Bryce Sullivan

Thanks, Gary! I agree with you on all points. The idea of a "superminority" is a good one.

RONR discussed 2/3s votes, but I’m not finding much on 3/4 majority requirements. I'm a member in an organization that has detailed bylaws about disciplinary judicial actions against members. After an investigation, if there is a "strong presumption of guilt," a formal judicial process is initiated. To find someone guilty of a charge, a majority vote is required. However, after the "strong presumption of guilt" is determined by a majority vote, and before he/she is found guilty, "all his official functions" may be suspended by a majority vote. A motion is being considered by the governing assembly to change the requirement of suspending "official functions" to a 3/4 majority vote. There are other situations in the organization's bylaws when a 3/4 majority vote is required, but it is reserved for matters of great importance to the majority such as changing the organization's constitution. My question concerns the advisability of making this change given that someone can be found to have a "strong presumption of guilt" at the lower bar of a majority vote, and the decision of guilt also requires the lower bar of a majority vote. While this change would provide more protection for the accused than the current policy, the rights of the majority would seem to be infringed upon by requiring this supermajority of 3/4 to suspend a person from all duties. I’m looking for good arguments to make against the change which seems inadvisable to me. Thanks!! Bryce

Thanks so much!!

This is an older post about correspondence, and to add to the discussion, what process would be used if a member wanted a piece of correspondence to be recorded in the minutes? I know correspondence would not normally be included, but could a member move to include the correspondence in the record? Such a motion would not mean that the assembly agreed with the letter, of course. It's not the same thing, but RONR states about reports: "When a committee report is of great importance or should be recorded to show the legislative history of a measure, the assembly can order it "to be entered in the minutes," in which case the secretary copies it in full in the minutes" (RONR, p. 470). Thanks!

Here are a couple of sites I found with the 4th edition. At least that's what they say. Thanks for the help! http://www.iclafco.com/media/managed/pdf/032615_12B_Roberts_Rules_of_Order_FullVersion.pdf http://www.rulesonline.com/

Thanks. I looked but couldn't find it. I tried Google books and a simple web search. How do I find in online?

I'm sure you all know that the 4th edition was published in 1915. Oh well, the question is the same!

In the section titled Special Meetings (§9), page 91, lines 31-34, RONR, 11th Ed., it says this: "Notice of the time, place, and purpose of the meeting, clearly and specifically describing the subject matter of the motions or items of business to be brought up, must be sent to all members a reasonable number of days in advance." Would someone with a 4th Edition published in 1925 confirm that the same language exists in that version? I'm doing a historical study on something that happened in 1933, and I want to be sure the meeting notice language was the same. Could you quote the same sentence and give me the page number? I know this is a lot to ask! 😊 Bryce

I tried the google search option. I'm specifically referring to a nonprofit corporation. I know in the state of Tennessee (where I live) there is no legal requirements that members of a nonprofit corporation to be 18 or older to vote. I understand, however, that some states have such a limit. So I was just trying to find a list. I'll try some more searching! Thanks.

I understand that it is the case that some states have a minimum voting age for voting in a corporation meeting. I can't find a reference anywhere that shows states and these voting ages. I realize this isn't exactly an RONR question, but I thought you might know the answer. Thanks!

Yes--a committee and not officers. I'm basing my current view that it's okay based Daniel H. Honemann's earlier comments about page 17, lines 19-27 and some other posts. Thanks!

Thanks for your help. I'm still trying to get my head around all of this, but I trust the experts! With as many potential nominees as we have, it would take many separate ballots (I think) to reach a majority for all 11 candidates. So even though it goes a bit against sense of what seems right, suspending the rules and going with a plurality vote ought to go better (or at least more easily).

Thanks. It will be ballot voting, and I'm only guessing on the number of candidates.

Thanks. On p. 263, ll. 4-7 it states "unless the particular rule specifically provides for its own suspension, or unless the rule properly is in the nature of a rule of order as described on page 17, lines 22–25." In my example, the rule doesn't provide for its own suspension in the bylaws. On page 17, ll. 22-25, it states: "Rules of order—whether contained in the parliamentary authority or adopted as special rules of order—can be suspended by a two-thirds vote as explained in 25 (with the exceptions there specified). Rules clearly identifiable as in the nature of rules of order that are placed within the bylaws can (with the same exceptions) also be suspended by a two-thirds vote; but, except for such rules and for clauses that provide for their own suspension, as stated above, rules in the bylaws cannot be suspended." I'm still unclear. Page 17 says "Rules clearly identifiable as in the nature of rules of order that are placed within the bylaws can . . . be suspended" but then is says, "rules in the bylaws cannot be suspended." Those statements seem contradictory.

Yes. You are right, we aren't electing officers, only members of a committee. But since our bylaws say "The vote of a majority of the members present in person at any annual or special meeting and entitled to vote thereat shall decide any question brought before such meeting . . .", I think we are aren't able to use plurality voting.