Standing Rules and RONR

[Tim Wynn]

Which of the following is correct?

1) The adoption of RONR as parliamentary authority creates for the organization no standing rules.

2) The adoption of RONR as parliamentary authority creates for the organization a number of standing rules, which can only be amended or rescinded by the vote required for the adoption of a motion to Rescind or ASPA.

3) The adoption of RONR as parliamentary authority creates for the organization a number of standing rules, any of which can be superseded by the adoption of a conflicting standing rule adopted upon the same conditions as any ordinary act of the society.

4) The adoption of RONR as parliamentary authority creates for the organization a number of standing rules, some of which can only be amended or rescinded by the vote required for the adoption of a motion to Rescind or ASPA, others of which can be superseded by the adoption of a conflicting standing rule adopted upon the same conditions as any ordinary act of the society.

5) Tim has lost his mind.

[Chris Harrison]

I vote for #5.

I would tend to lean towards #1 because I can't think of any Standing Rules that would be automatically created by merely adopting RONR as the parliamentary authority but I have no clue so I will be staying tuned.

[Josh Martin]

Which of the following is correct?

1) The adoption of RONR as parliamentary authority creates for the organization no standing rules.

2) The adoption of RONR as parliamentary authority creates for the organization a number of standing rules, which can only be amended or rescinded by the vote required for the adoption of a motion to Rescind or ASPA.

3) The adoption of RONR as parliamentary authority creates for the organization a number of standing rules, any of which can be superseded by the adoption of a conflicting standing rule adopted upon the same conditions as any ordinary act of the society.

4) The adoption of RONR as parliamentary authority creates for the organization a number of standing rules, some of which can only be amended or rescinded by the vote required for the adoption of a motion to Rescind or ASPA, others of which can be superseded by the adoption of a conflicting standing rule adopted upon the same conditions as any ordinary act of the society.

5) Tim has lost his mind.

I'm going to go with #1. In my opinion, the adoption of a parliamentary authority creates a body of rules of order for the society but creates no standing rules. Anything in the parliamentary authority which is clearly in the nature of a standing rule should be considered to be advice or a "best practice" rather than an actual rule. I don't think #3 is correct but interpreting in that way wouldn't hurt anything. Effectively, it would mean that the statements in the parliamentary authority in the nature of standing rules would have the same force as a custom, and in many cases they would probably become customs anyway.

I certainly don't think #2 or #4 is correct. The idea that some (or all) "standing rules" in the parliamentary authority would need to be rescinded seems to be an important enough concept that the authority would mention something like that.

I vote for #5.

I would tend to lean towards #1 because I can't think of any Standing Rules that would be automatically created by merely adopting RONR as the parliamentary authority but I have no clue so I will be staying tuned.

If it helps frame the discussion any, I imagine Mr. Wynn is thinking of the statement that the minutes should be kept in a substantial book or binder, and other statements of a similar nature.

[Trina]

It's an interesting question -- what is the status of the rules in RONR which are clearly not in the nature of rules of order...

I can't see #2 or #4 as correct. If Mr. Elsman were participating in the conversation I think he might, which would make for an interesting discussion. As for #4, how would one decide which rules required Rescind or ASPA, and which other rules could simply be superseded by adoption of a conflicting standing rule?

As far as #3, wouldn't that mean that custom in an organization should be inadequate to supersede the (hypothetical) standing rule from RONR, and that custom should fall to the ground if someone notices and points out the conflict with one of those rules?

I'm still thinking about how #3 would look in practice, but am leaning toward #1.

Down the road in the discussion, perhaps some examples would help (beyond the 'substantial book or binder' example suggested by Mr. Martin, which is probably toward one end of the spectrum in terms of the perceived importance or universality of the rule).

[J. J.]

#4 might be correct, but I'd go with #2.

[Josh Martin]

#4 might be correct, but I'd go with #2.

J. J., could you elaborate on your reasoning for this, and/or provide some concrete examples?

[Guest Kim Goldsworthy]

Option "6"!

