Suspending a Special Rule of Order by less than 2/3 vote

[smb]

RONR requires a 2/3 vote to suspend a special rule of order. [25:14]  Contrary to RONR, an Association's bylaws allow adoption of special rules of order by a majority of members present and voting instead of the usual 2/3 vote.  At an upcoming meeting, I anticipate a motion to suspend one of their special rules.  I am confident that the motion to suspend will have the support of a majority of those present, but possibly not 2/3.  If the motion fails for lack of 2/3 support, I anticipate a second motion to simply rescind the rule instead.  A motion to rescind, made without prior notice, can be adopted by either a 2/3 vote or a majority of the membership [35:2(7)].  If a majority of the membership votes in favor of the suspension,  it seems rather absurd to require them to rescind the rule altogether, rather than just recognize the rule as suspended for that session.   While that seems eminently logical, it is directly contrary to RONR 25:14.  Of course, they can also suspend RONR 25:14 by a vote of a majority of the membership....

You can see where this is headed -- my inclination is simply to advise the presiding officer to declare the rule suspended if they get an affirmative vote of the membership unless someone is foolish enough, or technical enough, to raise a point of order.   Anyone have a better suggestion?

 

[All references to RONR 12th ed.]

Edited August 23, 2023 at 04:03 AM by smb
adding reference

[Josh Martin]

On 8/22/2023 at 11:02 PM, smb said:

RONR requires a 2/3 vote to suspend a special rule of order. [25:14]  Contrary to RONR, an Association's bylaws allow adoption of special rules of order by a majority of members present and voting instead of the usual 2/3 vote.  At an upcoming meeting, I anticipate a motion to suspend one of their special rules.  I am confident that the motion to suspend will have the support of a majority of those present, but possibly not 2/3.  If the motion fails for lack of 2/3 support, I anticipate a second motion to simply rescind the rule instead.  A motion to rescind, made without prior notice, can be adopted by either a 2/3 vote or a majority of the membership [35:2(7)].  If a majority of the membership votes in favor of the suspension,  it seems rather absurd to require them to rescind the rule altogether, rather than just recognize the rule as suspended for that session.   While that seems eminently logical, it is directly contrary to RONR 25:14.  Of course, they can also suspend RONR 25:14 by a vote of a majority of the membership....

You can see where this is headed -- my inclination is simply to advise the presiding officer to declare the rule suspended if they get an affirmative vote of the membership unless someone is foolish enough, or technical enough, to raise a point of order.   Anyone have a better suggestion?

I disagree with the advice. The organization's rules, as they are presently written, appear to change the rules for the adoption, amendment, and rescission of special rules of order such that they are the same as for the adoption, amendment, and rescission of standing rules, but they do not change the threshold for suspension of special rules. Perhaps the rules should be written differently, but the organization cannot simply ignore its rules because they are not written the way the assembly would prefer.

But there is a simple solution to this problem. You say that "Contrary to RONR, an Association's bylaws allow adoption of special rules of order by a majority of members present and voting instead of the usual 2/3 vote [with previous notice]." So if the organization would prefer that special rules of order may be suspended by a 2/3 vote or a vote of a majority of the membership (or even by a majority vote, if they wish), they can simply adopt a special rule providing as much.

Edited August 23, 2023 at 12:18 PM by Josh Martin

[Dan Honemann]

On 8/23/2023 at 12:02 AM, smb said:

Contrary to RONR, an Association's bylaws allow adoption of special rules of order by a majority of members present and voting instead of the usual 2/3 vote.

Is this absolutely all that the bylaws say concerning this matter?  Do they say anything at all about suspension, amendment or recission of special rules of order? Do they adopt RONR as the parliamentary authority?

 

On 8/23/2023 at 12:02 AM, smb said:

 I am confident that the motion to suspend will have the support of a majority of those present, but possibly not 2/3.  If the motion fails for lack of 2/3 support, I anticipate a second motion to simply rescind the rule instead.  A motion to rescind, made without prior notice, can be adopted by either a 2/3 vote or a majority of the membership [35:2(7)].

Two different things, as you know.

On 8/23/2023 at 12:02 AM, smb said:

Of course, they can also suspend RONR 25:14 by a vote of a majority of the membership....

I don't think so.

[smb]

Yup, the rule is extremely simple -- amendments to the policy/procedure manual [where the special rules of order are located] may be adopted or amended by a simple majority vote. [I didn't draft it!]  RONR is their parliamentary authority.  Josh's simple solution is certainly the appropriate alternative.  I was simply hoping to avoid the distraction of a second motion, debate, vote, and probably a brief educational session on the difference between special rules of order and standing rules when no fundamental rights are being affected.  Oh well,....BTW, I stand corrected on suspending 25:14; thanks.

[Dan Honemann]

On 8/23/2023 at 12:16 PM, smb said:

Yup, the rule is extremely simple -- amendments to the policy/procedure manual [where the special rules of order are located] may be adopted or amended by a simple majority vote. [I didn't draft it!]  RONR is their parliamentary authority.  Josh's simple solution is certainly the appropriate alternative.  I was simply hoping to avoid the distraction of a second motion, debate, vote, and probably a brief educational session on the difference between special rules of order and standing rules when no fundamental rights are being affected.  Oh well,....BTW, I stand corrected on suspending 25:14; thanks.

Well, if the bylaws say that all of the rules in the manual, including special rules of order, can be not only adopted but also amended (or rescinded) by majority vote (no notice required) then I guess that that's that. 

[Rob Elsman]

The "tyranny of the majority" is what I would call it.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 8/23/2023 at 1:20 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Well, if the bylaws say that all of the rules in the manual, including special rules of order, can be not only adopted but also amended (or rescinded) by majority vote (no notice required) then I guess that that's that. 

Another possibility is that Special Rules of Order were included in the Policy and Procedures manual in error, and belong in a different volume.