Atul Kapur

It the member is continuing to complain about events from three years ago, I find it hard to believe that it is relevant ("germane") to whatever is the business at hand ("the immediately pending question"). So you could raise a point of order that the member us not speaking on topic and ask the chair to call the member to order.

In the situation you describe, it would take a four-fifths vote to suspend. That is a fixed fraction. The difference is (or, perhaps, was) that under J.J.'s formula, the fraction changed depending on the number of votes: M > (TV/2) / P Of course I agree with that. I'm not trying to create a new rule. I have emphasized the 'if' in that quote because J.J.'s formula did not meet the condition that followed. J.J., have you changed your position and moved away from the formula you had previously used? I see that you've edited your post to strike that out. If you now agree with Mr. Gerber, then that changes things and makes them somewhat simpler. If you would also agree that cumulative voting does not protect a minority,that would simplify things immensely. Added: Our posts coincided and I see that you are still using a formula that incorporates the total votes cast M > T / (P+1) So it is still not possible to say that the fraction is constant, therefore requiring its conversion to a number. In this situation, I maintain that the number is one. @Shmuel Gerber, I suggest that if there are two discussions going on here, that this is where they divide: whether the fraction is constant.

You cannot state that and, at the same time say because it is dependent on the number of people voting. [Yes, I recognize you didn't say them at the same time, but in the same thread is still close enough to create the inconsistency]. Depending on how many votes are cast, one person could be enough to elect a candidate. We don't know how many will vote in the election. There is no reason to assume it is the same number as vote on the rule suspension (although that is likely the maximum). Hence the safest (ie most protective) assumption is to assume the smallest minority, one member. [I'm again very glad that this is an imaginary scenario.]

Which is why I piped up to say the fraction used should be the smallest possible fraction: one member. Again, this assumes that cumulative voting protects a minority, which I do not believe is the case.

I agree with the other responses that the bylaws make clear that Robert's Rules are binding; there is no reason to indicate what is the authority on parliamentary procedure if you are not going to follow parliamentary procedure. I am concerned about the reluctance to use parliamentary procedure. It appears to me that this arises out of a misconception that paralmentary procedure adds unnecessary formality and busywork and is too focused on details to the extent that it impedes actual decision-making. The individual who is insisting on parliamentary procedure may be insisting on an excessively formal procedure that is not actually what is in Robert's Rules. It may very well be good too have the group get some training in the proper use of parliamentary procedure. Do you have specific examples of what this member is requesting or demanding be done when they demand that Robert's Rules be followed? What steps do they feel are being skipped? What rights do they feel are being violated?

The answer to all 3 questions is No. Please note that many committees, despite the title, actually operate more similarly to what RONR considers a board. So the provision about committees not taking minutes may not apply to your organization.

You say that you are federally registered as a charity. All charities are registered by and with CRA, but the important question is whether you are incorporated federally (under the CNCA) or provincially (under the Societies Act). I know that the CNCA gives the board of directors (presumably your "executive") certain powers and obligations; I believe that the Societies Act is similar but I'm not as familiar with it. Except that your bylaws are not silent. You tell us that they say "All Meetings of the Federation including Executive Meetings shall be conducted according to the most recent edition of Robert’s Rules of Order." "All Meetings" would include the AGM. As RONR says, the second item of business for the AGM/Convention is to adopt rules for the meeting. These relate to the fiduciary duty of the directors. I recommend that you get advice on the duty of directors and the board in your situation.

Under RONR, the general membership meeting is the highest authority. Corporate bodies may have different structures and their governing documents may place the board above the membership.

Under RONR and because it is after the fact, you have show that quorum was not present. The assumption is that quorum was present and you need clear and convincing evidence that there was not. If your organization has different rules, you will have to refer to them.

Much of the discussion arose from the assumption that it is. I agree with Mr. Honemann that it does not (and I am certain he is much relieved with my support 😉). In the OP, @J. J. said "46:43 describes cumulative voting as a method for electing someone from a 'minority group.'" and then concludes (at least for the purposes of his question) 46:43 says "A minority group, by coordinating its effort in voting for only one candidate who is a member of the group, may be able to secure the election of that candidate as a minority member of the board." I believe that is an error to take the fact that the rule, among other things, gives the minority the ability to utilize a particular tactic and claim that therefore this is a "rule protecting a minority of a particular size", particularly since there is no guarantee that the tactic will be successful. So, my answer is that the rule can be suspended with a 2/3 vote. In the alternative (that 25:2(7) is applicable), I stick with my assertion that the minimum is one member.

