Suspend Notice

[Guest Zev]

I appreciate your answer, however, my request for clarification had nothing to do with any subset of the membership. My question involved,

On ‎6‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 10:09 AM, Guest Zev said:

...the entire membership is present without any absentees,...

that is, if a society has say fifty member and all fifty are present, could a bylaw notice and voting threshold requirement be disregarded since there are no absentees.

[Richard Brown]

Just now, Guest Zev said:

I appreciate your answer, however, my request for clarification had nothing to do with any subset of the membership. My question involved,

that is, if a society has say fifty member and all fifty are present, could a bylaw notice and voting threshold requirement be disregarded since there are no absentees.

In my opinion the voting threshold cannot be disregarded.   The notice requirement could, perhaps, be disregarded if there are no absentees to protect.

Example:  Assume the bylaws require a vote of two thirds of the entire membership to amend the bylaws.  That provision means what it says.  Even if all members are present, it will still require the vote of two thirds of the entire membership in order to adopt the amendment.

[Guest Zev]

9 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

In my opinion the voting threshold cannot be disregarded.   The notice requirement could, perhaps, be disregarded if there are no absentees to protect.

I must confess to you that after seeing Mr. H's answer and reading several threads, I came away with the exact opposite impression. That is, that the notice requirement could not be disregarded even if the entire membership was present because the requirement was established in the bylaws and no provision for its own suspension existed. The voting threshold on the other hand, even though it is written in the bylaws, was characterized as a rule of order, having application only in the context of a meeting, and therefore suspendable. Perhaps the rule is clear but I'm just not seeing it. (Incidentally, the online dictionary takes exception to the word "suspendable" and suggests "suspend able" instead.)

[Richard Brown]

30 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

(Incidentally, the online dictionary takes exception to the word "suspendable" and suggests "suspend able" instead.)

And some "authorities" suggest that it is just fine to use the plural "they" when referring to one person and that it is ok, when referring to the chair ruling that a motion is out of order, to say "they" ruled the motion out of order.  Well, you aren't going to see me saying that.... or saying that a rule is "suspend able".  SMH.

[Richard Brown]

43 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

I must confess to you that after seeing Mr. H's answer and reading several threads, I came away with the exact opposite impression. That is, that the notice requirement could not be disregarded even if the entire membership was present because the requirement was established in the bylaws and no provision for its own suspension existed.

I think there are several threads in this forum in which the consensus is clearly that a notice requirement can be suspended or waived if all members are present and there are no absentees to protect.  That has certainly been my understanding for several years.

43 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

The voting threshold on the other hand, even though it is written in the bylaws, was characterized as a rule of order, having application only in the context of a meeting, and therefore suspendable.

It might well be in the nature of a rule  of order, but if so, it cannot be suspended by a vote of less than the minority it is intended to protect... in this case, one third of the membership.  Therefore, it would require the vote of two thirds of the membership to suspend it.

Edited to add:  I will concede, however, that the following language on page 261 regarding the motion to suspend the rules causes me some concern:  "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. "

My concern is the language "in the face of a negative vote. . . ."   That could indicate that abstentions could effectively lower the vote threshold since they are not negative votes.  They might have the EFFECT of negative votes, but they are not actual negative votes as the rule on page 261 seems to require.

 

Edited June 23, 2019 at 07:35 PM by Richard Brown
Added last two paragraphs

[Guest Zev]

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

I think there are several threads in this forum in which the consensus is clearly that a notice requirement can be suspended or waived if all members are present and there are no absentees to protect.  That has certainly been my understanding for several years.

Yes, I imagined that also. But that was not my understanding after reading Mr. H's comment and perhaps I am just confused. I will embrace your opinion until someone comes up with a better explanation.

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

Therefore, it would require the vote of two thirds of the membership to suspend it.

I suspect you meant to say something to the effect of "slightly higher than two-thirds," otherwise if it is exactly two-thirds then the protected minority of one-third has not been overcome.

Thank you for taking the time and effort.

 

[Gary Novosielski]

10 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

I must confess to you that after seeing Mr. H's answer and reading several threads, I came away with the exact opposite impression. That is, that the notice requirement could not be disregarded even if the entire membership was present because the requirement was established in the bylaws and no provision for its own suspension existed. The voting threshold on the other hand, even though it is written in the bylaws, was characterized as a rule of order, having application only in the context of a meeting, and therefore suspendable. Perhaps the rule is clear but I'm just not seeing it. (Incidentally, the online dictionary takes exception to the word "suspendable" and suggests "suspend able" instead.)

