unanimous consent

[Guest Eric]

If your bylaws require unambitious consent on an issue can it be over ruled by a simple majority?

[Benjamin Geiger]

If the bylaws require a decision to be unanimous it can be overruled by a single member.

[Bruce Lages]

What you are asking about is unanimous consent (although I must admit that unambitious consent brings up a lot of interesting scenarios 🙄). If your bylaws actually require unanimous consent on a specific issue, then no - that requirement may not be overruled by a majority vote. However, this requirement could be considered as a rule of order and thus could be suspended by a 2/3 vote for a given session. Whether it is in fact a rule of order might depend on the nature of the specific issue referred to in the bylaw.

[Benjamin Geiger]

I would argue that a rule of order that requires unanimity can't be suspended at all unless it provides for its own suspension.

Quote

7. Usually requires a two-thirds vote (see below, however). In any case, no rule protecting a minority of a particular size can be suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as the minority protected by the rule.

RONR 11e, p. 261, ll. 14-18. Emphasis mine.

A rule requiring unanimity can be seen to be protecting a minority of size one, so the decision to suspend the rule requiring a unanimous decision would need to be a unanimous decision.

Edited September 8, 2018 at 02:47 AM by Benjamin Geiger
More precise language.

[Richard Brown]

17 minutes ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

If the bylaws require a decision to be unanimous it can be overruled by a single member.

I don't know that I would say it can be overruled by a single member, but any motion can be defeated by a single member if the bylaws require unanimous consent for passage.

Guest Eric, can you post the exact language regarding unanimous consent from the bylaws? Quote exactly, don't paraphrase.

[Josh Martin]

9 hours ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

I would argue that a rule of order that requires unanimity can't be suspended at all unless it provides for its own suspension.

RONR 11e, p. 261, ll. 14-18. Emphasis mine.

A rule requiring unanimity can be seen to be protecting a minority of size one, so the decision to suspend the rule requiring a unanimous decision would need to be a unanimous decision.

You seem to be saying two different things here which are in conflict. I agree with the second one.

9 hours ago, Bruce Lages said:

What you are asking about is unanimous consent (although I must admit that unambitiousconsent brings up a lot of interesting scenarios 🙄). If your bylaws actually require unanimous consent on a specific issue, then no - that requirement may not be overruled by a majority vote. However, this requirement could be considered as a rule of order and thus could be suspended by a 2/3 vote for a given session. Whether it is in fact a rule of order might depend on the nature of the specific issue referred to in the bylaw.

A 2/3 vote is not sufficient. If a rule requires unanimous consent, suspending it would also require unanimous consent, because the rule protects a minority of a particular size (in this case, a minority of one). A rule requiring unanimous consent is in the nature of the rule of order. What the rule requires unanimous consent for is not relevant - rules pertaining to voting requirements are rules of order.

Edited September 8, 2018 at 12:09 PM by Josh Martin

[Benjamin Geiger]

31 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

You seem to be saying two different things here which are in conflict.

In retrospect, you're right. Perhaps I should've said that it would be pointless to attempt to suspend such a rule unless it explicitly provides for a lower threshold.