Appeal

[Tim Wynn]

“Local affiliates may choose to adopt either the most recent edition of Robert’s Rules of Order or Atwood’s Rules for Meetings to govern their deliberations; provided that, unless a local affiliate’s constitution explicitly states otherwise, the president of such affiliate will have the final authority, subject only to internal appeal to the International pursuant to Article XX of this Constitution and By-Laws, to decide questions of parliamentary rules and questions involving interpretations of the affiliate’s constitution and by-laws.”

1. Similar to the principle of the provision on p. 414, l. 32, would adoption of RONR as the parliamentary authority, by prescription in the local constitution, be sufficient to give the assembly the authority to overturn the president’s ruling, in accordance with RONR, Sec. 24?

2. If not, is the president free to allow an appeal, opting to either (a) not exercise his “final authority;” or (b.) hear and consider the will of the assembly before making his “final-authority” ruling?

Also, the president is required to take an oath that he “will dutifully abide by and promote the positions taken by the majority.”

3. Would this give validity to an appeal being allowed by the president or mandate that his "final-authority" ruling conform to the will of the assembly?

[Josh Martin]

“Local affiliates may choose to adopt either the most recent edition of Robert’s Rules of Order or Atwood’s Rules for Meetings to govern their deliberations; provided that, unless a local affiliate’s constitution explicitly states otherwise, the president of such affiliate will have the final authority, subject only to internal appeal to the International pursuant to Article XX of this Constitution and By-Laws, to decide questions of parliamentary rules and questions involving interpretations of the affiliate’s constitution and by-laws.”

1. Similar to the principle of the provision on p. 414, l. 32, would adoption of RONR as the parliamentary authority, by prescription in the local constitution, be sufficient to give the assembly the authority to overturn the president’s ruling, in accordance with RONR, Sec. 24?

2. If not, is the president free to allow an appeal, opting to either (a) not exercise his “final authority;” or (b.) hear and consider the will of the assembly before making his “final-authority” ruling?

Also, the president is required to take an oath that he “will dutifully abide by and promote the positions taken by the majority.”

3. Would this give validity to an appeal being allowed by the president or mandate that his "final-authority" ruling conform to the will of the assembly?

I'm not entirely clear on the intent of the "Advanced Discussion" forum yet, and whether or not the RONR-only limitation still applies, so I think I'll avoid directly interpreting Bylaws unless The Wrathful One gives the okay.

In the meantime, I believe the most relevant passages in the text are RONR, 10th ed., pg. 414, line 32 - pg. 415, line 2; pg. 562, footnote. Those passages suggest that if a law permits the Bylaws to supersede it, adoption of RONR as the parliamentary authority in the Bylaws is sufficient for that purpose (especially if an organization includes the language in the footnote on pg. 562 in its Bylaws). It seems reasonable to conclude that the same principle would apply to rules prescribed by a parent organization. Whether the use of the word "explicitly" would affect the application of this principle is a question of Bylaws interpretation.

[Tim Wynn]

It seems reasonable to conclude that the same principle would apply to rules prescribed by a parent organization.

Thanks, Josh.

[Dan Honemann]

I'm not entirely clear on the intent of the "Advanced Discussion" forum yet, and whether or not the RONR-only limitation still applies, so I think I'll avoid directly interpreting Bylaws unless The Wrathful One gives the okay.

In the meantime, I believe the most relevant passages in the text are RONR, 10th ed., pg. 414, line 32 - pg. 415, line 2; pg. 562, footnote. Those passages suggest that if a law permits the Bylaws to supersede it, adoption of RONR as the parliamentary authority in the Bylaws is sufficient for that purpose (especially if an organization includes the language in the footnote on pg. 562 in its Bylaws). It seems reasonable to conclude that the same principle would apply to rules prescribed by a parent organization. Whether the use of the word "explicitly" would affect the application of this principle is a question of Bylaws interpretation.