The standing rules in RONR are not "adopted" by adopting RONR, because they can be dynamically changed without amending or rescinding anything.

E.g., seating at a dais.

If the seating arrangement is changed permanently, no need to amend nor rescind anything.

Move the secretary. Move the parliamentarian.

No violation.

[Josh Martin]

Option "6"!

The standing rules in RONR are not "adopted" by adopting RONR...

Sounds like Option 1 to me: "The adoption of RONR as parliamentary authority creates for the organization no standing rules."

[Burke Balch]

It is important to recognize that RONR, in addition to rules, contains a great deal of what a posting on this thread accurately called "advice." I echo the comment that it would be helpful for the discussion to identify at least several items in RONR that are BOTH 1) clearly in the nature of standing rules rather than rules of order and 2) clearly rules rather than advice. IMHO the statement on page 468, lines 20-21 that "The minutes should be kept in a substantial book or binder" fairly obviously falls into the category of advice.

[Tim Wynn]

It is important to recognize that RONR, in addition to rules, contains a great deal of what a posting on this thread accurately called "advice." I echo the comment that it would be helpful for the discussion to identify at least several items in RONR that are BOTH 1) clearly in the nature of standing rules rather than rules of order and 2) clearly rules rather than advice. IMHO the statement on page 468, lines 20-21 that "The minutes should be kept in a substantial book or binder" fairly obviously falls into the category of advice.

How about the following:

It is the duty of the secretary to send out to the membership a notice of each meeting (p. 459, l. 18-19), and this call is a written notice of the time and place (p. 4, l. 27-28).

1) If this is a secret society that decides that the location of its meetings should never be written down or included in the call and it wishes to adopt a rule that the call only contain the date and time of meetings, what vote would be required?

2) If the society wishes to give this job to the executive director, instead of the secretary, what vote is required to undo what is said on p. 459, l. 18-19?

[Burke Balch]

IMHO, the rule cited concerning the secretary is a rule of order, since the giving of notice is to alert the members to the upcoming meeting. Certainly, the secret society could supersede the requirements as suggested, but it would need to do so by adopting a special rule of order.

[Tim Wynn]

IMHO, the rule cited concerning the secretary is a rule of order, since the giving of notice is to alert the members to the upcoming meeting. Certainly, the secret society could supersede the requirements as suggested, but it would need to do so by adopting a special rule of order.

Is each duty of each officer listed in RONR connected with the orderly transaction of business in a meeting in such a way as to make it a rule of order, or could we say that the duty of keeping the organization's membership roll is not in the nature of a rule of order?

[Josh Martin]

1) If this is a secret society that decides that the location of its meetings should never be written down or included in the call and it wishes to adopt a rule that the call only contain the date and time of meetings, what vote would be required?

This would be a special rule of order.

2) If the society wishes to give this job to the executive director, instead of the secretary, what vote is required to undo what is said on p. 459, l. 18-19?

I believe a standing rule would be sufficient to have the Executive Director act under the direction of the Secretary. While it is the Secretary's duty to send the notice of meetings, I don't believe this means he necessarily needs to be the one to physically type, print, and mail every notice - indeed, this would be highly impractical in larger societies. The Secretary is, however, ultimately responsible for these tasks being carried out. A special rule of order would be required to transfer the Secretary's responsibility to send out notices to the ED altogether.

Is each duty of each officer listed in RONR connected with the orderly transaction of business in a meeting in such a way as to make it a rule of order, or could we say that the duty of keeping the organization's membership roll is not in the nature of a rule of order?

Since part of the reason for the Secretary keeping the membership roll is to "call the roll where it is required," this seems to "relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in that connection." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 459, lines 2-3; pg. 15, lines 9-11) Thus, it seems safe to say that keeping the organization's membership roll is in the nature of a rule of order. RONR is a big book and I don't know if I want to go out on a limb and say that every duty listed is a rule of order, but it does seem to me that, at the least, the numbered duties of the Chairman and Secretary are all in the nature of rules of order.

[J. J.]

