Bylaws and House Rules (And RONR)

[Guest Hal9000]

Greetings,

I  belong to an organisation which has a fairly simple set of Bylaws, which include the statement :

<Start>

RULES OF ORDER

 

Robert’s Manual or Cushing’s Manual shall govern all other rules pertaining to the transaction of the business of the <organization>.

<End>

However, following the actual Bylaws, is an insert (in the same booklet) Entitled "House Rules".

The "House Rules" includes the following entry:

<Start>

    Any member or Officer of the <organisation>. may be fined, removed, suspended, or expelled from his office or the <organization>, or from both, for any of the following causes:

 

1.       Dishonesty, immoral conduct, intoxication, quarreling, or tending to reflect discredit upon the <organization>.

2.       Violation of all or any part of the membership obligation.

 

    The Governing Board has full authority and is required to strictly enforce the foregoing rules.

<End>

While the reference to "  Robert’s Manual or Cushing’s Manual" is a bit dated, the membership accepts that the current RONR is the authority intended.

 

With that said, I have the following question:

1) Do the "House Rules" override RONR?

The question arises due to a decision of the Governing board to remove a member from the <organization> without a vote from the membership. .  It is their opinion that the "House Rules" apply, and not RONR...And as such, four (4) people (based on our Governing Board quorum) have the ability to deprive a member of their membership without consulting the general membership at all.  At least, this is the Governing Board's interpretation of the situation.

 

Thank you in advance for your assistance with this question!

[Alexis Hunt]

I am glad that your organization agrees that the current edition of Robert's Rules governs. I would recommend that you consider amending that statement to follow the text recommended here: http://www.robertsrules.com/authority.html

It does sound like your bylaws provisions should be interpreted analogously, except that it may not permit your organization to establish special rules of order, which are rules of procedure that, although not quite bylaws, overrule the parliamentary authority.

In this case, however, Robert's Rules is clear that the disciplinary provisions listed in Chapter XX prevail except when the organization's bylaws contain their own discipline. So if your House Rules are in fact bylaws, then the disciplinary provisions you quoted would take precedence. Otherwise, you would have to go through the somewhat more rigorous process outlined in Chapter XX of Robert's Rules.

[George Mervosh]

Also, RONR is quite clear that members cannot be assessed any payments aside from their dues unless the bylaws provide for such a payment.  So I think your rule regarding a fine is not going to be valid unless it's truly a bylaw provision authorizing them.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

6 hours ago, Guest Hal9000 said:

. . . following the actual Bylaws, is an insert (in the same booklet) Entitled "House Rules".

The "House Rules" includes the following entry:

*****

    Any member or Officer of the <organisation>. may be fined, removed, suspended, or expelled from his office or the <organization>, or from both, for any of the following causes: [etc.]

. . .

    The Governing Board has full authority and is required to strictly enforce the foregoing rules.

*****

1) Do the "House Rules" override RONR?

The question arises due to a decision of the Governing board to remove a member from the <organization> without a vote from the membership. .

 It is their opinion that the "House Rules" apply, and not RONR.

And as such, four (4) people (based on our Governing Board quorum) have the ability to deprive a member of their membership without consulting the general membership at all.  

At least, this is the Governing Board's interpretation of the situation.

I bet you that the author of the "House Rules" is your Governing Board. -- Right?

If my bet is correct, then, "No", an inferior body cannot give itself power, through rules of its own making, to override the power of the superior body, the general membership.

***

If the general membership is the author of the House Rules, then I may re-think my answer.

 

[J. J.]

8 hours ago, Guest Hal9000 said:

The "House Rules" includes the following entry:

<Start>

    Any member or Officer of the <organisation>. may be fined, removed, suspended, or expelled from his office or the <organization>, or from both, for any of the following causes:

 

1.       Dishonesty, immoral conduct, intoxication, quarreling, or tending to reflect discredit upon the <organization>.

2.       Violation of all or any part of the membership obligation.

 

    The Governing Board has full authority and is required to strictly enforce the foregoing rules.

<End>

 

 

Assuming the House Rules were properly adopted by the assembly, the Governing Board would have full authority to "removed, suspended, or expelled from his office or the <organization>, or from both."    I agree with my learned colleague Mr. Mervosh that the ability to fine a member must be placed in the bylaws.

 

The process used for the Governing Board to exercise this authority as explained in the parliamentary authority. 

[Hal9000]

I thank you all for your insight into this issue.  While researching the problem, it has come to my attention that several "House Rules" were, in fact, added by "Executive Board Decision", and others were adopted by the membership by a simple majority vote at a regular meeting.

Our Bylaws state:

<Begin Excerpt>

AMMENDMENTS:

These By-Laws or any part thereof maybe amended by presenting in writing and said resolution to be read at the next two (2) meetings and notices thereof sent to all of the membership and upon the third reading, to pass must have two-thirds vote of all members present.

<End Excerpt>

Would I be correct in interpreting this to mean that our "House Rules", therefore, can NOT be considered part of the Bylaws?  Or is this interpretation of precedence incorrect?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

3 hours ago, Hal9000 said:

AMENDMENTS:

These By-Laws or any part thereof maybe amended by presenting in writing and said resolution to be read at the next two (2) meetings and notices thereof sent to all of the membership and upon the third reading, to pass must have two-thirds vote of all members present.

Would I be correct in interpreting this to mean that our "House Rules", therefore, can NOT be considered part of the Bylaws?

 Or is this interpretation of precedence incorrect?

 

Yes, you would be correct, most likely.

Look at it this way:

Q. Did both bodies, general membership plus Executive Board, both invoke the bylaws' method of amendment to insert new House Rules?

A. No.

Therefore, the House Rules cannot be part of the bylaws.

The printed document must be a convenient compilation of two sets of rules, as a courtesy to new members, or a courtesy to general readers.

 

[Hal9000]

Thank you very much for your input!  I truly appreciate it!