{"id":54465,"date":"2018-05-15t13:00:22","date_gmt":"2018-05-15t17:00:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/48e130086c.nxcli.net\/?p=54465"},"modified":"2018-05-24t08:36:35","modified_gmt":"2018-05-24t12:36:35","slug":"votes-must-taken-options","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"\/\/www.g005e.com\/2018\/05\/15\/votes-must-taken-options\/","title":{"rendered":"when votes must be taken, what are the options?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"overhead<\/a>5 ways to vote, plus how to set a supermajority.<\/strong><\/p>\n

by <\/i>marc rosenberg<\/i><\/a><\/p>\n

we’ve established that voting is overrated and that most firms rarely vote.<\/p>\n

more:<\/strong> why voting isn\u2019t such a big deal<\/a> | why and how new partners buy in<\/a> | a crash course in partner retirement\/buyout plans<\/a> | protect your business with a solid partner agreement<\/a>
\n\"goprocpa.com\"exclusively for pro members. <\/span><\/strong>log in here<\/a> or 2022世界杯足球排名 today<\/a>.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

sometimes, though, it’s necessary. but how?
\n
\nthere are several ways firms can take formal votes:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. one person, one vote on all matters.<\/em><\/strong> majority rules. self-explanatory. most firms stop short of this because they feel that certain matters are so important that they should be decided by a higher percentage than majority rules. so they opt for ..<\/li>\n
  2. one person, one vote on most matters, with a supermajority vote required on a few critically important issues.<\/strong> see the left-hand column of the chart \u201cvoting decision grid\u201d below. most firms use supermajority percentages between 67 percent and 80 percent. it all depends on what the partners want.<\/li>\n
  3. unanimous decisions required to pass a vote.<\/strong> this may be appropriate for firms with two or three partners. beyond that, requiring a unanimous vote means that one person can prevent a very worthwhile and beneficial decision. this may give too much power to a dissenting partner.<\/li>\n
  4. always based on ownership percentage. <\/strong>voting on the basis of ownership percentage essentially disenfranchises low-ownership partners, many of whom are relatively new partners. they feel that their opinion has no impact on the outcome of the vote because the high-ownership partners get their way without the support of other partners. some firms are concerned about placing too much power in the hands of the majority owners. but …<\/li>\n
  5. special protection for the founders and\/or major producers is often needed.<\/strong> a valid concern with one-person, one-vote is that the \u201cpower partners\u201d (founders, rainmakers, high-ownership partners and the most productive partners) can be unjustly overruled and outvoted by a large block of minority owners and\/or low-production partners. power partners could:<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n