Suspend RONR

[Leo]

Is it in order to suspend RONR?

[George Mervosh]

Is it in order to suspend RONR?

 

The whole thing? No.

[SaintCad]

Suspend the Rules is a motion in order to accomplish a specific goal (p 260, 261).  You do not specify the rules to be suspended but rather the desired outcome.  For example, if a member has spoken twice during debate but something comes up later and you think that member would be the best to respond, you would rise, be recognized and say, "I move to suspend the rules to allow Mr. Smith to speak for a third time on the matter."  And to answer the question that has been asked many times before in this forum, no, nothing in the bylaws may be suspended (p 261) unless it is a special rule of order (p 17).

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Is it in order to suspend RONR?

 

What is the assembly trying to do?

[Leo]

The assembly wants to suspend RONR so they don't have to follow all this rules that no body understands anyway.

[George Mervosh]

The assembly wants to suspend RONR so they don't have to follow all this rules that no body understands anyway.

 

Do they just want to make stuff up as they go along, Leo?  Anyway, the answer is no.  

[Gary Novosielski]

The assembly wants to suspend RONR so they don't have to follow all this rules that no body understands anyway.

 

So they think they'll do better with unruly chaos that nobody understands anyway?

 

No, you can't suspend RONR.

 

But if you're smart enough to recognize that your meetings are not working, you are sufficiently bright to learn the basics and use RONR to everyone's advantage.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

How about helping them understand these rules? RONR In Brief could be a starting point.

[Josh Martin]

The assembly wants to suspend RONR so they don't have to follow all this rules that no body understands anyway.

 

As previously noted, a motion to suspend RONR in its entirety is not in order. A motion to Suspend the Rules is used for a specific purpose, not to simply suspend rules in bulk. Additionally, some rules in RONR cannot be suspended, such as rules which protect the rights of absentees, embody fundamental principles of parliamentary law, or protect the basic rights of an individual member. If the assembly wishes to get rid of RONR, it will need to amend its rules to either remove any reference to a parliamentary authority (a very bad idea) or to replace RONR with a different authority (also a very bad idea, in my opinion, but much better than the alternative).

 

As others have suggested, learning the rules might be preferable. RONR In Brief and/or a presentation from a parliamentarian should help to show the members that RONR isn't quite as intimidating as people make it out to be.

[Leo]

The president sought the help of a parliamentarian and the board is currently working on learning proper procedure for conducting business.  They have taken the first step in the right direction. Thanks for the responses.

[DanielEHayes]

Hey you guys could always amend your bylaws however your bylaws provide for doing that and ditch RONR as your parliamentary authority and you can be like El Che in my profile picture.

An easier/less chaotic/less dumb suggestion..learn the rules and instead of getting that big 700 page brown book... have everybody get a copy of Robert's Rules in Brief, its a much less daunting task to bite off.

[DanielEHayes]

The president sought the help of a parliamentarian and the board is currently working on learning proper procedure for conducting business.  They have taken the first step in the right direction. Thanks for the responses.

much better option than amending your bylaws to ditch your parliamentary authority... El Che' the brutal dictator would not approve.  You should still encourage those put off by the enormity of RONR(11th ed.) and get Robert's Rules in Brief.

[Shmuel Gerber]

The assembly wants to suspend RONR so they don't have to follow all this rules that no body understands anyway.

I suppose that a motion such as the following would be in order, although maybe I could be persuaded that it's not:

 

"I move that for the duration of this meeting, the rules be suspended for the purpose of authorizing the chairman to rule according to his own notions of parliamentary procedure and the customary practices of this organization, regardless of what Robert's Rules of Order prescribes in relation to those rules contained therein that can be suspended."

 

Note: Obviously I don't think that this is even remotely a good idea, just that it's doable.

[Dan Honemann]

I suppose that a motion such as the following would be in order, although maybe I could be persuaded that it's not:

 

"I move that for the duration of this meeting, the rules be suspended for the purpose of authorizing the chairman to rule according to his own notions of parliamentary procedure and the customary practices of this organization, regardless of what Robert's Rules of Order prescribes in relation to those rules contained therein that can be suspended."

 

Note: Obviously I don't think that this is even remotely a good idea, just that it's doable.

 

What do you make of the footnote on page 624? 

[Shmuel Gerber]

What do you make of the footnote on page 624? 

 

I think that is in line with the rules on pages 620-621 regarding the suspension of a convention standing rule:

 

"Any standing rule of a convention (except one prescribing the parliamentary authority) can be suspended for a particular specified purpose by a majority vote . . . No standing rule of a convention can be suspended for the remainder of the session, and no standing rule which has only a single application can be suspended, since this would be equivalent to rescinding the rule, and the case would have to be treated accordingly."

 

In the discussion here, I had assumed that we are talking about an ordinary assembly such as that of a local society, and that the rule adopting the parliamentary authority was adopted as a general one, not in reference to the particular session of a convention.

[Dan Honemann]

I think that is in line with the rules on pages 620-621 regarding the suspension of a convention standing rule:

 

"Any standing rule of a convention (except one prescribing the parliamentary authority) can be suspended for a particular specified purpose by a majority vote . . . No standing rule of a convention can be suspended for the remainder of the session, and no standing rule which has only a single application can be suspended, since this would be equivalent to rescinding the rule, and the case would have to be treated accordingly."

 

In the discussion here, I had assumed that we are talking about an ordinary assembly such as that of a local society, and that the rule adopting the parliamentary authority was adopted as a general one, not in reference to the particular session of a convention.

 

Yes, my assumption is the same as yours. The underlying philosophy, however, is the same.

 

The motion you present in post #13 is not a motion to Suspend the Rules but is, instead, a motion to adopt rules which, in an ordinary local society or assembly, need a two-thirds vote to be placed in effect for the duration of a meeting or session (p. 620, ll. 6-11). In your motion, the rules being proposed for adoption are the chairman's "notions of parliamentary procedure and the customary practices of this organization." Your motion does not seek to suspend a rule or rules which interfere with the taking of some proposed action during the meeting (p. 261, ll. 22-26). It isn't even known as yet what that proposed action may be. The motion seeks, instead, to have a different set of rules apply to whatever action may later be proposed.

 

In my opinion, this motion, when properly understood, is frivolous, and therefore not in order (p. 342, ll. 19-21). If, nevertheless, it is allowed and adopted, its apparent effect is to make points of order or appeals out of order unless they relate to violations of rules which RONR says cannot be suspended. When the time comes that the chair rules an appeal out of order because there cannot be any reasonable opinion about what his opinion is other than his own, it appears (assuming bedlam does not ensue) that a motion may be made to suspend the rules that interfere with the taking of an appeal, and that a majority vote will be all that will be necessary to adopt it. In this event, the assembly will revert again to application of the rules in RONR concerning the matter.

[Shmuel Gerber]

"I move that for the duration of this meeting, the rules be suspended for the purpose of authorizing the chairman to rule according to his own notions of parliamentary procedure and the customary practices of this organization, regardless of what Robert's Rules of Order prescribes in relation to those rules contained therein that can be suspended."

 

The motion you present in post #13 is not a motion to Suspend the Rules but is, instead, a motion to adopt rules which, in an ordinary local society or assembly, need a two-thirds vote to be placed in effect for the duration of a meeting or session (p. 620, ll. 6-11). In your motion, the rules being proposed for adoption are the chairman's "notions of parliamentary procedure and the customary practices of this organization." Your motion does not seek to suspend a rule or rules which interfere with the taking of some proposed action during the meeting (p. 261, ll. 22-26). It isn't even known as yet what that proposed action may be. The motion seeks, instead, to have a different set of rules apply to whatever action may later be proposed.

 

I agree that the rules sought to be suspended cannot be regarding some unknown action that might occur later in the meeting, but rather the rules that interfere with adopting a new, essentially blank, set of rules for the duration of the meeting. As to whether or not such a motion to adopt temporary rules should be categorized as one to Suspend the Rules, it seems to me that since different rules already exist, it would in fact be in the nature of a suspension of those rules and, as a consequence, the temporary rules could not supersede the regular rules in such a way as to suspend rules that cannot be suspended.

 

So, staying for the moment with the same basic idea (which you say is dilatory) of adopting the rule that the chairman decides the rules, the motion would be slightly better if the words "for the duration of the meeting" had been placed as follows:

"I move that the rules be suspended for the purpose of authorizing the chairman, for the duration of this meeting, to rule according to his own notions of parliamentary procedure and the customary practices of this organization, regardless of what Robert's Rules of Order prescribes in relation to those rules contained therein that can be suspended."

 

In my opinion, this motion, when properly understood, is frivolous, and therefore not in order (p. 342, ll. 19-21).

 

What if I told you that the chairman is Dan Honemann? Now the motion seems a whole lot more reasonable, doesn't it?

[Dan Honemann]

What if I told you that the chairman is Dan Honemann? Now the motion seems a whole lot more reasonable, doesn't it?

 

No.

[J. J.]

If this is not truly a suspension of the rules, as Dan suggests (with a great deal of merit), the vote required will be different.  A 2/3 vote, with notice. or an MEM vote, may be required.

 

The motion may actually take this form:

 

"Resolved, the chairman, shall rule according to his own notions of parliamentary procedure and the customary practices of this organization, regardless of what Robert's Rules of Order prescribes in relation to those rules contained therein that can be suspended.  The effect of this rule shall expire at the final adjournment of this session."

 

Even then, there could be questions of a conflict with a presumed bylaw that RONR be established as the parliamentary authority in the bylaws (though Shmuel's wording may take care of that). 

[Dan Honemann]

If this is not truly a suspension of the rules, as Dan suggests (with a great deal of merit), the vote required will be different.  A 2/3 vote, with notice. or an MEM vote, may be required.

 

The motion may actually take this form:

 

"Resolved, the chairman, shall rule according to his own notions of parliamentary procedure and the customary practices of this organization, regardless of what Robert's Rules of Order prescribes in relation to those rules contained therein that can be suspended.  The effect of this rule shall expire at the final adjournment of this session."

 

Even then, there could be questions of a conflict with a presumed bylaw that RONR be established as the parliamentary authority in the bylaws (though Shmuel's wording may take care of that). 

 

Since the rule proposed is to last only for the duration of the meeting or session, it does not require previous notice in order to be adopted by a two-thirds vote. No special rule of order is being created.

 

As previously noted, however, I do not think that it is in order, either as a motion to suspend the rules (which it really isn't), or as a motion to adopt a rule comparable to a convention standing rule.

[J. J.]

Since the rule proposed is to last only for the duration of the meeting or session, it does not require previous notice in order to be adopted by a two-thirds vote. No special rule of order is being created.

 

 

You are, conceivably, talking about a special rule, even one that does not have effectiveness beyond the current session.   To create a situation that Shmuel described, something of the rank of a special rule may be needed.  I would not agree that the sole purpose of the the 2/3 with notice/MEM vote is to establish something beyond the current session. 

[Dan Honemann]

You are, conceivably, talking about a special rule, even one that does not have effectiveness beyond the current session.   To create a situation that Shmuel described, something of the rank of a special rule may be needed.  I would not agree that the sole purpose of the the 2/3 with notice/MEM vote is to establish something beyond the current session. 

 

There is a distinction to be drawn between a rule of parliamentary procedure which is to last only for the duration of a meeting or session and one which is to continue in force from session to session, as noted on page 620, lines 4-11. The former requires a two-thirds vote for its adoption (no previous notice required).

[J. J.]

There is a distinction to be drawn between a rule of parliamentary procedure which is to last only for the duration of a meeting or session and one which is to continue in force from session to session, as noted on page 620, lines 4-11. The former requires a two-thirds vote for its adoption (no previous notice required).

 

 

I think that there is something else.  Some rule may not be suspended but may be superseded.  The rule Shmuel look like it might be  one of those rules. 

 

I reject any premise that the sole reason for a 2/3 with notice/MEM vote is to establish the rule beyond the current session (though that is one purpose). 

[Dan Honemann]

I think that there is something else.  Some rule may not be suspended but may be superseded.  The rule Shmuel look like it might be  one of those rules. 

 

Huh? 

 

I reject any premise that the sole reason for a 2/3 with notice/MEM vote is to establish the rule beyond the current session (though that is one purpose). 

 

As do we all. In a number of instances, rescinding or amending something previously adopted requires either previous notice and a two-thirds vote, or a vote of the majority of the entire membership.

[J. J.]

Dan, i would be thinking of this motion:

 

"I move to suspend the rules to prohibit points of order from being raised during this session."

 

I would rule that motion out of order.