for suggesting lapses in my logic (or in my Department’s Bylaws). ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roberts-rules-of-order-expertise-will-be-needed/351846/24 "2006-04-09T23:22:39Z")
Now I’m good and confused. I wonder if the Bylaws distinguish between a quorum and a supermajority–they seem to use them interchangibly. For example the section defining a quorum states that “One-half of the voting members shall constitute a quorum on all matters except changes in these Bylaws, as specified in Article VI. Proxies will be included in the quorum. All faculty may serve as proxies, voting members may assign their votes to other members by written proxies.” but Article VI doesn’t address the issue of redefining a quorum so much as it specifies a supermajority: “These Bylaws may be amended at any regular meeting of the department by a two-thirds majority of the voting members of the department, provided that the amendment has been submitted in writing at the previous regular meeting.” This is where I get confused. Of the 27 voters, must there be 18 present to take a vote on amending the bylaws? Must at least 18 members vote in favor of such a motion? Or must there be just 14 members present for a quorum (since Section VI doesn’t really address the issue that the prior section on quorums suggests it does) and 10 votes are needed of those 14 to pass the motion by a 2/3s supermajority? Basically I’m asking is it me who’s confused and the Bylaws make sense, or are the Bylaws totally screwed up and possibly invalid? ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roberts-rules-of-order-expertise-will-be-needed/351846/25 "2006-04-09T23:45:43Z")
> [@pseudotriton ruber ruber](#): > > Now I’m good and confused. > > I wonder if the Bylaws distinguish between a quorum and a supermajority–they seem to use them interchangibly. For example the section defining a quorum states that > > “One-half of the voting members shall constitute a quorum on all matters except changes in these Bylaws, as specified in Article VI. Proxies will be included in the quorum. All faculty may serve as proxies, voting members may assign their votes to other members by written proxies.” > > but Article VI doesn’t address the issue of redefining a quorum so much as it specifies a supermajority: > > “These Bylaws may be amended at any regular meeting of the department by a two-thirds majority of the voting members of the department, provided that the amendment has been submitted in writing at the previous regular meeting.” > > This is where I get confused. Of the 27 voters, must there be 18 present to take a vote on amending the bylaws? Must at least 18 members vote in favor of such a motion? Or must there be just 14 members present for a quorum (since Section VI doesn’t really address the issue that the prior section on quorums suggests it does) and 10 votes are needed of those 14 to pass the motion by a 2/3s supermajority? > > Basically I’m asking is it me who’s confused and the Bylaws make sense, or are the Bylaws totally screwed up and possibly invalid? Thanks for quoting the bylaws, **pseudotriton** – it makes the issue much clearer. Those bylaws are far from a model of clarity, and they do muddle the issue of quorum and supermajority a little. But they actually state a discernible rule. The fact that an amendment requires “a two-thirds majority of the voting members of the department” implies (1) that two-thirds of the membership must vote in the affirmative, which implies (2) that two-thirds of the membership must be present (at least by proxy). The provision that establishes the quorum as “[o]ne-half of the voting members … on all matters except changes in these Bylaws” evidently treats that second implication as a different quorum that applies only when the bylaws are being amended. That distinction is largely semantic. The supermajority alone is what determines whether an amendment passes. Treating it as a new quorum is unnecessary and confusing, but ultimately harmless. The bottom line is that an amendment requires “a two-thirds majority of the voting members of the department” – 18 votes, in the case of a 27-member department. If the last meeting’s minutes disclose that the revision got only 16 votes, then there is no valid argument that the revision passed, which would have taken 18 votes. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roberts-rules-of-order-expertise-will-be-needed/351846/26 "2006-04-10T01:11:15Z")
Brian–Thanks for the clarification. I just sent you an e-mail about this stuff. Now that I’ve had my general question addressed, I have some more specific questions for you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roberts-rules-of-order-expertise-will-be-needed/351846.md?page=1)