Do Standing Rules rank above Rules of Order?

[parkourninja]

Do standing rules rank above rules of order?

 

In RONR it lists standing rules on page 18 after rules of order. In the for dummies, it says standing rules are higher than rules of order. Am I missing something?

 

On the 300 question test http://www.parliamentarians.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/List-of-300-questions.pdf, questions 43 and 44 imply that rules of order rank above standing rules and it references the same set of pages (including page 18).

[Richard Brown]

Do standing rules rank above rules of order?

 

In RONR it lists standing rules on page 18 after rules of order.

Then why are you asking?   RONR is the authority.

 

 In the for dummies, it says standing rules are higher than rules of order. Am I missing something?

I don't know what you are looking at, but in my copy of the 2nd edition of Robert's  Rules for Dummies on page 19 Mr. Jennings plainly lists rules of order as ranking above standing rules.

 

On the 300 question test http://www.parliamentarians.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/List-of-300-questions.pdf, questions 43 and 44 imply that rules of order rank above standing rules and it references the same set of pages (including page 18).

Well, then, that pretty much cinches it, doesn't it?  And it doesn't just imply it, it says it in the answers.

 

btw, RONR in Brief says the same thing on pages 83-88.

[Dan Honemann]

Do standing rules rank above rules of order?

 

I wouldn't worry too much about it if I were you, since standing rules and rules of order deal with different things.

[Timothy]

It sounds like the "for dummies" book got it wrong.

[George Mervosh]

It sounds like the "for dummies" book got it wrong.

 

Seriously, why are we still talking about that book?  (Not criticizing Mr. Fish here, by the way)

[Richard Brown]

It sounds like the "for dummies" book got it wrong.

No, it didn't.  I'm looking at the book now.  Did you not read my second comment in post # 2?  

 

I wouldn't worry too much about it if I were you, since standing rules and rules of order deal with different things.

I agree, and Robert's Rules for Dummies says so, too, on page 20.  But, one reason to worry about it is that on the NAP membership test, at least up until they changed it to base it on RONR in Brief a couple of months ago, there is a question about the relative rank of those motions and the correct answer (at least for the test) is that rules of order have a higher rank than standing rules.  Parkourjinda seems to be studying for the (old) NAP membership test.

 

Edited to add:  RONR in Brief, on page 84 also explicitly ranks rules of order as higher ranking in authority than standing rules.

 

Edited again to add:  There are also at least two questions on the NAP registration exam about the relative ranking of rules of order and standing rules.

 

Edited still again to add:  There was also a question about the ranking of the rules on the new NAP membership test which our unit administered to a group of new members about a month ago.  It was the only matching question and required getting them in order.  The other questions were all multiple choice.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Edited still again to add:  There was also a question about the ranking of the rules on the new NAP membership test which our unit administered to a group of new members about a month ago.  It was the only matching question and required getting them in order.

 

Well, that's unfortunate.

[Richard Brown]

Well, that's unfortunate.

Well, then does that make the chart on page 84 of RONR in Brief, on which the new NAP membership test is based, unfortunate (or erroneous) as well?   Here is a copy and paste of the chart on page 84 which makes plain that the rules are listed in order from highest to lowest in authority.  Rules of order clearly outrank standing rules in this chart:

 

>>THE RANKING ORDER OF RULES

A formal group with a continuing existence that makes decisions democratically at meetings needs rules dealing both with its own organization and purposes and with the procedure to be followed at its meetings.

Rules Governing an Assembly

(from highest to lowest in authority)

1.    Law: rules prescribed by applicable law

2.    Corporate charter: for incorporated groups

3.    Bylaws or Constitution: basic rules relating principally to itself as an organization

4.    Rules of order: written rules of parliamentary procedure

    —Special rules of order: specific to organization

    —Parliamentary authority: general book of rules

5.    Standing rules: administrative details

6.    Custom<<

[jstackpo]

Well, I suppose a rule of order could include some "standing rule" material or aspect.  Then if an otherwise proper standing rule was in conflict with the "standing" portion of the rule of order, it, the standing rule, would be superseded.

