Meaning of "insofar as they may apply"

[history_buff]

Our constitution says the following, which I believe is quite standard:

"All meetings of the Society shall be conducted in accordance with Robert's Rules of Order insofar as they may apply."

What is the meaning of "insofar as they may apply"? I have looked in many places and haven't found a clear description, except in the constitution of a youth soccer league, which confirms my own understanding, but is perhaps not enough to convince others.

I believe that it means they Robert's Rules apply whenever they don't conflict with the Society's constitution and by-laws, and of course don't conflict with the law. An opposite view within our organization is that they don't apply if they conflict with any "established custom" (unwritten). However, to me, this opens the door to unending discussions as to how to interpret the established custom and, worse, it may perpetuate undesirable practices that were never even voted on by anyone.

I would particularly appreciate any official (or at least quite formal) source defining the expression.

[Transpower]

A custom "falls to the ground" if it conflicts with the parliamentary authority and a point of order is raised, RONR (11th ed.), p. 19, ll. 9-15.
 

[Hieu H. Huynh]

16 minutes ago, history_buff said:

... I believe that it means they Robert's Rules apply whenever they don't conflict with the Society's constitution and by-laws, and of course don't conflict with the law...

I think this is close to what is said in RONR 11th ed., p. 16, ll. 21-27.

[history_buff]

I agree with both of the replies, but the "opposite view" that I already referred to, has made the point that the constitution overrides Robert's Rules, so I can't just quote the Robert's Rules. If "insofar as they may apply" means what he thinks it means, then the two references you've provided (within RONR) would not be applicable.

In other words, to him this is the same thing as if our constitution said "All meetings of the Society shall be conducted in accordance with Robert's Rules of Order unless they conflict with established custom." And that, indeed, would (probably) invalidate those two references you've provided.

Is there any other place where the expression itself ("insofar as they may apply") is clearly defined? Sorry if I appear to be dragging this out, but this has caused significant waste of time in our past meetings.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Ultimately it is up to your organization to interpret your constitution. Perhaps it could be amended to use the recommended language.

[Richard Brown]

History Buff, the "opposite view"  you speak of seems to clearly be in conflict with RONR.   RONR is quite clear that custom falls to the ground if a point of order is raised and it is found to conflict with RONR.  If the society prefers to follow the custom rather than the provisions in its parliamentary authority (RONR), it should adopt a special rule of order making the custom an official rule which would then supersede RONR.

In at least one parliamentary authority (The Standard Code, formerly known as "Sturgis"), custom does take priority over the rules in the parliamentary authority, but that is not so in RONR.   RONR is very clear that custom must yield if it is found to conflict with the parliamentary authority which your society has adopted. 

Although it is up to your society to interpret its own bylaws, I don't even see any wiggle room here.   But, it's a problem easy enough to fix with a simple special rule of order if it is desired to follow the custom.

[Gary Novosielski]

8 minutes ago, history_buff said:

Our constitution says the following, which I believe is quite standard:

"All meetings of the Society shall be conducted in accordance with Robert's Rules of Order insofar as they may apply."

What is the meaning of "insofar as they may apply"? I have looked in many places and haven't found a clear description, except in the constitution of a youth soccer league, which confirms my own understanding, but is perhaps not enough to convince others.

I believe that it means they Robert's Rules apply whenever they don't conflict with the Society's constitution and by-laws, and of course don't conflict with the law. An opposite view within our organization is that they don't apply if they conflict with any "established custom" (unwritten). However, to me, this opens the door to unending discussions as to how to interpret the established custom and, worse, it may perpetuate undesirable practices that were never even voted on by anyone.

I would particularly appreciate any official (or at least quite formal) source defining the expression.

It's not as standard as you think.  The recommended language is:

“The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the Society in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the Society may adopt.”

It's wordier than the language in your constitution, but more precise.  The similar phrase "to which they are applicable" is there, but I don't think the definition is a mystery.  If you're holding elections, and there are rules in RONR that apply to elections, you have to follow them, unless you have rules that supersede them.  If you're holding a Maypole barbecue and seance, and RONR has no rules that apply, then you're not limited.  In other words, where there are rules in RONR that apply to a situation, they govern your behavior.  

The last part says that any rules in your bylaws or special rules of order that conflict with RONR take precedence over it.  So you can easily change any of the rules that don't work in your particular situation. 

[history_buff]

Thanks for the input. It is indeed our intention to change the wording of this article of the constitution to put an end to the arguments. I just wanted to be able to present it as "clarification" of the article, rather than an actual change as to what it means. Your replies should help with that.

[Gary Novosielski]

It sounds like your "opposing view" folks have the mistaken impression that the rule Your constitution supersedes RONR implies that because you have a constitution you need not follow RONR at all, i.e., that everything in your constitution invalidates everything in RONR.

