Dan Honemann

Why confuse matters by referring to a "pubic body", where the rules relating to quorums may well be entirely different than those applicable to your situation?

Yes, I know what 46:43 says, and I gather your answer to my question is yes.

Okay, so then the fraction of members protected by a rule mandating cumulative voting will vary depending upon the number of seats to be filled. The question is whether this is the sort of "minority of a particular size" contemplated by 25:2(7).

So then, would you say that, for purposes of 25:2(7), a rule mandating cumulative voting protects a minority of 5/24, and that this will be so regardless of how many members vote in the election and how many positions are to be filled?

But I would say that this should be stated in the form of a fraction so that it can be applied to whatever number of members vote on the motion to suspend the rules. I gather that you are saying that this fraction is 5/24.

In other words, in this case the fraction of members protected by the rule is 5/24. Is this correct?

Got it.

Why do each of the voters cast only 4 votes instead of 5?

I believe these two things to be true: 1. If 120 members vote in an election to elect 4 members to a committee, a candidate must receive at least 61 votes in order to be elected. 2. The minimum number of members that can cast at least 61 votes for a candidate is 16. This, then, is the number of members protected by the rule. Do you (Mr. Gerber, that is) disagree with either or both of these statements?

Mr. Martin’s scenario: There are four members to elect to the committee. 120 members vote, a majority of which is 61. An individual member could cast, at most, four votes for one candidate. 61 divided by 4 is 15.25. Therefore, a minimum of 16 members would need to vote for a candidate in order to ensure his election. The fraction of members protected by the rule, therefore, is 2/15 (13.33%). Under my scenario: There are four members to elect to the committee. 20 members vote, a majority of which is 11. An individual member could cast, at most, four votes for one candidate. 11 divided by 4 is 2.75. Therefore, a minimum of 3 members would need to vote for a candidate in order to ensure his election. The fraction of members protected by the rule, therefore, is 3/20 (15%)

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.