 

Give my a month or two and I'll try to come up with an example.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Well, then does that make the chart on page 84 of RONR in Brief, on which the new NAP membership test is based, unfortunate (or erroneous) as well?   Here is a copy and paste of the chart on page 84 which makes plain that the rules are listed in order from highest to lowest in authority.  Rules of order clearly outrank standing rules in this chart:

 

If I knew how the relative "ranking order" of standing rules and special rules order could make any difference in the transaction of business in a deliberative assembly, then I would say the chart on page 84 was unfortunate. But, as Dan Honemann says, "I wouldn't worry too much about it if I were you, since standing rules and rules of order deal with different things."

 

By the way, the authorship team had discussed modifying this chart during the preparation of the 2nd edition, but for some reason (which I don't remember) we decided to leave it alone.

[Tom Morelock]

Am i understanding this correctly, that a standing rule cannot conflict with parliamentary authority of the organization?

[Josh Martin]

Am i understanding this correctly, that a standing rule cannot conflict with parliamentary authority of the organization?

A standing rule will not conflict with the parliamentary authority because they address different subjects.

[Richard Brown]

A standing rule will not conflict with the parliamentary authority because they address different subjects.

I agree that the above statement is, or at least should be, the case.  However, the line distinguishing a standing rule from a rule of order can become quite fine...or blurred.

 

Here is an example that I would like some comments on:

 

Since RONR has an entire chapter of 26 pages on disciplinary procedures, I assume that those are rules of order, even though some of the procedures, such as the work of the investigating committee described on pages 656-657, is clearly done outside of a meeting.

 

Suppose a society wants to create a committee on discipline as described on page 669 and to promulgate rules and procedures for that committee.  The society, perhaps because of the fact that standing rules are easier to adopt and amend than special rules of order, decides to call these disciplinary procedures "Standing Rules for Disciplinary Action" (or "Standing Rules for Disciplinary Committee").  The society purposely does not  call them "Special Rules of Order".  The decision to call them standing rules is intentional. 

 

How should these rules be treated?  As Special Rules of Order or as Standing Rules?   They most certainly conflict with the rules of order in the parliamentary authority....and they deal with the same subject matter, but they are specifically and purposely called standing rules. 

[Dan Honemann]

If I call a horse a donkey, does that make him a donkey?

[Edgar Guest]

If I call a horse a donkey, does that make him a donkey?

 

When asked how many legs a dog has if the tail is called a leg, Lincoln is reported to have responded, "Four. Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one".

 

Anyway, although calling a horse a donkey doesn't make him a donkey, the donkey is a horse (so the horse in question might be a donkey).

[Dan Honemann]

When asked how many legs a dog has if the tail is called a leg, Lincoln is reported to have responded, "Four. Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one".

 

Anyway, although calling a horse a donkey doesn't make him a donkey, the donkey is a horse (so the horse in question might be a donkey).

 

Well, Lincoln was a lot smarter than I am.

[J. J.]

A standing rule could be "All committee chairmen shall be required to be bonded prior to functioing.."

 

The meeting want to appoint Mr. A to be a committee, with instructions to report prior to the end of the session.. It would have a proceduraleffect. 

[Timothy]

When asked how many legs a dog has if the tail is called a leg, Lincoln is reported to have responded, "Four. Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one".

 

Anyway, although calling a horse a donkey doesn't make him a donkey, the donkey is a horse (so the horse in question might be a donkey).

 

Lincoln actually said "calf" instead of "dog." "Dog" seems to be a fabrication of the Internet.

[Edgar Guest]

Lincoln actually said "calf" instead of "dog." 

 

Well, I said he was "reported" to have said this. I don't think we know what Lincoln actually said. In any event, I'm pretty sure that the "dog" variant pre-dates the Internet.