Rob Elsman Posted August 18, 2011 at 01:17 AM Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 at 01:17 AM For an organization having as its bylaws the sample bylaws in RONR (10th ed.), pp. 565-570, would a motion to delay implementation of the 11th edition of RONR to some future, fixed date--say, January 1, 2012--be in order, provided that the requirements of Article IX were observed? In other words, can an organization adopt some kind of transitional rule to provide a little breathing room for training of officers and other members before the 11th edition is put into force and effect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted August 18, 2011 at 01:23 AM Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 at 01:23 AM For an organization having as its bylaws the sample bylaws in RONR (10th ed.), pp. 565-570, would a motion to delay implementation of the 11th edition of RONR to some future, fixed date--say, January 1, 2012--be in order, provided that the requirements of Article IX were observed? In other words, can an organization adopt some kind of transitional rule to provide a little breathing room for training of officers and other members before the 11th edition is put into force and effect?I don't think the changes are going to be substantial enough that such a motion is likely to be necessary for most societies, but it would seem that such a motion would be in order. The assembly could adopt an amendment for the Bylaws, for instance, changing the word "current" in Article VIII to the word "10th," with the proviso that it would revert back to "current" as of January 1, 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted August 18, 2011 at 01:32 AM Author Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 at 01:32 AM I don't think the changes are going to be substantial enough that such a motion is likely to be necessary for most societies, but it would seem that such a motion would be in order. The assembly could adopt an amendment for the Bylaws, for instance, changing the word "current" in Article VIII to the word "10th," with the proviso that it would revert back to "current" as of January 1, 2012.Just to be clear, are you agreeing that a transitional rule (somewhat in the nature of a proviso) could be adopted that would not amend the bylaws, provided the rule of Article IX was observed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted August 18, 2011 at 01:45 AM Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 at 01:45 AM Just to be clear, are you agreeing that a transitional rule (somewhat in the nature of a proviso) could be adopted that would not amend the bylaws, provided the rule of Article IX was observed?Well, certainly one could be adopted that would not permanently amend the Bylaws. Adopting a motion to amend the Bylaws with just a proviso seems irregular, but I suppose I can't think of a reason it would be out of order, provided the rule of Article IX was observed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted August 18, 2011 at 05:13 AM Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 at 05:13 AM For an organization having as its bylaws the sample bylaws in RONR (10th ed.), pp. 565-570, would a motion to delay implementation of the 11th edition of RONR to some future, fixed date--say, January 1, 2012--be in order, provided that the requirements of Article IX were observed? In other words, can an organization adopt some kind of transitional rule to provide a little breathing room for training of officers and other members before the 11th edition is put into force and effect?Nope. Place your advance order right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted August 18, 2011 at 12:58 PM Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 at 12:58 PM Nope. Place your advance order right now. And, let's be honest, EVERYONE (sans the fab 5) is going to have a learning curve with the new edition, the way they did in 2000......let's just deal with it and forget the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted August 18, 2011 at 03:51 PM Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 at 03:51 PM I am of the view that either you have a By-law or you don't. There should be no reason why a delay in using the 11th Edition of RONR would be necessary - and I am of the opinion that if you don't want to follow the By-law as written then you need to amend it. There is no point amending it just to amend it back again a few months later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted August 18, 2011 at 06:32 PM Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 at 06:32 PM And, let's be honest, EVERYONE (sans the fab 5) is going to have a learning curve with the new edition, the way they did in 2000......let's just deal with it and forget the rest.The truth is, I sympathize somewhat with the concern that led to Mr. Elsman's question, because it is reasonable for people to want to know what the rules are before they are bound by them. However, that concern is mostly theoretical. In actuality, I think what you'll find in the new edition, in the vast majority of places where there is a change, is a clearer statement that accords with what good parliamentarians would have advised under the 10th edition anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted August 18, 2011 at 06:38 PM Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 at 06:38 PM Do we know what date RONR/11 will be available to the public? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted August 18, 2011 at 07:41 PM Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 at 07:41 PM Do we know what date RONR/11 will be available to the public?The official publication date for the new editions of RONR as well as RONR In Brief is September 27, 2011. Pre-orders can be submitted via the links below, and copies are also scheduled to be available at the National Association of Parliamentarians convention in Florida, September 23-26.11th ed. paperback:http://www.amazon.co...d/dp/030682020Xhttp://search.barnes...e/978030682020511th ed. hardcover:http://www.amazon.co...d/dp/0306820218http://search.barnes...e/9780306820212deluxe 11th ed. leatherbound:http://www.amazon.co...e/dp/0306820226http://search.barnes...e/9780306820229In Brief, 2nd ed.:http://www.amazon.co...d/dp/0306820196http://search.barnes...e/9780306820199 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted August 18, 2011 at 11:22 PM Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 at 11:22 PM I am of the view that either you have a By-law or you don't.It's not that simple. While I agree that a proviso is unnecessary in this case, provisos to facilitate transitions are common and often quite useful.There is no point amending it just to amend it back again a few months later. That's what the proviso is for (although again, I agree that is is likely unnecessary in this case). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted August 19, 2011 at 12:33 AM Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2011 at 12:33 AM Nope. Place your advance order right now. I think I am tending away from "nope". I think the case is no different than if the 10th edition had been inline in the bylaws and was being replaced by the 11th edition inline with a proviso that the new wording would be in effect at some future, fixed date. Not so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted August 19, 2011 at 01:32 AM Report Share Posted August 19, 2011 at 01:32 AM I think I am tending away from "nope". I think the case is no different than if the 10th edition had been inline in the bylaws and was being replaced by the 11th edition inline with a proviso that the new wording would be in effect at some future, fixed date. Not so?I don't see how the society can comply with the applicable provisions for amending the bylaws if they are not amending the bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted August 21, 2011 at 10:47 PM Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 at 10:47 PM I think I am tending away from "nope". I think the case is no different than if the 10th edition had been inline in the bylaws and was being replaced by the 11th edition inline with a proviso that the new wording would be in effect at some future, fixed date. Not so?You could amend your bylaws to set a future time for the 11th edition to become the parliamentary authority without problems.You might be able (with some exceptions) to suspend the rules for a session to use the tenth edition. Obviously, you could not suspend some types of rules, and any changes in the 11th edition that are in the unsuspendable rule category could not be suspended. Rules of Order are arguably rules in the nature of a rule of order included in the bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted August 22, 2011 at 04:12 AM Report Share Posted August 22, 2011 at 04:12 AM You might be able (with some exceptions) to suspend the rules for a session to use the tenth edition.I don't think you could. That does not seem to fit with the purpose of the motion to Suspend the Rules - to do something that cannot normally be accomplished under the rules. Using it to suspend whole categories of rules does not seem proper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hunt Posted August 22, 2011 at 04:13 AM Report Share Posted August 22, 2011 at 04:13 AM "The parliamentary authority of the Society is Roberts Rules of Order, Newly Revised.Notwithstanding anything in the parliamentary authority, the 10th edition shall be used prior to $DATE. After $DATE, the President can amend the bylaws by removing this paragraph by announcing such at a meeting, notwithstanding the usual procedure for amendment of the bylaws." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted August 22, 2011 at 06:12 AM Report Share Posted August 22, 2011 at 06:12 AM I don't think you could. That does not seem to fit with the purpose of the motion to Suspend the Rules - to do something that cannot normally be accomplished under the rules. Using it to suspend whole categories of rules does not seem proper.As pointed out previously, General Robert permitted the rules to be suspended for the duration of the session, in Parliamentary Practice. I think he used amend as an example. RONR does currently as well. Even under the incidental motion to suspend notes that "the particular rule or rules to be suspended are not mention (p. 253, l. 24)." So you can suspend a whole category of rules.Suppose, totally hypothetically, that the 11th edition just has these changes:A. Lay on the Table may be used to kill a motion by majority vote.B. Tertiary amendments are permitted.C. A motion to take from the table may be raised at any point during the meeting.D. The vote needed to amend a special rule of order shall be a 2/3 vote with notice (no MEM option).E. Postpone Indefinitely is no longer permitted.It is in order (assuming there is no change in the motion to suspend the rules) for an incident main motion to be adopted "to suspend the rules for the duration of the session that interfere with the rules in RONR 10th edition as they relate to A." You could do the same for A, B, C, and E.I don't see a fundamental problem with an IMM, "to suspend the rules in the parliamentary authority that are capable of being suspended and interfere with using the rules the rules of order in RONR 10th edition for the duration of the session." That would cover A, B, C, and E as well.There are some drawbacks. The suspension ends when the session ends. Some rules in RONR 11 are probably not capable of being suspended. Likewise, if the society had specified using RONR 10 in the bylaws, the rules could be suspended to use the 11th edition under the same condition.BTW: That makes an assumption that the nature of the motion Suspend the Rules has not changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted August 22, 2011 at 06:14 AM Report Share Posted August 22, 2011 at 06:14 AM "The parliamentary authority of the Society is Roberts Rules of Order, Newly Revised.Notwithstanding anything in the parliamentary authority, the 10th edition shall be used prior to $DATE. After $DATE, the President can amend the bylaws by removing this paragraph by announcing such at a meeting, notwithstanding the usual procedure for amendment of the bylaws."Unless that was in the bylaws, the motion would be null and void. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted August 22, 2011 at 04:18 PM Report Share Posted August 22, 2011 at 04:18 PM As pointed out previously, General Robert permitted the rules to be suspended for the duration of the session, in Parliamentary Practice. I think he used amend as an example. RONR does currently as well. Even under the incidental motion to suspend notes that "the particular rule or rules to be suspended are not mention (p. 253, l. 24)." So you can suspend a whole category of rules.Suppose, totally hypothetically, that the 11th edition just has these changes:...If you really want to pursue this question, then instead of making up (nonsense) examples, you can use the example of the 10th edition when it had just recently superseded the 9th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hunt Posted August 22, 2011 at 04:58 PM Report Share Posted August 22, 2011 at 04:58 PM Unless that was in the bylaws, the motion would be null and void.Of course. It would definitely have to be put into the bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted August 22, 2011 at 05:27 PM Report Share Posted August 22, 2011 at 05:27 PM If you really want to pursue this question, then instead of making up (nonsense) examples, you can use the example of the 10th edition when it had just recently superseded the 9th.Okay, but several people on this thread may not be familiar with the 9th edition. I tried to pick several examples that would probably (and hopefully) not be in the 11th edition. Let's take it in reverse. The 10th edition has been adopted. 2/3 of the members wish to, for this meeting, wish to use the 9th edition. The could adopt an IMM "to suspend the rules in the parliamentary authority that are capable of being suspended and interfere with using the rules the rules of order in RONR 9th edition for the duration of the session."In such a case, A. A rescind a motion in the nature of a contract is out of order.B. Have a ballot voting for or against a candidate would be in order.However, if the bylaws require 10 days notice for a special meeting, notice sent out on 9/1 for a special meeting to be held on 9/10 would not be valid, even though it might be regarded as 10 days notice under the 9th edition.There would also be some other things that could be subject to a point of order, possibly well taken, if the 9th edition is used, that would be clearly not well taken under the 10th.For example, it could be claimed that custom of the assembly supersedes the rule in the parliamentary authority (though I would not so find). It could also be claimed that waiving the secrecy of a ballot was impossible, so a motion adopted by ballot votes could not be reconsidered, solely on the ground that the original vote of the maker could not be determined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted August 22, 2011 at 05:37 PM Report Share Posted August 22, 2011 at 05:37 PM Why does this need to be complicated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted August 22, 2011 at 06:00 PM Report Share Posted August 22, 2011 at 06:00 PM Why does this need to be complicated?I was trying to use something a bit more hypothetical. RONR 11 is, for any group, hypothetical at this point. It won't be 9/27/11.Could a society that has adopted the current edition adopt an IMM, "to suspend the rules in the parliamentary authority that are capable of being suspended and interfere with using the rules of order in RONR 9th edition for the duration of the session." I cannot come up with any solid reason for ruling the motion out of order.Likewise, could the Society that has specifically adopted the 9th edition of RONR adopt a motion "to suspend the rules in the parliamentary authority that are capable of being suspended and interfere with using the rules of order in RONR 10th edition for the duration of the session." I cannot come up with any solid reason for ruling the motion out of order, either.I would note that in both cases, some rules could not be suspended. Many rules would be identical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted August 22, 2011 at 06:04 PM Report Share Posted August 22, 2011 at 06:04 PM When the 11th hits the streets I'll only be immediately concerned with any material change that would incur the wrath of what now is p. 244 a. through e. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted August 22, 2011 at 06:34 PM Report Share Posted August 22, 2011 at 06:34 PM When the 11th hits the streets I'll only be immediately concerned with any material change that would incur the wrath of what now is p. 244 a. through e.Unless I was in a meeting at about the time, pp. 244, 255 would be my principle concerns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.