Guest Smith Posted May 20, 2010 at 06:08 AM Report Share Posted May 20, 2010 at 06:08 AM I would greatly appreciate a second opinion. My deliberative assembly has some bylaws that I've been finding somewhat ambiguous. Our assembly consists of elected representatives and executive officers. The executive officers are delegated responsibilities in our bylaws, but are not considered members of the assembly. [Debate is chaired by a member of the assembly elected by the assembly.] The bylaws state that the assembly's "proceedings shall not be denied to any member of the electorate," and this is supported by another clause which grants "floor privileges" to members of the assembly, executive officers, the electorate, and any others with the permission of the presiding officer.* Finally, any member of the electorate is allowed to submit main motions so long as they are: 1) submitted to the presiding officer, 2) submitted three days in advance of a meeting of the assembly, and 3) submitted in writing.The thing that I'm trying to figure out is this: given the open nature of our proceedings [including the ability of any member of the electorate to make main motions], what is the extent to which non-members, including executive officers, should be able to participate in debate?Here's what I was thinking: by RONR, non-member officers have "only the rights necessary for executing the duties of the office." [RONR, 10th ed. pg. 432, lines 10-12] We have some officers who are specifically tasked by the bylaws of the assembly to uphold all rules governing the assembly, which sounds as if it would entail the ability of these officers to raise questions of privilege and call for orders of the day though not participate in any other way.In terms of other non-member participation, as all individuals who raise main motions are granted the right to address the assembly by our bylaws, I think it makes sense to guarantee nonmembers the ability to address the assembly on any motions they submit. Barring those circumstances, I think the participation of non-members should be treated as described in RONR in a section on public sessions: with non-members allowed to "express their views...under the control of the presiding officer subject to any relevant rules adopted by the body, and subject to appeal by any member" [RONR, 10th ed. pg. 94, lines 5-8] without additional ability to make secondary motions.I guess I'm wondering if this is an appropriate interpretation, if there are other ways to treat these circumstances, and/or how your assembly has addressed similar situations. I'll be happy to clarify dimensions of the above as needed.Thanks!*I've read the note on page twenty-eight of RONR that states extending "privileges of the floor" does not entail the right to access the floor, but rather the right to be in the room. The language of the section does not really grant much ground to deviate from that definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted May 20, 2010 at 06:22 AM Report Share Posted May 20, 2010 at 06:22 AM We do not interpret Bylaws here. It it is ultimately up to your organization to interpret its own Bylaws. See RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 570-573 for some Principles of Interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.