But it's much more selective than that.  It operates on a rule by rule basis.  On matters to which rules in neither RONR nor your constitution apply, the assembly is free to do as it pleases.  Where there is a rule in RONR that applies, and no conflicting rule in your constitution, you follow the rule in RONR.   (Notice the use of the word apply.  A rule applies to a situation if it constrains your behavior in that situation, either preventing certain actions or mandating others, or both.)

Okay, so what happens if there is a situation covered by a rule in your constitution and another, inconsistent, rule in RONR?  I.e., if you must behave one way under your rule and  a different way under the rule in RONR.  The rules are in conflict.  In such cases, the rule in your constitution governs, and the rule in RONR does not.  

[J. J.]

There will be parts of RONR that do not apply to any given organization.  For example, RONR has a section "Organization of a Permanent Society (p. 553 ff.)."  That section obviously does not apply to a society already established.  Likewise, it has a chapter titled "Conventions (p. 600 ff.)."  That chapter does not apply to a society that has not established conventions in its bylaws. 

[Dan Honemann]

17 hours ago, J. J. said:

There will be parts of RONR that do not apply to any given organization.  For example, RONR has a section "Organization of a Permanent Society (p. 553 ff.)."  That section obviously does not apply to a society already established.  Likewise, it has a chapter titled "Conventions (p. 600 ff.)."  That chapter does not apply to a society that has established conventions in its bylaws. 

Assuming the existence of a not hole in the last sentence quoted above, I still think it would be a mistake to assume that there is nothing in Chapter XIX which might apply to a society that does not hold conventions (the sentence on page 620, lines 4-11, for example). 

If I'm wrong about there being a not hole in the last sentence quoted above, then I just don't understand it at all.

[J. J.]

32 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Assuming the existence of a not hole in the last sentence quoted above, I still think it would be a mistake to assume that there is nothing in Chapter XIX which might apply to a society that does not hold conventions (the sentence on page 620, lines 4-11, for example). 

If I'm wrong about there being a not hole in the last sentence quoted above, then I just don't understand it at all.

One of my infamous not holes.  Glad you caught it. 

 

I shall correct it. 

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 2/25/2016 at 1:09 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

It's not as standard as you think.  The recommended language is:

“The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the Society in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the Society may adopt.”

 

19 hours ago, J. J. said:

There will be parts of RONR that do not apply to any given organization.  For example, . . . it has a chapter titled "Conventions (p. 600 ff.)."  That chapter does not apply to a society that has not established conventions in its bylaws. 

 

1 hour ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

. . . I still think it would be a mistake to assume that there is nothing in Chapter XIX which might apply to a society that does not hold conventions (the sentence on page 620, lines 4-11, for example). . . .

But either a rule is applicable in a given case (according to the terms of the rule itself and the facts of the situation) or it isn't; and if it isn't, I don't see how a determination of whether or not the Society is governed by the rule could make any difference at all.

So, although the recommended language for adopting a parliamentary authority has a long tradition and is based on the practice of the U.S. Congress, I don't see the words "in all cases to which they are applicable"* as adding anything much, other than perhaps to emphasize that when the rules in RONR are applicable, they govern all such cases that may arise within the Society.

(*Or, more precisely, the words "to which they are applicable and")

[Dan Honemann]

19 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

But either a rule is applicable in a given case (according to the terms of the rule itself and the facts of the situation) or it isn't; and if it isn't, I don't see how a determination of whether or not the Society is governed by the rule could make any difference at all.

So, although the recommended language for adopting a parliamentary authority has a long tradition and is based on the practice of the U.S. Congress, I don't see the words "in all cases to which they are applicable"* as adding anything much, other than perhaps to emphasize that when the rules in RONR are applicable, they govern all such cases that may arise within the Society.

(*Or, more precisely, the words "to which they are applicable and")

In view of the fact that the recommended language specifically refers only to “these bylaws” and “any special rules of order the Society may adopt” as rules which will supersede “applicable” rules contained in RONR whenever there is an inconsistency, perhaps we are to conclude that rules contained in RONR which are inconsistent with applicable provisions of law are simply inapplicable.

[Shmuel Gerber]

5 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

In view of the fact that the recommended language specifically refers only to “these bylaws” and “any special rules of order the Society may adopt” as rules which will supersede “applicable” rules contained in RONR whenever there is an inconsistency, perhaps we are to conclude that rules contained in RONR which are inconsistent with applicable provisions of law are simply inapplicable.

I'll have to apply my thinking cap (or maybe some boolean XOR) in order to understand this.

