standing vs ordinary rules

[Guest LouiseD]

if the bylaws regarding the eligibility of officers state that "Only XXXXXX may serve as officers of this corporation. All officers shall hold a valid Amateur Radio License and must be a member for a period of 90 days."  If the members vote to suspend the rule of "90days" to allow more nominations,

The question is to determine if a vote to suspend the "90day requirement" is that an ordinary standing rule requiring only a majority of those present?

or standing rule requiring 2/3 of those present?

and how precise does a 2/3 vote have to be - mathematically to the decimal or just enough such that "the chair can determine that there is no question that the 1/3 is in no way close to a majority..."

is there any way that 8 of 13 meets the 2/3 requirement? 2/3 of 13 = 8.667, so 9 is required?

 

[Gary Novosielski]

A qualification for office in the bylaws cannot be suspended (unless there is a provision in the bylaws for its suspension), not even by a unanimous vote.  The bylaws would have to be properly amended to change this provision.

And with voting requirements in general, "almost" is not good enough.

[Atul Kapur]

20 minutes ago, Guest LouiseD said:

If the members vote to suspend the rule of "90days" to allow more nominations,

This rule is not suspendible, unless the bylaws allow for its suspension.

It is not in the nature of a rule of order.

[Weldon Merritt]

I concur with Mr. Novosielski and Dr. Kapur.

And while your question about "how close" a two-thirds vote needs to be is moot so far as the specific issue you asked about, I will add that a quick way to determine whether a two-thirds vote requirement has been met is to double the negative vote. If the result is equal to or less that the affirmative vote, a two-thirds vote has been achieved.

[Josh Martin]

11 hours ago, Guest LouiseD said:

The question is to determine if a vote to suspend the "90day requirement" is that an ordinary standing rule requiring only a majority of those present?

or standing rule requiring 2/3 of those present?

Neither. The rule in question is a rule in the bylaws and is not in the nature of a rule of order. As a result, it cannot be suspended at all, unless the bylaws are amended to provide a mechanism to do so.

"Rules contained in the bylaws (or constitution) cannot be suspended—no matter how large the vote in favor of doing so or how inconvenient the rule in question may be—unless the particular rule specifically provides for its own suspension, or unless the rule properly is in the nature of a rule of order as described in 2:14." RONR (12th ed.) 25:7

11 hours ago, Guest LouiseD said:

and how precise does a 2/3 vote have to be - mathematically to the decimal or just enough such that "the chair can determine that there is no question that the 1/3 is in no way close to a majority..."

It is a "precise" requirement. There is generally no need to determine this "to the decimal" since most assemblies do not have fractional votes. A 2/3 vote, however, requires that at least 2/3 of the members voting must have voted in the affirmative.

11 hours ago, Guest LouiseD said:

is there any way that 8 of 13 meets the 2/3 requirement? 2/3 of 13 = 8.667, so 9 is required?

If 13 members vote, at least nine would need to vote in the affirmative to reach a two-thirds vote. Eight is less than two-thirds of 13 and is not sufficient.

[Richard Brown]

Guest Louise, The easiest way to determine whether you have a two thirds vote is that there must be at least twice as many yes votes as no votes. It is just that simple.
 

Note: that simple formula will not apply in the situation where a vote of two thirds of the entire membership or a vote of two thirds of all the members present is required. But it works in those cases where a regular two thirds vote is required, such as to suspend the rules or adopt a bylaw amendment.