Motion to Suspend the Rules

[Guest Edward]

I am a member of an association and at the last two meetings after called to order and quourom established the chair person (Executive Director of the Board of Directures) moved to Suspend the rules citing facilitating the meeting. Motion has been quickly seconded  and approved by majority vote. After the second time, It struck me as odd and have looked it up. If I undsdrstand correctly...A motion to suspend the rules is used when an action to resolve an issue will break the rules. Can you verify the following:

Does the mover require a reason to Suspend the Rules to be stated when motion presented?

Since no attachment to a issue to be discussed and done as first item moved and approved does the Motion to suspend the sules then apply to the whole meeting?

Does this grant a blanket permission to the board to break the rules by say action against the vote of a membership on an item debated at the meeting?

 

I studied the rules in my high school years...back in the 70's ...your assistance id appreciated.

 

 

[George Mervosh]

Does the mover require a reason to Suspend the Rules to be stated when motion presented?

Since no attachment to a issue to be discussed and done as first item moved and approved does the Motion to suspend the sules then apply to the whole meeting?

Does this grant a blanket permission to the board to break the rules by say action against the vote of a membership on an item debated at the meeting?

 

 

To your first question: Yes.  " In making the incidental motion to Suspend the Rules, the particular rule or rules to be suspended are not mentioned; but the motion must state its specific purpose, and its adoption permits nothing else to be done under the suspension."  RONR (11th ed.), p. 262

 

The answer to your last two questions is, no. I suspect they just want to break the rules as they go, and that's just ridiculous.

[Edgar Guest]

Motion has been quickly seconded  and approved by majority vote. 

 

Firstly, the motion to suspend the rules usually requires a two-thirds vote.

 

Secondly, adoption of the motion doesn't suspend all the rules, only those rules which are suspendable (and most aren't). So which rules did the chair think were getting in the way of "facilitating the meeting"?

[Guest Edward]

Greetings George

 

Thanks for your kindness in responding to this post.

If I may ask: From what i understand by raising this Motion of Supension of ths Rules with no specific purpose attached and once seconded and passed and not challanged it becomes valid.

 

How does that affect the subsequent disscussions of the items on the agenda?

 

Our organizations holds two meetings a year. I have been present where debate and approval by the membership has been decided on an issue.... the board has acted differently than what was agreed on. 

 

I share your suspicions on the desire of the Board to break the rules to be correct but I dont know if by the membership granting the motion to Suspend the Rules on record affects trying to protest their actions.

 

I believe that if a point of order is brought up next meeting on the misuse of the Motion is needed....not sure how to properly phrase this.

 

ed

[Guest Edward]

Greetings Edgar

 

No rules are mentioned when the Motion to Suspend the Rules is moved. The Chairperson makes the Motion as the first order once meeting is called and quorum is reached. E explanation given is that it will make the meeting "easier"  I can't make up my mind if this is done in ignorance or there is an ulterior motive and the rights of the membership are curtailed

[Edgar Guest]

Our organization holds two meetings a year. I have been present where debate and approval by the membership has been decided on an issue.... the board has acted differently than what was agreed on. 

 

See Official Interpretations 2006-12 and 2006-13.

 

And note that the board can't do anything at a meeting of the general membership. The board can only act, as a board, at board meetings.

[Timothy]

Greetings Edgar

 

No rules are mentioned when the Motion to Suspend the Rules is moved. The Chairperson makes the Motion as the first order once meeting is called and quorum is reached. E explanation given is that it will make the meeting "easier"  I can't make up my mind if this is done in ignorance or there is an ulterior motive and the rights of the membership are curtailed

Perhaps the chair wants to suspend the rules so he can make a motion to suspend the rules. I would suggest that the next time it happens you ask which rules would be suspended. It makes no sense for people to vote for a motion that may have been made out of ignorance or that has no clear purpose.

[Edgar Guest]

I would suggest that the next time it happens you ask which rules would be suspended.

 

Unfortunately, I don't think that's a question with a required answer (though I'm as curious as you are).

[Guest Ed]

Gentlemen  

 

Thanks for you kind responses....It worries me from the standpoint that the membership first of all are granting this motion without beign aware of the reason for the Suspension of Rules and that by granting this motion as the first motion for the meeting then they of the belief that they do not need to follow the rules after that.

 

On the first meeting I attended where they did this ....a Motion was presented and seconded to modify the powers of the Board when negotiationg contracts for the use of a piece of land owned by the group. The Board recommended that it be reviewed by our legal staff and a response provided at the next meeting.