Getting back to the original question about "insofar as they may apply," that might be even more precise than the language suggested in RONR in one respect. That is, even if a rule in RONR is inconsistent with the society's special rules of order, that doesn't generally mean that the rules are ignored altogether; rather, the RONR rule should be applied insofar as it is applicable.

For example, RONR says (11th ed., p. 43), "In the debate, each member has the right to speak twice on the same question on the same day, but cannot make a second speech on the same question so long as any member who has not spoken on that question desires the floor." For the sake of illustration, let's assume that is the only statement RONR provides on the subject. Now if a society adopts a special rule of order saying, "During debate, each member has the right to speak three times on the same question on the same day" -- which is clearly inconsistent with the quoted rule -- I think that the second part of the rule, that a member cannot make a second speech on the same question so long as any member who has not spoken on that question desires the floor, would still govern the debate.

[Dan Honemann]

7 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

I'll have to apply my thinking cap (or maybe some boolean XOR) in order to understand this.

Getting back to the original question about "insofar as they may apply," that might be even more precise than the language suggested in RONR in one respect. That is, even if a rule in RONR is inconsistent with the society's special rules of order, that doesn't generally mean that the rules is ignored altogether; rather, the RONR rule should be applied insofar as it is applicable.

For example, RONR says (11th ed., p. 43), "In the debate, each member has the right to speak twice on the same question on the same day, but cannot make a second speech on the same question so long as any member who has not spoken on that question desires the floor." For the sake of illustration, let's assume that is the only statement RONR provides on the subject. Now if a society adopts a special rule of order saying, "During debate, each member has the right to speak three times on the same question on the same day" -- which is clearly inconsistent with the quoted rule -- I think that the second part of the rule, that a member cannot make a second speech on the same question so long as any member who has not spoken on that question desires the floor, would still govern the debate.

The rules in RONR govern to the extent they are not inconsistent with a bylaw, a special rule of order, or applicable law, but what's this got to do with the price of eggs (or my last post)?

[Shmuel Gerber]

2 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

The rules in RONR govern to the extent they are not inconsistent with a bylaw, a special rule of order, or applicable law, but what's this got to do with the price of eggs (or my last post)?

I don't yet know what it has to do with your last post -- I'll let you know once I figure out what that post means.

[J. J.]

8 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

I'll have to apply my thinking cap (or maybe some boolean XOR) in order to understand this.

Getting back to the original question about "insofar as they may apply," that might be even more precise than the language suggested in RONR in one respect. That is, even if a rule in RONR is inconsistent with the society's special rules of order, that doesn't generally mean that the rules are ignored altogether; rather, the RONR rule should be applied insofar as it is applicable.

For example, RONR says (11th ed., p. 43), "In the debate, each member has the right to speak twice on the same question on the same day, but cannot make a second speech on the same question so long as any member who has not spoken on that question desires the floor." For the sake of illustration, let's assume that is the only statement RONR provides on the subject. Now if a society adopts a special rule of order saying, "During debate, each member has the right to speak three times on the same question on the same day" -- which is clearly inconsistent with the quoted rule -- I think that the second part of the rule, that a member cannot make a second speech on the same question so long as any member who has not spoken on that question desires the floor, would still govern the debate.

I will submit that there is a difference between a rule included in RONR being superseded by a special rule, bylaw, or a procedural rule in statute and a rule in RONR not being applicable.  

[Dan Honemann]

15 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

I don't yet know what it has to do with your last post -- I'll let you know once I figure out what that post means.

Responding to what you had posted, and groping for some reason for inclusion of the phrase "in all cases to which they are applicable" in the recommended language for adoption of a parliamentary authority, that post of mine suggested (with smiley face annexed, mind you) that since "applicable law" is not referred to along with “these bylaws” and “any special rules of order the Society may adopt”, inclusion of this phrase must explain why, and that must be because rules contained in RONR which are inconsistent with applicable provisions of law, unlike those which are inconsistent with bylaws or special rules of order, simply lose their applicability.

J.J. may not be buying it, apparently, but that's okay. 

 

[Shmuel Gerber]

7 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Responding to what you had posted, and groping for some reason for inclusion of the phrase "in all cases to which they are applicable" in the recommended language for adoption of a parliamentary authority, that post of mine suggested (with smiley face annexed, mind you) that since "applicable law" is not referred to along with “these bylaws” and “any special rules of order the Society may adopt”, inclusion of this phrase must explain why, and that must be because rules contained in RONR which are inconsistent with applicable provisions of law, unlike those which are inconsistent with bylaws or special rules of order, simply lose their applicability.

J.J. may not be buying it, apparently, but that's okay.

OK, now I get it. And I'm not buying it either (unless maybe it's being offered at half-price).