Dan Honemann

If you go back and look you will see that I have demonstrated that the fraction will change depending upon the number of voters. The greater the disparity in number, the greater the change in the fraction.

I agree. A minority of a particular size, in this case one-fourth, is protected by the rule. I agree. If a rule is in place requiring a three-fourths vote for the adoption of a motion it will take a three-fourths vote to suspend it because it protects a minority of a particular size (one-fourth). In neither of these two instances that you mention is there any need to know how many members will vote on the main motion because the fraction used to determine the number of members protected by the rule remains unchanged no matter how many members vote on the main motion. On the other hand, the fraction used to determine the number of members protected by a rule mandating cumulative voting (as in the case discussed in this thread) will change depending upon the number of members voting in the election.

Why do you think that your Club should not regard Robert's Rules of Order as its parliamentary authority?

According to Robert's Rules of Order, a member of a board is a person having all rights of membership, including the right to vote, unless the bylaws or applicable law provide otherwise. Apparently your bylaws do not provide otherwise. I do not know if applicable law provides otherwise, but I doubt that it does. I gather from what you say that your President is a member of your Board, and so, based solely on what you have posted, it would appear that he has the right to vote at meetings of your Board.

When your 12th edition arrives you will find the following: 49:21 Procedure in Small Boards. In a board meeting where there are not more than about a dozen members present, some of the formality that is necessary in a large assembly would hinder business. The rules governing such meetings are different from the rules that hold in other assemblies, in the following respects: 1) Members may raise a hand instead of standing when seeking to obtain the floor, and may remain seated while making motions or speaking. 2) Motions need not be seconded. 3) There is no limit to the number of times a member can speak to a debatable question. 3 Appeals, however, are debatable under the regular rules—that is, each member (except the chair) can speak only once in debate on them, while the chair may speak twice. 4) Informal discussion of a subject is permitted while no motion is pending. 5) When a proposal is perfectly clear to all present, a vote can be taken without a motion's having been introduced. Unless agreed to by unanimous consent, however, all proposed actions must be approved by vote under the same rules as in larger meetings, except that a vote can be taken initially by a show of hands, which is often a better method in small meetings. 6) The chairman need not rise while putting questions to a vote. 7) If the chairman is a member, he may, without leaving the chair, speak in informal discussions and in debate, and vote on all questions. 4 Footnote 4 at the end of Item 7 reads as follows: 4. Informal discussion may be initiated by the chairman himself, which, in effect, enables the chairman to submit his own proposals without formally making a motion as described in 4:4–8 (although he has the right to make a motion if he wishes). Your Board is free to adopt all or whatever part of these rules as it deems advisable.

Yes, he must be elected again to serve for another year because board members are elected for a term of one year.

This isn't entirely true because, if the motion is rejected, only the motion to suspend the rules has been rejected.

But the fundamental principle involved is that that only one question can be considered at a time.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that it disproved the claim you made. I was just wondering what your thoughts might be concerning 25:4, since it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that only one question can be considered at a time.

Perhaps you mean immediately pending at a time. Under the rules in RONR there are a number of situations in which there can be two main motions pending at a time. But even if you mean immediately pending, what about a situation in which, while no business is pending, a motion is made “to suspend the rules and agree to [that is, to adopt without debate or amendment] the resolution…” (see 25:4)? If you assume that such a motion to suspend the rules can be made when no business is pending is an incidental main motion then, if it is adopted, two main motions have been made, considered (albeit without debate or amendment), and adopted simultaneously. If rejected, it is only the motion to suspend the rules that has been disposed of. The unadopted resolution can be made again, when in order and no business is pending. Edited as shown.

But since the election will be held by cumulative voting regardless of what they wanted, all of the rules relating thereto will be in full force and effect. I don't see how it could be otherwise. The election will be held by ballot, so any effect that abstentions and yes votes in voting on the motion to suspend the rules will have on the election will affect all voters equally. If I vote no or abstain on a motion to reconsider, do I lose any of my rights on reconsideration if the motion to reconsider is adopted?

Of course you can. Did all members who voted yes on the motion to suspend the rules also give up their rights after the motion is adopted?

