Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums
mjhmjh

Codifying duties of officers beyond those in the bylaws

Recommended Posts

The bylaws read as follows, "The officers shall perform the duties prescribed in the parliamentary authority and these bylaws"

Can additional duties be prescribed as standing rules, so long as they are not inconsistent with higher governing documents? If not, how should the bylaws be amended to allow this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jstackpo said:

If your bylaws include the standard phrasing found in the sample RONR bylaws, Article VIII, page 588, that will cover it.

What??!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 hours ago, mjhmjh said:

The bylaws read as follows, "The officers shall perform the duties prescribed in the parliamentary authority and these bylaws"

 

9 hours ago, mjhmjh said:

Can additional duties be prescribed as standing rules

Are you kidding?  How could they possibly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mjhmjh said:

If not, how should the bylaws be amended to allow this?

 

10 hours ago, mjhmjh said:

"The officers shall perform the duties prescribed in the parliamentary authority and these bylaws ...

... ~"and whatever standing rules or special rules of order we come up with * "~

_______

N.B. The tilde + quotation mark designates quasi-quotes.

__________

* or, Freds or Wilmas or Bang-Bangs... That's either some arcane rules of art or an in-joke among Internet parliamentarians (and aspiring parliamentarians like me ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, mjhmjh said:

The bylaws read as follows, "The officers shall perform the duties prescribed in the parliamentary authority and these bylaws"

Can additional duties be prescribed as standing rules, so long as they are not inconsistent with higher governing documents? If not, how should the bylaws be amended to allow this?

 

6 hours ago, jstackpo said:

If your bylaws include the standard phrasing found in the sample RONR bylaws, Article VIII, page 588, that will cover it.

It appears, however, that mjhmjh's bylaws do not contain that precise language.  Or maybe they do.  mjhmjh has not told us what his bylaws say about the parliamentary authority.   mjhmjh, can you tell us EXACTLY what your bylaws say about the parliamentary authority? 

So, the question is: Can they prescribe additional officer duties by standing rule (or, perhaps more appropriately, by special  rule of order)?

Even if the bylaws do not contain the language indicated on page 588 about the parliamentary authority, I am inclined to say that they can still impose additional duties by means of a special rule of order (or perhaps even a standing rule), but I can see how others might disagree.  I reach this conclusion because RONR clearly gives the society the right to adopt special rules of order that differ from the rules in RONR.

Edited to add:  As to whether such additional duties, assuming they can be added, should be listed in standing rules or special rules of order, I simply don't know.  I give up on that issue for the time being.  My head is still spinning from the last time we got into the weeds of standing rules vs special rules of order when it comes to officer duties.  I guess I need to look for a couple of those recent threads. :wacko:

Edited by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gary c Tesser said:

 

 

Are you kidding?  How could they possibly?

What if the additional duty they want is to have President (let's call her Nancy N. but not name her in the rule) be a signatory on all checks (or cheques for you canads) issued by the organization?

Edited by George Mervosh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

 

It appears, however, that mjhmjh's bylaws do not contain that precise language.  Or maybe they do.  mjhmjh has not told us what his bylaws say about the parliamentary authority.   mjhmjh, can you tell us EXACTLY what your bylaws say about the parliamentary authority? 

So, the question is: Can they prescribe additional officer duties by standing rule (or, perhaps more appropriately, by special  rule of order)?

Even if the bylaws do not contain the language indicated on page 588 about the parliamentary authority, I am inclined to say that they can still impose additional duties by means of a special rule of order (or perhaps even a standing rule), but I can see how others might disagree.  I reach this conclusion because RONR clearly gives the society the right to adopt special rules of order that differ from the rules in RONR.

Edited to add:  As to whether such additional duties, assuming they can be added, should be listed in standing rules or special rules of order, I simply don't know.  I give up on that issue for the time being.  My head is still spinning from the last time we got into the weeds of standing rules vs special rules of order when it comes to officer duties.  I guess I need to look for a couple of those recent threads. :wacko:

Article X -- Parliamentary Authority The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the Council in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the Council may adopt.

The bylaws do contain the precise language from page 588 (the Council is the short-hand name of the organization). I suppose the question now is whether the duties should be special rules of order or standing rules. Based on my understanding of RONR, if the duties relate to meetings, they have to be special rules of order, whereas administrative duties have to be standing rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mjhmjh said:

Article X -- Parliamentary Authority The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the Council in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the Council may adopt.

The bylaws do contain the precise language from page 588 (the Council is the short-hand name of the organization). I suppose the question now is whether the duties should be special rules of order or standing rules. Based on my understanding of RONR, if the duties relate to meetings, they have to be special rules of order, whereas administrative duties have to be standing rules.

I think you've got that right!  Also, I believe that even if the rule applies outside of a meeting, but relates to the efficiency or conduct of meetings, it should be a special rule of order.  If it is purely administrative, such as who can write checks, it should be a standing rule.

Edited by Richard Brown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

What if the additional duty they want is to have President (let's call her Nancy N. but not name her in the rule) be a signatory on all checks (or cheques for you canads) issued by the organization?

I'm on the fence, but are you thinking about p. 450, #10?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

What if the additional duty they want is to have President (let's call her Nancy N. but not name her in the rule) be a signatory on all checks (or cheques for you canads) issued by the organization?