J. J., could you elaborate on your reasoning for this, and/or provide some concrete examples?

The rule that members have access to the minutes outside of the meeting (p. 460, ll. 13-20). It clearly does not involve "the orderly transaction of business within meetings." It does relate to the duty of an officer, but not "in that connection."

If RONR did not have such a rule, I would submit that one could be adopted by majority vote without notice.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

IMHO, the rule cited concerning the secretary is a rule of order, since the giving of notice is to alert the members to the upcoming meeting. Certainly, the secret society could supersede the requirements as suggested, but it would need to do so by adopting a special rule of order.

Impossible.

After adjournment, there cannot possible be a rule of order.

The "orderly transaction of business" is 100% ended.

And any sending of mail must be done off-line (after adjournment).

The "sending", the "stamping", the "licking" etc., cannot be a rule of order.

[J. J.]

Impossible.

After adjournment, there cannot possible be a rule of order.

The "orderly transaction of business" is 100% ended.

And any sending of mail must be done off-line (after adjournment).

The "sending", the "stamping", the "licking" etc., cannot be a rule of order.

Couldn't you properly adopt a special rule of order requiring notice for certain things? Business of a certain type, i.e. to buy or sell land, or to spend more than a certain amount of money? It would have a specifically cameral effect, would it not?

I would, however, call this the outer edge of what a rule in the nature of a rule of order might be.

[Josh Martin]

The rule that members have access to the minutes outside of the meeting (p. 460, ll. 13-20). It clearly does not involve "the orderly transaction of business within meetings." It does relate to the duty of an officer, but not "in that connection."

If RONR did not have such a rule, I would submit that one could be adopted by majority vote without notice.

Thank you. This is an enlightening example, and I can find no reason to dispute what you say in your second paragraph. I'm having a hard time reconciling this with the fact that RONR makes no mention of adopting RONR as the parliamentary authority adopting any standing rules. Indeed, RONR, 11th ed., pg. 18, lines 10-12 seems to suggest that it does not.

More important than the semantic distinctions, however, are the implications for superseding/repealing a rule depending on its classification. Are you suggesting that a society could remove the right of members to access the minutes outside of meetings by a majority vote with notice or a 2/3 vote without notice? This seems problematic.

Couldn't you properly adopt a special rule of order requiring notice for certain things? Business of a certain type, i.e. to buy or sell land, or to spend more than a certain amount of money? It would have a specifically cameral effect, would it not?

I would, however, call this the outer edge of what a rule in the nature of a rule of order might be.

Based on the focus on "the 'sending,' the 'stamping,' and the 'licking,'" I don't believe Mr. Goldsworthy is questioning whether the requirement for notice itself is a rule of order, but whether the requirement that it must be the Secretary who sends the notice is a rule of order.

[J. J.]

Thank you. This is an enlightening example, and I can find no reason to dispute what you say in your second paragraph. I'm having a hard time reconciling this with the fact that RONR makes no mention of adopting RONR as the parliamentary authority adopting any standing rules. Indeed, RONR, 11th ed., pg. 18, lines 10-12 seems to suggest that it does not.

More important than the semantic distinctions, however, are the implications for superseding/repealing a rule depending on its classification. Are you suggesting that a society could remove the right of members to access the minutes outside of meetings by a majority vote with notice or a 2/3 vote without notice? This seems problematic.

Assume that we are talking the records kept by another officer, the geneologist. Under the current RONR, unless there was a report to the body, the members would have no right to look the individual members' geneology. The society could adopt a rule permitting the members to examine the geneologies. That rule would be a standing rule. If RONR 12th edition were to incorporate such a rule, the rule would then require a 2/3 vote, with notice, or an MEM.

Based on the focus on "the 'sending,' the 'stamping,' and the 'licking,'" I don't believe Mr. Goldsworthy is questioning whether the requirement for notice itself is a rule of order, but whether the requirement that it must be the Secretary who sends the notice is a rule of order.

Those might be merely incidental aspects of the rule.