It seems to me that RONR, 10th ed., pg. 414, line 32 - pg. 415, line 2; pg. 562, footnote are not useful in this situation in view of the provision that “Local affiliates may choose to adopt either the most recent edition of Robert’s Rules of Order or Atwood’s Rules for Meetings to govern their deliberations; provided that …”

A comparable situation would be one in which applicable law says something to the effect that, even if an organization chooses to adopt RONR as its parliamentary authority by a provision in its bylaws, proxy voting will be permitted unless the bylaws explicitly prohibit it. In such a case, the mere adoption of RONR as the organization’s parliamentary authority, without anything more, would not be sufficient to prohibit the use of proxy voting.

[David A Foulkes]

I'm not entirely clear on the intent of the "Advanced Discussion" forum yet, and whether or not the RONR-only limitation still applies, so I think I'll avoid directly interpreting Bylaws unless The Wrathful One gives the okay.

This might help, from the main page:

"Experienced parliamentarians are urged to post their questions (or requests for comment and discussion) about particular aspects of parliamentary procedure and Robert’s Rules of Order in this Forum."

(note: nothing about bylaw interpretation)

Fear the Wrath.

[Josh Martin]

This might help, from the main page:

"Experienced parliamentarians are urged to post their questions (or requests for comment and discussion) about particular aspects of parliamentary procedure and Robert’s Rules of Order in this Forum."

(note: nothing about bylaw interpretation)

Fear the Wrath.

Thanks, David. That clears it up. The "For Parliamentarians" thread in the forum itself is slightly more vague.

[Tim Wynn]

It seems to me that RONR, 10th ed., pg. 414, line 32 - pg. 415, line 2; pg. 562, footnote are not useful in this situation in view of the provision that “Local affiliates may choose to adopt either the most recent edition of Robert’s Rules of Order or Atwood’s Rules for Meetings to govern their deliberations; provided that …”

A comparable situation would be one in which applicable law says something to the effect that, even if an organization chooses to adopt RONR as its parliamentary authority by a provision in its bylaws, proxy voting will be permitted unless the bylaws explicitly prohibit it. In such a case, the mere adoption of RONR as the organization’s parliamentary authority, without anything more, would not be sufficient to prohibit the use of proxy voting.

Thanks, Dan.

It's hard to deny that the word "provided" is introducing a provision that governs the ability to adopt the parliamentary authority.

[Tim Wynn]

Thanks, David. That clears it up. The "For Parliamentarians" thread in the forum itself is slightly more vague.

It was my hope that "Advanced" and "For Parliamentarians" conveyed a confidence that users posses a complete understanding that each organization must decide for itself the meaning of its own bylaws; and the reluctance to exchange ideas on such matters would be relaxed.

[hmtcastle]

It was my hope that "Advanced" and "For Parliamentarians" conveyed a confidence that users posses a complete understanding that each organization must decide for itself the meaning of its own bylaws; and the reluctance to exchange ideas on such matters would be relaxed.

This "fear the wrath" nonsense may be getting out of hand.

[Tim Wynn]

This "fear the wrath" nonsense may be getting out of hand.

Nonsense often does.

[Dan Honemann]

Nonsense often does.

Hey, be careful what you call nonsense!

You can credit our friend John Stackpole with starting this "Wrath of Dan" business on the old Forum many years ago, and I liked it so much I adopted it as my own for this one. Fits right in with my hard-earned and justly deserved reputation.

[Gary Novosielski]

Hey, be careful what you call nonsense!

You can credit our friend John Stackpole with starting this "Wrath of Dan" business on the old Forum many years ago, and I liked it so much I adopted it as my own for this one. Fits right in with my hard-earned and justly deserved reputation.

But... you make it look so easy.

[George Mervosh]

The Yahoo Parliamentary list for NAP/AIP members lives off of bylaw interpretation questions. Perhaps that's a better venue. I'm sure this Board will be religiously used when the 11th Ed. arrives on our desks. I was just starting to get a slight handle on the 10th too.

[David A Foulkes]

I was just starting to get a slight handle on the 10th too.

If you were just starting to get a "slight handle" on the 10th, I question if I even have the ability to hold it at all!!