 

1 hour ago, Gary c Tesser said:

I'm on the fence, but are you thinking about p. 450, #10?

I think a rule authorizing someone to sign checks should be a standing rule. It is purely administrative and has nothing to do with meetings, other than perhaps paying for the president's gavel and the rent on the clubhouse, but that's a real stretch. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Gary c Tesser said:

I'm on the fence, but are you thinking about p. 450, #10?

No. Perhaps the example on p. 18, ll. 9-10 would have been a better example.   The guest register will need to be maintained by someone, and most likely it will be the Secretary.  The adopted rule requiring the maintenance of a guest register will have the effect of imposing a duty of him, via a standing rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I think a rule authorizing someone to sign checks should be a standing rule. It is purely administrative

I support this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, George Mervosh said:

and most likely it will be the Secretary

Ooo, so does this make a qualitative difference (and if so, what)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gary c Tesser said:

Ooo, so does this make a qualitative difference (and if so, what)?

Could you restate this using more words (this site doesn't charge per word, but don't give our intrepid moderator any ideas) so I know what you're asking?  Even at the plutocratic rate of $6. per hour, I don't read minds.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gary c Tesser said:

and most likely it will be the Secretary

 

4 hours ago, Gary c Tesser said:

Ooo, so does this make a qualitative difference (and if so, what)?

(LOL)

What if it's the secretary, or anyone else?  Is there any significance ("qualitative difference," for college graduates) to whether it's the secretary or anyone else who maintains the guest register?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

this site doesn't charge per word

Great Steamin' Cobnuts, I thought the rest of youse was gettin' paid!

Edited by Gary c Tesser
tpo

Share this post


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

 

(LOL)

What if it's the secretary, or anyone else?  Is there any significance ("qualitative difference," for college graduates) to whether it's the secretary or anyone else who maintains the guest register?

No, but if it is an officer, it's a duty imposed as the result of adopting a standing rule.  Imposing a duty on an officer via a standing rule is what you asked about back in post # (heck I don't know I didn't get my PhD).

Edited by George Mervosh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, George Mervosh said:

No, but if it is an officer, it's a duty imposed as the result of adopting a standing rule.  Imposing a duty on an officer via a standing rule is what you asked about back in post # (heck I don't know I didn't get my PhD).

Two questions

Q1: Are there any limitations to the duties that can be assigned to officers in special rules of order or standing rules?

Q2: Would the bylaws have to specifically allow for the assignement of duties to officers in special rules of order or standing rules, or would having adopted RONR as the parliamentary authority with the proper bylaws clause be enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, mjhmjh said:

Two questions

Q1: Are there any limitations to the duties that can be assigned to officers in special rules of order or standing rules?

Q2: Would the bylaws have to specifically allow for the assignement of duties to officers in special rules of order or standing rules, or would having adopted RONR as the parliamentary authority with the proper bylaws clause be enough?

Q1: well, you can't contradict or override a duty prescribed in the bylaws.

Q2: As Dr Stackpole told you way back.in the first response, having your bylaws use the language recommend in RONR for the duties of officers and for the adoption of your parliamentary authority gives your society the authority it needs to provide for additional duties of officers by rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2017 at 11:06 PM, mjhmjh said:

The bylaws read as follows, "The officers shall perform the duties prescribed in the parliamentary authority and these bylaws"

Can additional duties be prescribed as standing rules, so long as they are not inconsistent with higher governing documents? If not, how should the bylaws be amended to allow this?

 

10 minutes ago, mjhmjh said:

Two questions

Q1: Are there any limitations to the duties that can be assigned to officers in special rules of order or standing rules?

Q2: Would the bylaws have to specifically allow for the assignement of duties to officers in special rules of order or standing rules, or would having adopted RONR as the parliamentary authority with the proper bylaws clause be enough?

I think this thread has gone off the rails with all the discussion about standing rules and special rules of order. In my opinion, no additional duties can be assigned to the officers, without amending the bylaws, except as they may be specific duties that fall within the scope of the general duties already prescribed. For example, since "The secretary is the recording officer of the assembly and the custodian of its records, except those specifically assigned to others, such as the treasurer's books" (p. 458, ll. 24-26), it would be fine for the assembly to adopt a rule directing the secretary to keep the guest register for meetings. However, it would not be fine for the assembly to adopt a rule directing the secretary to prepare the meeting room by sweeping the floors, setting up the chairs, and putting a lollipop on every chair together with a copy of the tentative agenda.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Nancy N
12 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

In my opinion, no additional duties can be assigned to the officers, without amending the bylaws, except as they may be specific duties that fall within the scope of the general duties already prescribed

That's what I was thinking. And:  Richard, wherever do you get this:  

13 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Q2: As Dr Stackpole told you way back.in the first response, having your bylaws use the language recommend in RONR for the duties of officers and for the adoption of your parliamentary authority gives your society the authority it needs to provide for additional duties of officers by rule.

-- from??!?  (I didn't get it then either; hence "Gary c Tesser's" baffled response to it.)

(I should also mention that I'm pretty sure that there is a statement somewhere in RONR that ~"the officers's duties include whatever the organization tells them to do"~ -- which might put paid to my objections-cum-bafflement, which in turn, alas would eventuate my first quarrel with Mr. Gerber -- but I can't find it now.  Citations welcome, and solicited, please. 

j(-- Your pal and fan, Nancy N.)

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...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×