J. J.

The fraction is still the same under Mr. Martin's premise. If there are 120 votes cast, 105 votes would be needed to suspend the rules. If there are 100 votes cast, 88 votes would be needed (in whole numbers) would be needed to suspend the rule. If 20 votes are cast, then 18 votes (in whole numbers) would be needed. Both mathematically and by the terms of 46:45 there is a rule protecting a minority of a particular size.

The first paragraph makes sense to everyone else. The second line is applicable, because the minority will always be less than 1/3. No, it may, in fact, be based on the total number of members, i.e. the total number that could vote. That is one possibility. Further the percentage will not change based on the number of people voting in either example. For example, if Mr. Martin's premise is correct, the rule will always protect a minority of greater than 12.5% of the members voting; at least 87.5% of the voters is needed to suspend the rule. If my premise is correct, it will always protect a minority of greater than 12.5% of the members; at least 87.5% of the membership is needed to suspend the rule. The percentage necessary is based on the number of positions or slots, not the number of voters or members, and it is fixed progression. If the rule can be suspended, and Mr. Martin is right, the minority protected is anything above these numbers: 2 slots- 25%- 75% needed to suspend 3 slots-16.6667%-83.333% needed to suspend 4 slots- 12.5%-87.5% " " 5 slots - 10%-90% '' '' 6 slots - 8.3333%-91.6667% " " 7 slots - 7.1429%-92.8671% " " 8 slots - 6.5%- 93.5% " " 9 slots- 5.5556%-94.4444% " " 10 slots - 5%-95% " " Under Mr. Martin's premise the percentage would be of the members voting. If the rule can be suspended, and I am right, the minority protected is anything above these numbers: 2 slots- 25%- 75% needed to suspend 3 slots-16.6667%-83.333% needed to suspend 4 slots- 12.5%-87.5% " " 5 slots - 10%-90% '' '' 6 slots - 8.3333%-91.6667% " " 7 slots - 7.1429%-92.8671% " " 8 slots - 6.5%- 93.5% " " 9 slots- 5.5556%-94.4444% " " 10 slots - 5%-95% " " Under my premise the percentage would be of the total membership. In neither case would this percentage fluctuated on the number of people voting, at least as I would understand Mr. Martin's premise.

First, I will disagree that this, if authorized in the bylaws is a rule in the nature of a rule of order and therefor, in that case suspendable; RONR prevents it from being a rule of order (2:16) fn 5). However, that is not relevant to this situation as the bylaws permit this to be created as a rule of order. Second, I am still of the opinion that the rule could be suspended as per 25:2 7. Third it is a misstatement of fact to claim that this would not be fraction. A fraction is a type of mathematical formula. In the one described in the quoted post it could mean "one fifth of the membership/5," e.g. if the membership is 200, 1/5 is 40. Since it is unspecified. From the quote, it also could have a different numerator, e.g. "one fifth of the members voting." In that case, even with 200 members, if 120 voted, 24 is 1/5. Both the answers provided by Mr. Martin and myself are fractions. Martin's Answer: The minority protected is any number greater than (Total number of voters / 2) / number of positions. In the example (120/2) / 4 or 60 / 4 or any number greater than 15. (12.5% of numerator x 2) The rule not be suspended by a vote of less than 105 of the members voting. Jacobs Answer: The minority protected is any number greater than (Total number members/2) / number of positions] In the example, (200 /2) / 4] or 100/4 or 25. (12.5% of numerator x 2) The rule could not be suspended by a vote of less than 175. Claiming that this is not a fraction is gross misstatement of fact. To the contrary, both of these yield the said percentage of the numerator.

I have to, at times, only to discover that the information does exist. Using the rules for Amend Something Previously Adopted will prevent a possible problem.

I agree with you, for several reasons. However, it still raises these questions: 1. Can the rule be suspended? 2. If yes, what is the vote needed to suspend?

Right there.

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.