== <nowiki>#</nowiki>3: Within a council of five, the quorum for a vote is four
| | == <nowiki>#</nowiki>3: Within a council of five, the quorum for a vote is four
|
(Proposed on 2004-12-04 by Wayne Schlitt. Passed unanimously.)
| | (Proposed on 2004-12-04 by Wayne Schlitt, passed unanimously. [[Action:browse&diff=1&id=Council_Resolution%2F3&revision=3&diffrevision=2|Amendment]] proposed on 2004-12-22 by Chuck Mead, passed unanimously.)
|
| |
<+> Vote log for 2004-12-22 amendment
<pre><Julian> (Why isn't there a quorom? We are 4 council members, and a
majority voted yes...)
<csm-laptop> Julian: approval requires 4 votes... we decided that on day 1
<Julian> There were 4 votes.
<csm-laptop> not 4 ayes
<csm-laptop> you abstained
<Julian> vote == aye|no?
<grumpy> Uh, I thought a quorum was needed to call a meeting to order, not
for votes.
<csm-laptop> 4 yes votes would have approved the motion...
<csm-laptop> we did not get 4
<Julian> No, for votes. But I thought a vote = yes | no | abstain.
<csm-laptop> MarkK: though I would like to move on Julian is not going to let
us
<grumpy> I agree with Julian about the votes.
* Julian is confused, so we can never make a decision with only 3
yes and 2 no?
* grumpy is also confused and, while he really wants things to move
faster, feels that this is an important issue
<csm-laptop> Julian, grumpy: it is the chairs interpretation of
http://spf.mehnle.net/Council_Resolution/3 means that four are
required for a meeting and 4 are required for approval of a
motion
<csm-laptop> am I wrong
<csm-laptop> ?
<Julian> csm: I think so.
<grumpy> my understanding was 4 required for a meeting, 3 for approval of
a vote
<grumpy> s/3/a majority/
<csm-laptop> MarkK: ?
<Julian> I learned that a vote was commonly understood as "yes | no |
abstain". I may be wrong, but I don't think so...
<csm-laptop> Julian: I am not questioning what constitutes a vote... only what
contistutes a majority
<csm-laptop> MarkK: ?
<csm-laptop> what is your opinion?
<MarkK> I understood a quorum to mean 4 out of 5 present and voting
<Julian> csm: A majority is clearly 3. That's even an absolute majority.
<csm-laptop> MarkK: and an approval requires 100% quorom or a simple majority
within the quorom?
<grumpy> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum doesn't mention voting, just
conducting business
<Julian> grumpy: The term "quorum" can also be applied to voting.
<MarkK> csm: just a majority, I think; otherwise, with 1 person absent,
we could never vote on anything without 100%
<Julian> Otherwise, our quorum of 4 is too high. An absolute majority (3)
should be sufficient for any vote.
<csm-laptop> motion: motions may be approved with a simple majority of votes
whenever a quorom is present
<grumpy> 1509u seconded
<MarkK> 15:06u: seconded
<csm-laptop> aye
<Julian> 1509u: yes
<grumpy> yes
<Julian> We need another "yes".
<grumpy> we have four
<csm-laptop> so ordered
<Julian> grumpy: So MarkK's was a yes?
<grumpy> oh, MarkK didn't vote, he seconded
<MarkK> ok, that was a 'yes' then</pre>
</+>
|
