J. J.

The "right" does not, by its nature, violate any fundamental principle. It supersedes a rule that embodies a fundamental principle. The fundamental principle rule is no longer in effect.

I did in my first quote.

I merely quote you and will let others decide.

There is a problem with that. That we don't know what the policy is currently does not preclude knowing at some point.

That is the path you are going down with this. " It takes away the right of all members to cast their votes in a certain manner. All members are still entitled to cast their votes for candidates of their choice."

Then you could suspend the rules and require each member to vote for less than 4 candidates? That is the path you seem to be on with this.

Just so you all know, this is based on a real question, and is the simplified version. I do thank everyone for the input.

It would be better to treat this as Amend Something Previously Adopted. That way, if there is something discovered, your board would be assured of having properly replaced it.

It may be the difference between what you want to say, and what it says.

I do not agree, based on the black letter wording of RONR. What we don't know, for sure, what the "particular size" of the minority is, but we do know the range and know that it is less than one third.

The way that it is worded in 46:43 creates a right for a "minority group." Suspending it by a 2/3 vote would certainly violate the rights of that minority of less than 2/3. Could the rule be suspended?

First, I want to be clear, I am not wedded to a method for suspending the rule, but I do thing the rule, in this case, is supendable. I do wonder, however, if the question should be, how many votes are needed to prevent someone from being elected? Assume that Mary is a candidate and that most of the members do not want her elected to the ABC Committee. How many members would be needed to prevent that, in all cases? If 175 people will not vote for Mary, and will vote for someone else, on any given round of voting, Mary cannot with. If only 174 feel that way, Mary could win. That would answer a lot of the questions that have come up here.

Well, the action was carried out in the case of unanimous consent.

The election could be pending, i.e. candidates are nominated and debated after the rule is suspended. The rule could be suspended and then the election postponed or a recess, a brief one, is taken. It may take, and likely would, take some time to physically cast the votes. In all cases, they are voting after the rule has been suspended.

I would say that if you had at least 150 votes in this case you are protecting the rights of a minority. We are told that "no rule protecting a minority of a particular size can be suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as the minority protected by the rule (25:2 7).' Arguably, that could be one member. Arguably, it could be 26 members. Arguably, it could be some number in between.

They could show up before the vote is taken.

So far, unanimous consent or a unanimous vote seems to be only way to truly protect a minority here.

Looking at this question in another way, you could argue that it would take 175 votes to suspend the rule. There is no scenario where 175 people could not elect candidates of their choice for all seats. There is a scenario where 174 voters could not elect all the candidates of their choice.

Based on his first quote, I do not get the impression that this is what he is claiming. My impression is that, Dr. Kapur is saying is that, at least before the votes are cast, the rule could only be suspended by unanimous consent [or by a unanimous vote] because, in theory, one person could elect the members of the ABC Committee.

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.