Dottie

Motion to never bring something up again

45 posts in this topic

So a rule could be adopted "to never bring something up again and this rule cannot be suspended or rescinded or amended". I can see how that may not be a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a special rule of order which supersedes the rules in RONR that allow for suspension, rescission, or amendment of a special rule of order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ann Rempel said:

Where would such a rule be located? I'm trying to understand what kind of governing document can never be changed?

I don't know, Ann, I've never been called upon to draft one. Suppose the rule is put in a section of the bylaws (the organization's highest governing document), and the last sentence of that section reads as follows: "The rules contained in this Section of the bylaws cannot be suspended, and this Section of the bylaws can never be rescinded or amended."

More likely, I suppose, would be a provision requiring a unanimous vote (or something close to it) in order to rescind or amend, or perhaps something along the lines of the last part of Article V of the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/18/2016 at 4:13 PM, Hieu H. Huynh said:

So a rule could be adopted "to never bring something up again and this rule cannot be suspended or rescinded or amended". I can see how that may not be a good idea.

If this rule was adopted, would it also prevent amending the bylaws to address the matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been revealing in that I have been a judge advocate for this club for 3 months and was looking for some sense in the rules to make reasonable decisions..I am a retired hospital CEO, have run numerous board meetings and committee meetings, and have never run into such a morass just to move on from a dicey situation..I was not looking for a rule to suspend something "no matter what"...I wanted to help frankly (a group of men) move on from the majority decision to go non-smoking on the 31st of December . There' s one member of our group (that has a tenth of the sophistication that any of you have), but constantly calls points of order, monopolizes the meeting with reading from the book , and quotes the book when none other of us know if it's being misused or not..sigh..this really has been helpful and thank you. I can use many of your responses and trust me Daniel, I have given a lot thought about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎18‎/‎2016 at 4:13 PM, Hieu H. Huynh said:

So a rule could be adopted "to never bring something up again and this rule cannot be suspended or rescinded or amended". I can see how that may not be a good idea.

 

9 hours ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

If this rule was adopted, would it also prevent amending the bylaws to address the matter?

No. The bylaws may be amended to incorporate a provision which conflicts with the rule, and if this happens, the bylaw provision will take precedence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2016 at 1:55 PM, Dottie said:

... I am very new at this and find myself not liking Robert very much..thanks to his wisdom, you either always have a way out or no way out!

Give it time, Dottie, it kinda grows on you.  Affectionately.  Like kudzu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

If this rule was adopted, would it also prevent amending the bylaws to address the matter?

 

3 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

No. The bylaws may be amended to incorporate a provision which conflicts with the rule, and if this happens, the bylaw provision will take precedence. 

Why will it, please?  (-- and, tangentially (or perhaps incidentally, I'm not sure which is which), are you saying that that provision in Article 5 of the US Constitution could have been amended before 1808?  Or that it couldn't?

(Is this more of a logic problem than a parliamentary question?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

 

No. The bylaws may be amended to incorporate a provision which conflicts with the rule, and if this happens, the bylaw provision will take precedence

 

44 minutes ago, Gary c Tesser said:

 

Why will it, please?  (-- and, tangentially (or perhaps incidentally, I'm not sure which is which), are you saying that that provision in Article 5 of the US Constitution could have been amended before 1808?  Or that it couldn't?

 

Do you really have some doubt about bylaws taking precedence over standing rules and special rules of order whenever they conflict? Gee, you will flunk that RP test. :)

The part of Article V to which I referred was the very last part. It says that no amendment to the Constitution may be made which will deprive a state of its equal suffrage in the Senate without that state's consent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

 

[1.]  Do you really have some doubt about bylaws taking precedence over standing rules and special rules of order whenever they conflict? Gee, you will flunk that RP test. :)...

[2.]  The part of Article V to which I referred was the very last part. It says that no amendment to the Constitution may be made which will deprive a state of its equal suffrage in the Senate without that state's consent.