 

At thie next meeting they again submitted a Motion for Suspending the rules right after quorum was established and when the Motion came up the Board advised that they did not have a report from the legal staff but they felt this wiuld decrease the ammounts they could negotiate the contracts for use. Then a member presented a Motion to strike the original motion since it would decrease the revenue which was seconded and passed.

 

I did not think this should have been allowed due the report of the legal staff was pending and a vote on the  motion was not even taken.

 

\

[Guest Edward]

Greetings Timothy

 

Thanks for your kind response...I am of that mind but would the question to ask to identify what agenda item requires the Suspension of the rules and due to the importance of such item (since it would require a Suspension of the rules) move to take that up as the first item and if need be then the motion to suspend the rules can be moved.

 

I do wonder that if they can't provide and agenda item then would the Motion to Suspend be out of order. (That is could I call a point of order)

 

Now If I do this and the chair dissallows me ... What recourse do i have?

 

By the way I am re-reading the New Roberts Rules but as i said it was back in the 70's (the days of bellbottoms, Star Wars, and colledge)

 

 

[Guest Edward]

Greetings Edgar

 

I almost missed the nuance of your comment...

"And note that the board can't do anything at a meeting of the general membership. The board can only act, as a board, at board meetings"

 

The bi-annuall meetings are defined as a Business Meeting of the Membership.

 

One more thing...as soon as the Motion to Suspend the Rules the chair person set limits on the amount of time debate of a matter would be allowed.

 

 

[Gary Novosielski]

Greetings Edgar

 

No rules are mentioned when the Motion to Suspend the Rules is moved. The Chairperson makes the Motion as the first order once meeting is called and quorum is reached. E explanation given is that it will make the meeting "easier"  I can't make up my mind if this is done in ignorance or there is an ulterior motive and the rights of the membership are curtailed

It makes no difference what the motive is.  The motion is not in order.  It is improper to move to simply Suspend the Rules.  As has been mentioned, most rules are not suspendible anyway, and this motion does nothing to change that.

 

The motion is only proper when a particular action is proposed that would violate one or more rules that may be suspended.  The motion must state the particular action that would  be interfered with by the rules.  If it doesn't, a point of order should be raised.

[Guest Edward]

Greetings Wonk

 

thank you for your kind response...that's what I thought...Now if I got this right... If not contested and the motion is voted on and passed without a given reason It will stand. How do you think this might affect the rest of the proceedings?

[Gary Novosielski]

I have no idea. Anyone who would move to suspend all the rules is liable to do anything, so I have no way to predict.

Of course the case could be made that if nobody raises a point of order about this blatant violation, they might deserve what they get. And if 2/3 vote in favor of it, they almost certainly do.

Even if the motion is passed, there are plenty of rules that may never be suspended under any conditions. But I'd be a fool to think that this fact would stop anyone who would pass such a motion to begin with, or an assembly that would vote for it.

[Guest Edward]

Greetings Wonk

 

I am of the belief that due to ignorance of the group (myself included) the Board has used this motion to subvert the validity of the meetings and do as they please...I am aware of their doing this at the last two meetings.

 

I am of the belief (admittedly this is an assumption of mine) that the Board believes that by obtaining this Motion to Suspend the rules provides a legal shield should they disregard the rules on any matter covered in that meeting. They can point back that the membership awarded the right by the Motion to Suspend being approved. 

[Josh Martin]

thank you for your kind response...that's what I thought...Now if I got this right... If not contested and the motion is voted on and passed without a given reason It will stand. How do you think this might affect the rest of the proceedings?

 

If a member moves "To suspend the rules" and provides no further explanation, the motion is out of order and null and void if adopted.

 

I am of the belief (admittedly this is an assumption of mine) that the Board believes that by obtaining this Motion to Suspend the rules provides a legal shield should they disregard the rules on any matter covered in that meeting. They can point back that the membership awarded the right by the Motion to Suspend being approved. 

 

I can't speak to legal matters, but adopting a motion "To suspend the rules" with no further explanation does not prevent a member from raising a Point of Order or Appeal when a rule is violated. That's not how it works.

[Gary Novosielski]

I am of the belief (admittedly this is an assumption of mine) that the Board believes that by obtaining this Motion to Suspend the rules provides a legal shield should they disregard the rules on any matter covered in that meeting. They can point back that the membership awarded the right by the Motion to Suspend being approved. 

 

Nah, that won't pass the sniff test, at least from the point of view of parliamentary law.

 

From a statutory perspective, I can't offer an opinion, not being of the legal eagle persuasion.  

 

(But I know that at least some judges are as capable of sniffing as you or I.)