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!

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

 

I disagree. We're not dealing here with an election of officers.

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!

22 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Returning to the questions originally asked:

1.  I think this rule requiring the vote of a majority of the members present to "decide any question" is a rule in the nature of a rule of order, and therefore (as far as the rules in RONR are concerned) is a rule which can be suspended by a two-thirds vote. Your association will have to decide for itself the question as to whether or not this rule in the bylaws applies to parliamentary motions such as a motion to Suspend the Rules.

2.  If only a majority vote was required to elect the 11 committee members, I don't think that there would necessarily be a problem. However, since your rule requires the vote of a majority of the members present, abstentions will make it more difficult. As previously noted, I think that, if the rules in RONR are controlling, this vote requirement in your bylaws can be suspended so as to allow for the election of committee members by either a majority or plurality vote. 

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).

23 hours ago, jstackpo said:

Or more exactly, 11 positions to fill, 30 (or more) candidates, and 300 (!) voters.  With those numbers, voice elections (unless there was overwhelming agreement on some candidates) would be dubious at best.

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

9 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I think this rule can be suspended. (p. 263, ll. 1-7)

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. 

10 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

Perhaps this passage may be of help:

"A plurality vote is the largest number of votes to be given any candidate or proposition when three or more choices are possible; the candidate or proposition receiving the largest number of votes has a plurality. A plurality that is not a majority never chooses a proposition or elects anyone to office except by virtue of a special rule previously adopted. If such a rule is to apply to the election of officers, it must be prescribed in the bylaws. A rule that a plurality shall elect is unlikely to be in the best interests of the average organization. In an international or national society where the election is conducted by mail ballot, a plurality is sometimes allowed to elect officers, with a view to avoiding the delay and extra expense that would result from additional balloting under these conditions. A better method in such cases is for the bylaws to prescribe some form of preferential voting (see pp. 425–28).   RONR (11th ed.), pp 405-406 emphasis added by me.

By your facts, you are not electing officers.

 

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. 

7 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

That sounds right, yes.  I thought you were imagining each person voting for only one candidate, making a majority much harder to attain.  I also didn't realize you had 300 nominees, which will make things a bit more difficult - you might be better off, in that case, with blank papers and having people write the 1-11 they wish to vote for, because it would take a lot of paper to print 300 names.

Not 300 nominees, an estimated 300 voting members. I'm guessing there will be 30 nominees. 

Thanks!

Thanks. Yes, clicker voting would speed things up--by our assembly isn't quite that sophisticated. Our bylaws are a mess, but we are currently stuck with what we have. I don't really understand this statement you made:

 However, each ballot (with at least one candidate selected) counts as only one vote towards majority, whether 1 candidate or 11 are selected.  So getting a majority may not be as difficult as you envision.

Each member can vote for 11 candidates, but if there were 300 voting members present, each candidate would need 151 votes. Correct. It seems like with perhaps 300 nominees, it might take a fair number of ballots to get a majority for all 11 candidates. 

Our assembly is electing members to a committee. There are 11 open positions on the committee, and it is expected that perhaps 20, 30, or more individuals will be nominated (nominations must be submitted before the election meeting). Our bylaws state: "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 . . ." So our bylaws require a majority vote. There is no allowance in the bylaws for preferential voting.
Question #1: Can this "majority vote" rule in the bylaws be waived or suspended by a 2/3 vote of the assembly? I see in RONR (p. 260) it says about Suspending the Rules: "Can be applied to any rule of the assembly except bylaws." So perhaps I've answered by own question. 
Question #2: What is the simplest way to get 11 people elected with so many nominees? It is likely about 300 members will be present and will participate in the voting. I imagine this would take many rounds of ballots to reach a majority for all 11 slots. Even imagining the mechanics or revoting on multiple ballots seems challenging. Is a vote by a plurality acceptable (RONR pp. 404-405)?
Any ideas on this would be appreciated!