When a majority of the membership is less than a 2/3 majority

[Guest Puzzling]

Some motions require a 2/3 majority but sometimes a majority of the membership is easier

Suppose a vote of a 12 member board wants to suspend one of its rules of order (adopted by the board itself) 

The vote is 7 in favour 4 against.

The threshold for suspension is not reached (no 2/3 majority)

The threshold to (temporary) amending the rule is. (majority of the membership) 

Should this not be enough to suspend the rule ?

 

[George Mervosh]

25 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

Some motions require a 2/3 majority but sometimes a majority of the membership is easier

Suppose a vote of a 12 member board wants to suspend one of its rules of order (adopted by the board itself) 

The vote is 7 in favour 4 against.

The threshold for suspension is not reached (no 2/3 majority)

The threshold to (temporary) amending the rule is. (majority of the membership) 

Should this not be enough to suspend the rule ?

 

The vote required to suspend the rules is found in 25:2 (7) and it usually requires at least a 2/3 vote.   Also, please stop using the term 2/3 majority (It is an oxymoron and there is no such term in RONR).

Edited February 4, 2021 at 09:49 PM by George Mervosh

[George Mervosh]

28 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

The threshold to (temporary) amending the rule is. (majority of the membership) 

I missed this before but can you provide an example of what you mean by temporarily amending a rule?

[Josh Martin]

52 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

Some motions require a 2/3 majority but sometimes a majority of the membership is easier

Suppose a vote of a 12 member board wants to suspend one of its rules of order (adopted by the board itself) 

The vote is 7 in favour 4 against.

The threshold for suspension is not reached (no 2/3 majority)

The threshold to (temporary) amending the rule is. (majority of the membership) 

Should this not be enough to suspend the rule ?

I would note that a motion to amend a special rule of order is only in order when no motion is pending and is debatable and amendable.

An incidental motion to suspend the rules, on the other hand, is in order when other motions are pending if it is incidental to the business at hand, is not debatable, and is not amendable.

In this fashion, the members in the minority will at least be able to debate the merits of the motion to amend the rule of order, which they will not be able to do in relation to an incidental motion to suspend the rules. Additionally, the majority will not be able to amend the rules while some other motion is pending.

If the assembly views this as a problem, I suppose that the assembly could adopt a special rule of order providing that the rules may be suspended by a vote of a majority of the entire membership, although since this question is regarding a board, it should be noted that the board of a society is limited in its ability to adopt rules of order, and therefore likely could not adopt a rule of this nature.

"The executive board of an organized society operates under the society’s bylaws, the society’s parliamentary authority, and any special rules of order or standing rules of the society which may be applicable to it. Such a board may adopt its own special rules of order or standing rules only to the extent that such rules do not conflict with any of the rules of the society listed above." RONR (12th ed.) 49:15

25 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

I missed this before but can you provide an example of what you mean by temporarily amending a rule?

Well, the assembly could amend the rule and then amend it right back after it's done with what it wanted to do.

Alternately, it could use a proviso to handle the transition.

[J. J.]

As noted, a majority of the entire membership may amend the rule or draft some special rule, even one that would lower the voting requirement to suspend the rules  to a majority.

This was described in "The Suspension Paradox," National Parliamentarian, Fourth Quarter 1998