Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

The Meaning of Membership: Full Assembly vs. Board


Guest loose

Recommended Posts

p. 256 line 23 "hence" - I'm not following what is meant by "hence" (2/3 vote with notice or majority entire membership to amend a rule of order HENCE 2/3 vote to suspend.)

p.17 talks about how to suspend rules of order and how you adopt/amend rules of order.

You suspend'em with a 2/3 vote. You can adopt/amend with 2/3 vote with notice or majority entire membership.* We have a parent body and a board. What then is meant by "entire membership"? Is it the board? I suppose you're going to refer me to my bylaws to find out. Actually our bylaws allow the board to amend our bylaws with a majority vote. I think this is a typo.

Any comments would be appreciated.

*I know, if rules of order are contained in bylaws it's a bit more complicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

p. 256 line 23 "hence" - I'm not following what is meant by "hence" (2/3 vote with notice or majority entire membership to amend a rule of order HENCE 2/3 vote to suspend.)

Suspending a rule designed to protect a minority requires the same strength of majority as that rule. Thus to suspend a rule requiring a 2/3rds vote, you must have a 2/3rds vote on the motion to suspend it.
p.17 talks about how to suspend rules of order and how you adopt/amend rules of order.

You suspend'em with a 2/3 vote. You can adopt/amend with 2/3 vote with notice or majority entire membership.* We have a parent body and a board. What then is meant by "entire membership"? Is it the board? I suppose you're going to refer me to my bylaws to find out. Actually our bylaws allow the board to amend our bylaws with a majority vote. I think this is a typo.

Any comments would be appreciated.

*I know, if rules of order are contained in bylaws it's a bit more complicated.

A majority of the entire membership means a majority of every member of the body, regardless of whether they are present or not, or whether or not they cast a vote. In many organizations, this is unattainable in practice. Normal votes are merely a majority of those present and voting.

Now, if you're talking specifically about amending bylaws, by default only the full assembly of your organization (and not a board of directors or executive board) has the power to amend them. However, your bylaws should specify the procedure themselves and, if they do, you should follow that procedure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

p. 256 line 23 "hence" - I'm not following what is meant by "hence" (2/3 vote with notice or majority entire membership to amend a rule of order HENCE 2/3 vote to suspend.)

p.17 talks about how to suspend rules of order and how you adopt/amend rules of order.

You suspend'em with a 2/3 vote. You can adopt/amend with 2/3 vote with notice or majority entire membership.* We have a parent body and a board. What then is meant by "entire membership"? Is it the board? I suppose you're going to refer me to my bylaws to find out. Actually our bylaws allow the board to amend our bylaws with a majority vote. I think this is a typo.

Any comments would be appreciated.

*I know, if rules of order are contained in bylaws it's a bit more complicated.

"A majority of the entire membership is a majority of the total number of those who are members of the voting body at the time of the vote. (Thus, in a society that has both a general membership and an executive board, a "majority of the entire membership" at a board meeting refers to a majority of the membership of the board, not of the society.) (RONR, 10th ed. pp. 390-91).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suspending a rule designed to protect a minority requires the same strength of majority as that rule. Thus to suspend a rule requiring a 2/3rds vote, you must have a 2/3rds vote on the motion to suspend it.

A majority of the entire membership means a majority of every member of the body, regardless of whether they are present or not, or whether or not they cast a vote. In many organizations, this is unattainable in practice. Normal votes are merely a majority of those present and voting.

Now, if you're talking specifically about amending bylaws, by default only the full assembly of your organization (and not a board of directors or executive board) has the power to amend them. However, your bylaws should specify the procedure themselves and, if they do, you should follow that procedure.

Thank you very much. Your explanation deals with rules designed to protect a minority, but not all rules of order do that, do they? Is it that sustaining the rules of order is in deference to those members who might be absent who set the rules up in the first place? When I think of a rule designed to protect a minority I think of the rule where if everyone opposed to passage of a motion comprise a minority singled out for discrimination by that motion and so can veto?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you very much. Your explanation deals with rules designed to protect a minority, but not all rules of order do that, do they? Is it that sustaining the rules of order is in deference to those members who might be absent who set the rules up in the first place? When I think of a rule designed to protect a minority I think of the rule where if everyone opposed to passage of a motion comprise a minority singled out for discrimination by that motion and so can veto?
No, not all rules exist to protect minorities. For instance, the rules limiting amendments to two levels of amendments (an amendment to the main motion and an amendment to the amendment) exist because a third level of amendment is rarely necessary and liable to cause more harm (in the form of confusion; two amendments at once are bad enough as is) than good. They don't exist to suspend a minority, and so could be suspended by a two-thirds vote.

As for what the protection of a minority means, it means to protect subset of the assembly and assure them some right. This doesn't mean that if there is a measure that the minority objects to, that they may always block it. It simply means that they cannot be denied their rights as members by suspension of the rules. For instance, a rule requiring a three-quarters majority to adopt a motion (no such rule exists in RONR, but might be added in bylaws or special rules of order) cannot be suspended with only a two-thirds majority, as that would mean that the three-quarters majority requirement was meaningless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I think of a rule designed to protect a minority I think of the rule where if everyone opposed to passage of a motion comprise a minority singled out for discrimination by that motion and so can veto?

The term "minority" in RONR does not refer to groups legally protected from discrimination. It refers to minority opinion, or any subset of the assembly who agree on a question, but who number less than the vote total required to pass, or block the passage of, a main motion that deals with that subject.

What is being protected is not the minority's rights, but rather their ability to have their opinion prevail.

As far as discrimination against the rights of a member are concerned, the rules strongly protect minorities as small as one. Motions that, without due process, infringe on the basic membership rights of even a single member. are out of order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your explanation deals with rules designed to protect a minority, but not all rules of order do that, do they?

No.

Is it that sustaining the rules of order is in deference to those members who might be absent who set the rules up in the first place?

Rules of order are designed to protect the rights of the majority, a minority (especially a minority of one-third or greater), individual members, absentees, and the society as a whole.

When I think of a rule designed to protect a minority I think of the rule where if everyone opposed to passage of a motion comprise a minority singled out for discrimination by that motion and so can veto?

Er, not really. Minorities in ordinary societies are generally constantly changing, not specific groups of people "singled out for discrimination." A rule designed to protect a minority is, for instance, the rule that a 2/3 vote is required to adopt the motion for the Previous Question (which brings one or more pending motions to an immediate vote).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...