1.  Great Glittering Gobbets of Goo (pardon my language, but I am asking in infenetrable, exconsionably refunded by exfuncionalness) :  I thought the proposed rule was proposed for the bylaws, so I was asking which bylaws provision would win, in a conflict.

2.  But Dan, what do you think  it would have taken to have made (or could have made) a valid change, at that time, before 1808?

-- 2 (a) ... especially, from the perspective of here , RONR, in the late 20-th century:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Gary c Tesser said:

2.  But Dan, what do you think  it would have taken to have made (or could have made) a valid change, at that time, before 1808?

-- 2 (a) ... especially, from the perspective of here , RONR, in the late 20-th century:

1808 has absolutely nothing to do with the restriction on amendments to which I referred (any which might deprive a state of its equal suffrage in the Senate). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they're in the bylaws, those rules would control. But if they're not, and with this adopted special rule of order, could the matter even be introduced in the form of a proposed bylaws amendment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

If they're in the bylaws, those rules would control. But if they're not, and with this adopted special rule of order, could the matter even be introduced in the form of a proposed bylaws amendment?

I thought I answered this question earlier this morning when I said that the bylaws may be amended to incorporate a provision which conflicts with the rule, and if this happens, the bylaw provision will take precedence. 

For example, suppose the rule which was adopted (after previous notice and by a two-thirds vote) was that "there shall be no smoking in the club house, and this rule may not be suspended, rescinded or amended for a period of two years". This would not prevent the adoption of an amendment to the bylaws, at any time within this two-year period, incorporating into the bylaws a provision that "smoking shall be allowed in the club house at all times."

I realize that all of this is a bit of an oversimplification of the facts, but I hope it's clear enough to make the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. I know this is crazy:

What about a rule "to never bring something up again and this rule cannot be suspended or rescinded or amended nor have a bylaws amendment proposed on it"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

OK. I know this is crazy:

What about a rule "to never bring something up again and this rule cannot be suspended or rescinded or amended nor have a bylaws amendment proposed on it"?

Actually, what is merely crazy is a rule "to never bring something up again and this rule cannot be suspended or rescinded or amended." A rule "to never bring something up again and this rule cannot be suspended or rescinded or amended nor have a bylaws amendment proposed on it" is completely insane.  :)

The bylaws themselves may impose limits on their own amendment (unless some higher authority, such as applicable law, prohibits it), but if they do not do so, no lower ranking rule can do it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2016 at 7:25 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

... The bylaws themselves may impose limits on their own amendment (unless some higher authority, such as applicable law, prohibits it), but if they do not do so, no lower ranking rule can do it.

But Dan, I was trying to ask if you are saying that an imposed limitation, in the bylaws, on their amendment, is binding.  The specific example I was looking at was the two (or so, IIRC -- it's 12 o'clock in the morning -- I mean, at the end of the morning, which the government dictates we call 12 PM, which is absurd, because it's unconscionably early to be afternoon, even if it's the beginning* of it, by definition and also actuality) cases in which the US Constitution says that it, itself, may not be changed before 1808.  I'm asking again for a logician to weigh in**.

___________

* Please don't give me any of these tiresome arguments that by definition 12 PM is intrinsically part of the afternoon because it's intrinsically part of the afternoon because it's the beginning of it, and the beginning of a thing is intrinsically part of the thing.  Piffle.  Go back to you commie college-graduate philosophy classes and get back to me when you've subsequently had enough coffee or beer or both.

**And I hope it's not too personal to say, I miss conversing with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2016 at 0:54 PM, George Mervosh said:

 

Then I don't think that helps. She wants the matter to go away for a while, and a motion to rescind or amend the adopted rule is dealt with as any other main motion, and I doubt they want to waste time dealing with it.

Well, you could not bring up the smoking motion, so debate might be curtailed.  The smokers may have failed to have given notice, and a majority of the entire membership may not be there.

The rule could be drafted to make "smoking questions" subject to Objection to the Consideration of the Question, so it would likely be made and rapidly dismissed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Loading...