This I can agree with. What you seem to be saying here is that, when the vote is taken to suspend the rules, the outcome of the vote is to be determined by assuming that, when the election is held, the same number of members will vote in the election as vote on the motion to suspend the rules. The outcome of a vote should never have to be based upon such an assumption. I find this to be an equally untenable notion. Members have a right to abstain, and are free to exercise this right without relinquishing any other right.

I think it was Dr, Kapur who, about fifty years ago, pointed out that the minimum number of members protected by the rule is 1. When you say that "we know what the minimum is to guarantee it" what are you referring to?

For what seems to me now to be about the fiftieth time, I will point out that there is no way of knowing what fraction is protected by the rule mandating cumulative voting until you know how many members vote in the election.

First of all, I should have noted that this statement I had bolded assumes that a rule mandating cumulative voting protects a minority of a particular size, which is not the case. The examples I supplied illustrate that the vote necessary to suspend the rule mandating cumulative voting will vary depending on the number of members voting in the election. We wouldn't, because the fraction of members protected (1/5) is fixed and constitutes a minority of a particular size. It won't change no matter how many members vote on the main motion. I'm not sure I understand this question. Cumulative voting creates a right (of sorts) in a minority group whose size will vary depending upon the circumstances.

It is not possible to determine what vote will be needed for adoption of the motion to suspend the rules without knowing how many votes will be cast in the election. Suppose we assume that, under your scenario, all 120 members vote on the motion to suspend the rules. For this to be adopted, at least 105 will have to vote in the affirmative, which is 87.5% of the votes cast. A minority of 16 members are protected by the rule. Let's also assume, under my scenario, that all 120 members vote on the motion to suspend the rules. For this to be adopted, at least 118 will have to vote in the affirmative, which is 98.3% of the votes cast. A minority of 3 members are protected by the rule. The disparity is greater if fewer members vote on the motion to suspend. Suppose we assume that, under your scenario, 100 members vote on the motion to suspend the rules. For this to be adopted, at least 85 will have to vote in the affirmative (16 members are protected), which is 85% of the votes cast. Under my scenario, if 100 members vote on the motion to suspend the rules at least 98 will have to vote in the affirmative (3 members are protected), which is 98% of the votes cast.

I don't think that any of this is accurate, but let's just focus now on the assertion that the fraction will not change based on a change in the number of people voting. Suppose, in your original scenario, only 20 of the 120 members present vote in the election for the 4 seats on the committee. This means that 11 votes will be needed for adoption, and that a minimum of 3 members will need to vote for a candidate in order to ensure his election. This is 3/20 (15%) of the members voting, which is not the same fraction arrived by Mr. Martin when he assumed that all 120 of the members present vote. If Mr. Martin thinks I have gotten any of this wrong (I wouldn't be shocked if I have), I hope that he will so advise us.

None of this makes any sense. I agree that the rule can be suspended. The dispute concerns whether the second sentence of 25:2(7) is applicable. But isn't it true that this fraction will vary depending upon what assumption is made concerning how many of the members present will vote?

I honestly don't see any good reason why a rule mandating cumulative voting cannot be suspended. In this instance the rule is a special rule of order adopted pursuant to bylaw authority, without which it could not have been adopted. It is certainly a rule of order, and if it was in the bylaws it would be a bylaw in the nature of a rule of order. The real question, it seems to me, is whether a rule mandating cumulative voting is a rule "protecting a minority of a particular size" within the meaning of 25:2(7). In my simplistic view of things it is not. If I understand him correctly, Mr. Martin says that it is, since in any particular instance the minority being protected can be determined by application of a mathematical formula to be applied based upon an assumption. Dr. Kapur appears to object to the assumption being made. At least for now, I'll stick to my admittedly simplistic belief that "a minority of a particular size" refers to a certain fraction, such as one-fifth.

But Guest James seems to despair of ever arriving at that point.

Yes.

Which one is that?

Well when you do, please do so accurately and in context.

If there are four positions on the committee to be filed, all members retain the right to vote for up to four candidates of their choice. Nothing I have said implies otherwise.