The online dictionary is right.  Try "suspendible".  

[Guest Zev]

16 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

The online dictionary is right.  Try "suspendible". 

Noted. Thanks.

[Dan Honemann]

14 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

I appreciate your answer, however, my request for clarification had nothing to do with any subset of the membership. My question involved,

that is, if a society has say fifty member and all fifty are present, could a bylaw notice and voting threshold requirement be disregarded since there are no absentees.

 

14 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

In my opinion the voting threshold cannot be disregarded.   The notice requirement could, perhaps, be disregarded if there are no absentees to protect.

Example:  Assume the bylaws require a vote of two thirds of the entire membership to amend the bylaws.  That provision means what it says.  Even if all members are present, it will still require the vote of two thirds of the entire membership in order to adopt the amendment.

 

14 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

I must confess to you that after seeing Mr. H's answer and reading several threads, I came away with the exact opposite impression. That is, that the notice requirement could not be disregarded even if the entire membership was present because the requirement was established in the bylaws and no provision for its own suspension existed. The voting threshold on the other hand, even though it is written in the bylaws, was characterized as a rule of order, having application only in the context of a meeting, and therefore suspendable. Perhaps the rule is clear but I'm just not seeing it. (Incidentally, the online dictionary takes exception to the word "suspendable" and suggests "suspend able" instead.)

 

13 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I think there are several threads in this forum in which the consensus is clearly that a notice requirement can be suspended or waived if all members are present and there are no absentees to protect.  That has certainly been my understanding for several years.

It might well be in the nature of a rule  of order, but if so, it cannot be suspended by a vote of less than the minority it is intended to protect... in this case, one third of the membership.  Therefore, it would require the vote of two thirds of the membership to suspend it.

Edited to add:  I will concede, however, that the following language on page 261 regarding the motion to suspend the rules causes me some concern:  "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. "

My concern is the language "in the face of a negative vote. . . ."   That could indicate that abstentions could effectively lower the vote threshold since they are not negative votes.  They might have the EFFECT of negative votes, but they are not actual negative votes as the rule on page 261 seems to require.

 

 

12 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Yes, I imagined that also. But that was not my understanding after reading Mr. H's comment and perhaps I am just confused. I will embrace your opinion until someone comes up with a better explanation.

I suspect you meant to say something to the effect of "slightly higher than two-thirds," otherwise if it is exactly two-thirds then the protected minority of one-third has not been overcome.

Thank you for taking the time and effort.

 

I'm puzzled by all this confusion.

This is what I said in my second post:

"A bylaw requirement for previous notice and a bylaw requirement of a two-thirds vote are both rules in the nature of rules of order. The former is a rule protecting absentees, and therefore it may not be suspended if there are any absentees to protect, but nothing in RONR indicates that a rule requiring a two-thirds vote may not be suspended." 

[Guest Zev]

9 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I'm puzzled by all this confusion.

I'm good. Thank you Mr. H. My apology if you felt that I had somehow dismissed your comment and did not take it seriously. 

[Dan Honemann]

22 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

I'm good. Thank you Mr. H. My apology if you felt that I had somehow dismissed your comment and did not take it seriously. 

It isn't that I felt that you had somehow dismissed what I had posted, but rather that you may have misunderstood it. It's this comment of yours that concerned me:

"I must confess to you that after seeing Mr. H's answer and reading several threads, I came away with the exact opposite impression. That is, that the notice requirement could not be disregarded even if the entire membership was present because the requirement was established in the bylaws and no provision for its own suspension existed."

 

[Guest Zev]

Well, I am better informed now and the doubt as to these two issues has, in my opinion, evaporated. Thanks again.

[Guest Louise]

On 6/21/2019 at 8:28 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

What happens fairly often (we've seen it reported many times in this forum) is that a presiding officer, mistakenly thinking that only a majority vote is required, announces that a motion requiring a two-thirds vote has been adopted by a majority vote (one that is less than a two-thirds vote). No point of order is raised, and the meeting is adjourned. The error is noticed sometime later but it is then to late to raise a point of order concerning the matter since violation of the rule requiring a two-thirds vote does not give rise to a continuing breach.

Interesting.

What If the two-thirds vote requirement were required by law? Would this violation then be a continuing breach?

[Dan Honemann]

4 hours ago, Guest Louise said:

Interesting.

What If the two-thirds vote requirement were required by law? Would this violation then be a continuing breach?

Yes.