J. J.

You should have to look at the size of the minority that could be protected by the rule.

I believe this is in substantial agreement with Mr. Martin's post, but see "Cancelling a Meeting? Remember Absentee Rights," here: https://issuu.com/parliamentarians/docs/nap_np84-1-www3

I think so. I know the question has come up in the past.

That is basically my answer. I think the suspension could not happen in the face of a negative vote (N) equal to a majority of the members voting (M) divided by the number of positions (P). N<(M/P). M > 60. P= 4, M/P = any number greater than 15, and N </= 2N as well. I will agree that the math is not easy.

(This is incredibly convoluted but is based on a real situation) A society has a bylaw permitting a special rule to establish cumulative voting for seats on a standing committee. The society adopts the special rule that says: "The ABC Committee shall consist of four members of the assembly, elected by cumulative voting," The society has 200 enrolled members, with no fixed quorum in the bylaws; the default is a majority. No rule or bylaw requires secret ballots for this. There are currently 120 members present. 46:43 describes cumulative voting as a method for electing someone from a "minority group." 1. Does cumulative voting protect a "minority of a particular size," within the meaning of 25:2 #7? (I will go with yes, currently.) 2. May the rule be suspended in this case? 3. If the answer to 2 is yes, what is the vote required to suspend, i.e. "the minority of a particular size?" How many votes would be necessary to prevent suspension?

If you meet at least quarterly, RONR does not require an adopted agenda (41:6). As a township, you are governed by statute, which will supersede RONR.

Any custom is superseded by something adopted (2:25). That said, the bylaw may give the Board some discretion.

Article VI answers the question. It is the BOD that creates the APG, so it is not a special rule of order. Unless APG VII adopted as a bylaw amendment, RONR will supersede it.

Just to be clear, I am not questioning the original poster's, Hillary Kasarjian's, veracity in the least. It is clear that she (?) does not have the answer at this point, either. Perhaps the easier method that searching the minutes would be to determine what, if anything, the bylaws say about standing committees and the role of the board. In the latter case, is there something in the bylaws that says that the assembly may assign additional duties to the board.

Right now, we don't have facts to show that this was adopted as a special rule of order; that is why I stand with my first answer. For all we know at this this point, this policy manual was adopted by the board and is not a special rule of order. I am skeptical that this actually is a special rule of order.

However, has not the society, if done properly, referred all matters of this class to a standing committee, the board serving as a standing committee (along with being the board)? [That would include a presumption that, as per 50:9, there were no other standing committees established in the bylaws.]

How is that required in light of the 63:32 fn 10. Let me expand. I agree that RONR can require certain things to be authorized in the bylaws (e.g. proxy voting). Where is this in regard to disciplinary action in RONR?

Unless your bylaws say otherwise, nonvoting members cannot vote.

62:16 refers to the "procedures described in 63." One of those procedures, the footnote for 63:32, indicates that the assembly can adopt a special rule to do something different. The assembly would still be following "procedures described in 63," if it adopted a rule described in 63:32 fn. 10. You could make an argument that if RONR is the parliamentary authority and the bylaws provided that officers served "or until their successors are elected," the assembly could not adopt a special rule requiring a trial. (If it were in the same session the assembly could, however, suspend the rules and require a trial.) Edited to add: The OP referred to officers and general members. There is no hint that anything could prevent the assembly from adopting special rules in regard to disciplinary action against members. All that said, I still have questions of if this policy manual is a valid special rule. We also don't know what the term of office of officers are.

It would depend if this policy/guideline was a special rule of order or not. What was the vote taken to adopt it; was notice of its adoption given? Do you have separate special rules? It is completely possible to adopt a rule of order covering disciplinary action (63:32 fn. 10). It is not clear that this is what your group did.

I would note that the society has control of its own hall (61:6). That would include the conditions for recording the meeting.

Recall may not be in order. From what you have posted, it is not clear if the "members" are members of the board or regular members and if the meeting of the board or a stockholder meeting.

This, the last line, gives me the answer. If the rules surrounding a ballot may be suspended without violating the secrecy of a ballot, there would be no violation. It could be possible to suspend the rules, prior to the election, without violating the secrecy of the members' votes. Edited: I will add that, in this case, it was not done prior to the election and objecting to it could violate the secrecy of the members' votes.

It is also possible to be in contact with the floor parliamentarian through electronic means, unless the assembly bans the use of electronic devices on the floor.

Actions are sometimes approved by unanimous consent (4:58 ff). They are binding, if that is what was done.

A reporting member of the board should move the motion. If the board has more than one member, no second is required.

I have known any number of spouses that disagree with each other.

Well, the chair (or the assembly )just claimed that the motion to adopt a special rule at a special meeting, was in order, was in order. Conversely, the chair declared that a majority of the entire membership, which is less than 2/3 of the vote, may suspend rules of order. I would say that neither is correct, especially if the chair declares that this was the correct vote and does not miscount nor miscalculate.

I agree that a point of order would need to be timely. What if the motion were "To suspend the rules and require that debate on each debatable motion shall be limited to one speech of no longer than two minutes. This suspension shall expire at the final adjournment of this session." If the chair were to declare the motion adopted based on a vote of less that than two thirds, would it not require a timely point of order as well? Would you then claim that the motion to suspend the rules in this case only required a majority vote?

Read something I wrote, just about anything.