Guest Eric Posted September 8, 2018 at 01:24 AM Report Share Posted September 8, 2018 at 01:24 AM If your bylaws require unambitious consent on an issue can it be over ruled by a simple majority? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Geiger Posted September 8, 2018 at 02:35 AM Report Share Posted September 8, 2018 at 02:35 AM If the bylaws require a decision to be unanimous it can be overruled by a single member. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lages Posted September 8, 2018 at 02:37 AM Report Share Posted September 8, 2018 at 02:37 AM 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Geiger Posted September 8, 2018 at 02:46 AM Report Share Posted September 8, 2018 at 02:46 AM (edited) 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted September 8, 2018 at 02:54 AM Report Share Posted September 8, 2018 at 02:54 AM 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted September 8, 2018 at 12:05 PM Report Share Posted September 8, 2018 at 12:05 PM (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Geiger Posted September 8, 2018 at 12:38 PM Report Share Posted September 8, 2018 at 12:38 PM 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts