Suspend a rule?

[Tom Coronite]

RONR p. 264 line 29: "Rules that have their application outside of the session which is in progress cannot be suspended."

I want to make sure I am understanding correctly. We have a provision in our bylaws that stipulates in order to use any part of the principal in our endowment fund a vote of 90% of the members present is required. Is this a suspendible rule? Or is it not suspendible because its application (the actual use of the money) is outside the meeting?

[Richard Brown]

My opinion is that that rule, which is in your bylaws, is not in the nature of a rule of order and therefore cannot be suspended. It's because the rule is in the bylaws and is not in the nature of a rule of order.

Edited to add: The following provision at the bottom of page 17 might be helpful:

"Rules of order—whether contained in the parliamentary authority or adopted as special rules of order—can be suspended by a two-thirds vote as explained in 25 (with the exceptions there specified). Rules clearly identifiable as in the nature of rules of order that are placed within the bylaws can (with the same exceptions) also be suspended by a two-thirds vote; but, except for such rules and for clauses that provide for their own suspension, as stated above, rules in the bylaws cannot be suspended."

[George Mervosh]

The vote required to adopt the motion is suspendable, but it takes a vote of 90% of the members present to suspend it.

[Joshua Katz]

Agreeing with Mr. Mervosh, note that the reason for this restriction is the protection a minority, not the prohibition on suspending rules having their application outside of the meeting context.  That prohibition can never be applied to a bylaw in a way that produces a new conclusion:  bylaws are suspendable only if a) they are clearly in the nature of rules of order or b ) they provide for their own suspension.  In a, they obviously have their application in a meeting.  In b, the provision in the bylaws allowing suspension takes precedence over anything in RONR anyway.  The provision you cite applies to standing rules.  

[Tom Coronite]

Richard Brown, why do you believe it is not in the nature of a rule of order? Determining what is and isn't just seems to be a blindspot for me, I suppose.

Now I see George Mervosh's response, and am wondering if the voting threshold itself is suspendable, but the requirement of a vote to spend principal is not. Otherwise, I see both responses as conflicting with each other.

 

[Tom Coronite]

9 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

The vote required to adopt the motion is suspendable, but it takes a vote of 90% of the members present to suspend it.

90%? or greater than 90%?

P 261 #7 makes me think the opposition can not be the same size (10%) as the minority the rule protects.

[Joshua Katz]

1 minute ago, 1stChurch said:

Richard Brown, why do you believe it is not in the nature of a rule of order? Determining what is and isn't just seems to be a blindspot for me, I suppose.

Now I see George Mervosh's response, and am wondering if the voting threshold itself is suspendable, but the requirement of a vote to spend principal is not. Otherwise, I see both responses as conflicting with each other.

 

I'm not sure what the two things you're separating here are.  Spending money is ordinarily an original main motion requiring a majority - it can never be done just because.  This rule says that you need a 90% vote instead.  Can that be suspended?   Well, suspending it would violate the rights of a group exceeding 10% of those present but less than 2/3 of those present and voting, so the vote threshold to do so is set in a way that such a group could prevent its suspension, which is 90% of those present.  (As to why we'd bother suspending it in those circumstances, I don't know.)  

[Richard Brown]

1 minute ago, 1stChurch said:

Richard Brown, why do you believe it is not in the nature of a rule of order? Determining what is and isn't just seems to be a blindspot for me, I suppose.

Rules of order have to do with meeting procedures.... conduct within a meeting.  They have nothing to do with administrative issues and other rules in your bylaws, such as qualifications for holding office, purposes of the society, etc.

I  think the better question is, "Why do you think it IS in the nature of a rule of order?"

[Joshua Katz]

2 minutes ago, 1stChurch said:

90%? or greater than 90%?

P 261 #7 makes me think the opposition can not be the same size (10%) as the minority the rule protects.

It seems to me that the rule protects a minority greater than 10% of those present, not equal to 10% of those present.  A minority of exactly 10% could not stop the spending.

[Joshua Katz]

Just now, Richard Brown said:

Rules of order have to do with meeting procedures.... conduct within a meeting.  They have nothing to do with administrative issues and other rules in your bylaws, such as qualifications for holding office, purposes of the society, etc.

I  think the better question is, "Why do you think it IS in the nature of a rule of order?"

I can easily be way off, but I think it is because it's about a voting threshold for taking action, and establishes how a certain motion, made in a meeting, will pass or fail.  It would fail to be about a meeting if it said something like "spending principal from the account will be done only via Chase Bank."

[Dan Honemann]

People are posting at such a fast pace here that it's hard to get a word in edgewise.

The bylaw provision described in the initial post is clearly a rule in the nature of a rule of order.

[Richard Brown]

Why would the rule need to be suspended?  What would be the purpose and what would one hope to accomplish by suspending it, assuming that it can be suspended?   It would still require a vote of 90 percent of the members present to suspend it.  Since that is the same vote needed to simply "use part of the principal" per the bylaws, what is the point of going through the motions of suspending it?

[Joshua Katz]

2 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Why would the rule need to be suspended?  What would be the purpose and what would one hope to accomplish by suspending it, assuming that it can be suspended?   It would still require a vote of 90 percent of the members present to suspend it.  Since that is the same vote needed to simply "use part of the principal" per the bylaws, what is the point of going through the motions of suspending it?

I don't think anyone claimed both that it takes 90% to suspend and that there's a point.  However, if the meeting is open to the public, or votes are recorded, and we're talking about a board meeting or a meeting of delegates, it's possible that some people would want to spend the money, but answer to fiscally conservative members for political purposes, and so can't be seen making such a vote, but could get away with a procedural vote that then permits them to vote no but still have the spending take place.

[Dan Honemann]

3 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Why would the rule need to be suspended?  What would be the purpose and what would one hope to accomplish by suspending it, assuming that it can be suspended?   It would still require a vote of 90 percent of the members present to suspend it.  Since that is the same vote needed to simply "use part of the principal" per the bylaws, what is the point of going through the motions of suspending it?

Probably none, but the fact that the rule is one which can be suspended means that if, as we have seen happen in so many cases, the chair erroneously declares the motion adopted by less than the requisite vote, a point of order concerning the violation must be raised promptly at the time the breach occurs.

[Richard Brown]

12 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Why would the rule need to be suspended?  What would be the purpose and what would one hope to accomplish by suspending it, assuming that it can be suspended?   It would still require a vote of 90 percent of the members present to suspend it.  Since that is the same vote needed to simply "use part of the principal" per the bylaws, what is the point of going through the motions of suspending it?

 

8 minutes ago, Godelfan said:

I don't think anyone claimed both that it takes 90% to suspend and that there's a point.  However, if the meeting is open to the public, or votes are recorded, and we're talking about a board meeting or a meeting of delegates, it's possible that some people would want to spend the money, but answer to fiscally conservative members for political purposes, and so can't be seen making such a vote, but could get away with a procedural vote that then permits them to vote no but still have the spending take place.

 

3 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Probably none, but the fact that the rule is one which can be suspended means that if, as we have seen happen in so many cases, the chair erroneously declares the motion adopted by less than the requisite vote, a point of order concerning the violation must be raised promptly at the time the breach occurs.

I think both Godelfan and Dan Honemann make valid points about possible motives for going the "suspend the rules" route rather than an outright 90 percent vote on using the principal.  It takes a 90 percent vote either way, but by suspending the rules some people can be given "cover" and a point of order as to the chair's ruling would have to be timely. 

I suspect, however, that those points are probably not exactly what 1st Church had in mind with his original post.  I agree with Godelfan that 1stChurch was apparently looking at the rules in RONR for suspending standing rules rather than suspending a bylaw provision.  I also agree, upon reflection, that the cited rule probably is in the nature of a rule of order insofar as it sets out the vote requirement to accomplish something. If the bylaw provision simply prohibited spending the principal, it could not be suspended.

Interesting conversation.

[Dan Honemann]

44 minutes ago, 1stChurch said:

RONR p. 264 line 29: "Rules that have their application outside of the session which is in progress cannot be suspended."

I want to make sure I am understanding correctly. We have a provision in our bylaws that stipulates in order to use any part of the principal in our endowment fund a vote of 90% of the members present is required. Is this a suspendible rule? Or is it not suspendible because its application (the actual use of the money) is outside the meeting?

As previously noted, this rule establishing the vote required for the adoption of such a motion is clearly a rule in the nature of a rule of order and is, therefore, a suspendible rule.

A rule that no more than a specified amount of the principal of your endowment fund may be used for certain purposes would be a rule having it application outside of a meeting context.

[Tom Coronite]

Thank you for the replies. There is no practical reason I'm asking the question. As I noted above, I'm trying to understand better as i read. rather than post hypothetical questions that often go awry, i try to apply what I am reading to my group's situations so I can learn and understand, that's all. There's no chicanery or skullduggery going on where we're trying to get around a bylaw.  (not that anyone made that accusation)

This has been helpful to me, even if that's not readily apparent to those of you kind enough to help me.  :-)  Thank you.

[Dave Bennett]

 

53 minutes ago, 1stChurch said:

Determining what is and isn't just seems to be a blindspot for me, I suppose.

 

I agree that determining what is a rule of order in the bylaws can be difficult and sometimes open to interpretation. 

If in fact the rule is suspended, what next? What % of members would then be needed to approve spending the money?  Does this also mean that a rule that says a special resolution is needed to change any article in the bylaws can also be suspended? 

Still learning

[Dan Honemann]

1 hour ago, Dave Bennett said:

 

I agree that determining what is a rule of order in the bylaws can be difficult and sometimes open to interpretation. 

If in fact the rule is suspended, what next? What % of members would then be needed to approve spending the money?

Still learning

No motion is in order just to suspend a rule. I suggest you read Section 25 again.

 

1 hour ago, Dave Bennett said:

 Does this also mean that a rule that says a special resolution is needed to change any article in the bylaws can also be suspended? 

Still learning

What do you mean by this?

The only way to change an article in the bylaws is to amend the bylaws by following whatever procedure the bylaws specify for doing so.

[Dave Bennett]

4 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

No motion is in order just to suspend a rule. I suggest you read Section 25 again.

got it... thank you.

4 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

What do you mean by this?

The only way to change an article in the bylaws is to amend the bylaws by following whatever procedure the bylaws specify for doing so.

Above, Richard notes "I also agree, upon reflection, that the cited rule probably is in the nature of a rule of order insofar as it sets out the vote requirement to accomplish something."

My question relates to a vote requirement or 2/3rds of those present and voting to pass amendments to bylaws.  Would the vote requirement of 2/3rds be considered a rule in the nature of a Rule of Order and therefore be able to be suspended?

[Joshua Katz]

6 minutes ago, Dave Bennett said:

got it... thank you.

Above, Richard notes "I also agree, upon reflection, that the cited rule probably is in the nature of a rule of order insofar as it sets out the vote requirement to accomplish something."

My question relates to a vote requirement or 2/3rds of those present and voting to pass amendments to bylaws.  Would the vote requirement of 2/3rds be considered a rule in the nature of a Rule of Order and therefore be able to be suspended?

It seems to me that the bylaws certainly contain at least some provisions that aren't rules of order, and so amending them is an action whose effect takes place outside of the meeting context.  

[Dan Honemann]

1 hour ago, Dave Bennett said:

My question relates to a vote requirement or 2/3rds of those present and voting to pass amendments to bylaws.  Would the vote requirement of 2/3rds be considered a rule in the nature of a Rule of Order and therefore be able to be suspended?

Yes.

[J. J.]

On 5/4/2016 at 11:22 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Probably none, but the fact that the rule is one which can be suspended means that if, as we have seen happen in so many cases, the chair erroneously declares the motion adopted by less than the requisite vote, a point of order concerning the violation must be raised promptly at the time the breach occurs.

I am not disagreeing in the least. 

I would note that the question, "May the rule be suspended" is often meant to be the question "If the rule is violated, does it create a breach of a continuing nature."

[cgwolf]

As stated in your bylaws, the 90% vote required for this type of approval is no more a rule of order than where the bylaws call for a majority vote to elect members to the board or a committee, and at a meeting where there is an election, someone moves to suspend the rules to make it a plurality vote for this meeting --- it just isn't so.  Also, you have to look at the underlying reason for the 90% vote, which is to provide a certain level of protection for certain assets of the organization.  Suspending the rules to reduce the majority required would affect something outside the meeting, and therefore is out of order.  It's the same reasoning that suspending the rules to replace the president as presiding officer within the meeting IS allowable, but that vote cannot suspend the president's administrative authority as specified in the bylaws.

There is additional reasoning as to why the two-thirds vote to suspend the rules cannot be used. Since the 90% vote requirement protects a minority, how, then, could a majority of two-thirds be allowed to take away a right of 90%?  For example, it is conceivable that 85% of the members at the meeting could vote to suspend the rules and make the vote requirement for this piece of business you mention a majority vote.  Such a motion would take away a right of a minority --- a fundamental parliamentary law --- and thus not allowed to be suspended. 

Most items in bylaws are not rules of order: membership requirements, frequency of meetings, setting quorum, voting procedures, the size of the board, and defining officer's duties and responsibilities, to name a few. Usually, one has to look carefully in a set of bylaws to find something that is a rule of order.

[Dan Honemann]

I'm afraid that you are absolutely wrong when you say that a rule requiring a vote of 90% of the members present to adopt something is not a rule of order, but you are right when you note (inferentially) that it will take a vote of 90% of the members present to adopt a motion to suspend it. All of this has been previously explained in this thread, which I suggest you read more carefully.

As has also been previously explained in this thread, about the only practical significance of the fact that the rule is one which can be suspended is that if, as we have seen happen in so many cases, the chair erroneously declares the motion adopted by less than the requisite vote, a point of order concerning the violation must be raised promptly at the time the breach occurs.