[Josh Martin]

Assume that we are talking the records kept by another officer, the geneologist. Under the current RONR, unless there was a report to the body, the members would have no right to look the individual members' geneology. The society could adopt a rule permitting the members to examine the geneologies. That rule would be a standing rule. If RONR 12th edition were to incorporate such a rule, the rule would then require a 2/3 vote, with notice, or an MEM.

I'm not sure genealogical records and the legal records of a society's decisions are really comparable.

[Burke Balch]

After adjournment, there cannot possible be a rule of order.

The "orderly transaction of business" is 100% ended.

I respectfully disagree. "[R]ules of order . . .relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in that connection." RONR (11th ed.), p. 15, ll. 7-11. Something can relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings even if it takes place outside of a meeting. There may be an unconscious confusion here misapplying the limitation on Suspend the Rules that "Rules that have their application outside of the session which is in progress cannot be suspended." RONR (11th ed.), p. 264, ll. 29-30. A rule may not be suspendable yet nevertheless be a rule of order when, although having its application outside a meeting, it nevertheless relates to the orderly transaction of business in meetings.

A requirement for notice of a meeting certainly relates to the orderly transaction of business in meetings. Minutes are the official record of what goes on in meetings. Review of them may be necessary or helpful, for example, to determine whether a motion to be proposed at a subsequent meeting would be an original main motion or a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted. I contend, therefore, that rules that ensure the right of members to inspect the minutes also relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and consequently are rules of order, not standing rules.

[Josh Martin]

I contend, therefore, that rules that ensure the right of members to inspect the minutes also relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and consequently are rules of order, not standing rules.

So in a society which did not already have a rule of order that members have a right to inspect the minutes outside meetings (perhaps the society has no parliamentary authority, or has a very odd one), would it take a special rule of order to grant members this ability? Or perhaps if it was only a privilege it would be a standing rule, but if it was a right it would be a rule of order?

Your post makes perfect sense, especially from the perspective of the rule in RONR. I'm just trying to reconcile it with J. J.'s comments about adopting such a rule in a society which did not already have it.

[Burke Balch]

So in a society which did not already have a rule of order that members have a right to inspect the minutes outside meetings (perhaps the society has no parliamentary authority, or has a very odd one), would it take a special rule of order to grant members this ability? Or perhaps if it was only a privilege it would be a standing rule, but if it was a right it would be a rule of order?

"Standing rules," as understood in this book except in the case of conventions, are rules . . . which are related to the details of the administration of a society rather than to parliamentary procedure." RONR (11th ed.), p. 18, ll. 3-6. It seems to me that minutes, including their inspection by members, are more accurately described as "related . . . to parliamentary procedure" than as "related to the details of the administration of a society."

[Gary c Tesser]

"Standing rules," as understood in this book except in the case of conventions, are rules . . . which are related to the details of the administration of a society rather than to parliamentary procedure." RONR (11th ed.), p. 18, ll. 3-6. It seems to me that minutes, including their inspection by members, are more accurately described as "related . . . to parliamentary procedure" than as "related to the details of the administration of a society."

Mr Balch, c'mon c'mon. Minutes have no purpose at all if they are not about substance rather than procedure: how can that be arguable?

[Burke Balch]

Minutes have no purpose at all if they are not about substance rather than procedure: how can that be arguable?

I am puzzled by this distinction. Minutes record the procedures used to accomplish matters of substance in meetings. For example, when they record the adoption of a main motion, they obviously describe both substance (the content of the motion) and procedure (its adoption).

The distinction between what is covered by special rules of order and what is covered by standing rules is not between matters of procedure and matters of substance; it is between "rules . . . which are related ... to parliamentary procedure" and "rules which are related to the details of the administration of a society." If minutes do not relate to parliamentary procedure, then why does RONR devote so much space to the details of their content and form,pp. 468-73?

[Gary c Tesser]

Oh nuts, I thought Mr Balch, whom normal persons but insiders call Balch or something, would be asleep in the middle of the night. Why didn't he ask me over for a beer instead of typing? Okay, Ill go to law school if he asks me to.