I do not see a significant difference between a Whereas clause preceding the Resolved clause or a Background statement following it. Neither are part of what the board adopted, which is the Resolved clause. The situation would be the same if the background statement gave an estimated budget for the project but the motion didn't specify the maximum cost. The lesson for the training exercise is, as Josh said, for any necessary details, instructions, or specifications to be included in the actual motion that is adopted.

It is wrong to discuss multiple motions simultaneously. You should have been discussing just the amendment at that time (known as the "immediately pending" motion). However, that does not prevent a motion to call the question on all pending motions (here, the amendment and the main motion). If that motion had been adopted, you would then have conducted two separate votes sequentially (not at the same time): first the vote on the amendment then -- immediately without any further debate, as per the terms of the Previous Question -- the vote on the main motion.

You may find this thread informative

Assuming that you are using the term the same way that it is defined in RONR, Then they are adopted as any other motion would be, by majority vote, as long as there is not already a motion/rule in place that is affected by your proposed rule. See 2:23-2:24 for more details. If you are referring to any thing related to parliamentary procedure, the term for that is a special rule of order, and you should look at 2:12 - 2:22 for details about those.

For the sake of closing this particular loop, I would say that "the vote required to suspend a rule requiring a three-fourths vote for the adoption of a particular motion" would be a three-fourths vote. I accepted @J. J.'s premise that cumulative voting protected a minority just for the purposes of his OP; my conclusion that this would require unanimous consent or a unanimous vote was based on that premise. For those who disagree with that premise, such as yourself, I agree with you that such a suspension would require a two-thirds vote.

Is this question linked to J.J.'s cumulative voting scenario or are you asking in the general situation beyond that context?

I was trying to understand how broadly you intended your statement to apply. It appeared that you meant it to be generally applicable. Many conversations on this forum expand beyond the details in the OP. Specifically, the first comment that I've quoted above appeared to be more generalized than just about special meetings; "a meeting that does not have an order of business" includes conventions, hence my attempt to clarify.

Like a convention, for example?

Yes, this is possible, but, despite your denial, it is legitimate because it is the process in your bylaws. The fact that you prefer the process in RONR is irrelevant unless you can convince enough people to change your bylaws. No, other than the fact that your organization appears satisfied (with your notable objection) with the current process. But note that there is no requirement for a more elaborate process. There is no "gap" that must be filled in your bylaws.

You say this as if it precludes the adoption of an agenda as part of a special meeting. As noted, while it may be unlikely that an agenda would be helpful, on those occasions when it would be, it may be adopted.

On the contrary, I believe the minority being protected could be as low as one member and, before the vote is conducted, we should assume it is one. J.J. has captured it well And, since the rule needs to be suspended before the vote is conducted, that minimum prevails throughout that election. My second post was intended to reinforce that point. Apologies if I was unclear.

The minority that could be protected by the rule – which in this case involves an election and, therefore, the possibility of multiple abstentions – is one. Before the ballot is held, it is the only response in which we can have confidence. because it is not dependent on the results.

but, as Josh said

Since when did "the sake of simplicity" become a factor in discussions in this forum? 😃 More seriously, there is no reason to assume that all members present would vote, or that they would cast all the votes they are eligible to cast. The safer assumption—the one that provides the most protection to a minority group—is to assume the smallest minority, that is one person, so suspension would require unanimous consent. And it's even simpler to calculate, no matter the number of members present.

I have highlighted the word "initial" because it suggests a misunderstanding. Remember that the motion made by someone other than the maker of the motion is not "that the motion be withdrawn" but “that permission to withdraw the motion be granted," such permission having been requested by the maker. If you make a motion and it is seconded and stated by the chair, then I, or anyone else, cannot make a motion to Withdraw that motion. The mover is the only one allowed to Request Permission to Withdraw the Motion (33:11, 33:13, and 33:14). If you made the motion, then I "can suggest that the maker of a motion ask permission to withdraw it" but you "can do or decline to do" as you choose. (33:16)