J. J.

To determine if something is a customary practice, why do need to know whether or not that practice violates a rule? I'm not suggesting that if a customary practice is superseded by something else or not. I am suggesting that, if the assembly has a particular practice that it has followed for a long time, whatever else it is, it is a customary practice. To go back to the stop sign example let's assume that there are two intersection. For the last ten years, I have stopped at the first intersection, and not stopped at the second. To determine what my customary practice is, do you need to know if there is a stop sign on either or both of those intersections? My answer is no; you don't need to even know if there is a stop sign involved to determine what my customary practice is.

Here is where I disagree. The rule is "stop at the stop sign." Assume that I stop at the intersection because there is a stop sign. Does that change what my customary practice is? My customary practice is to stop at that intersection; it makes no difference why that has becomes customary practice. My customary practice happens to correspond to the rule . I can develop a customary practice that does not conform to the rules; I can, repeatedly, over time, not stop at the intersection with a stop sign. That customary practice would "fall to the ground," when challenged. That does not change the fact that it is a customary practice. The creation of a customary practice is dependent on my actions, not my motivations.

Agreeing, the chair may ask if there are objections to a motion and, if none are voiced, the chair declares the motion adopted(pp. 54-6) There is a Latin phrase "Qui tacet consentit, " which means "Silence assumes consent." However, that phrase does not appear the 4th through 11th editions, Parliamentary Law and Parliamentary Practice, so far as I can tell.

What is that common or general parliamentary law, and can repeated practice modify (or supersede) whatever general parliamentary law is?

If If I were to start doing that, on a regular basis, it would become customary practice. I'm talking about repeated action; this one time, it does not create a customary practice. It would violate my customary practice, however. Would you agree that, if I did stop at the stop sign all the time for a while, it would be my customary practice to stop there? If the answer is yes, would you agree that, if I did stop at the intersection after the sign was taken down, it would still be my customary practice to stop there?

Assume that there is no code requires me to announce. If for 20 years, I have not stopped at that stop sign. What is my customary practice? (The question is not if I could get a ticket.) The stop sign is taken down. What is my customary practice?

First question, if the assembly does not refer to the manual it has been referring to for procedural questions, what does it use prior to reaching a decision on what manual it should use?

Yes, if they could prove it. Now, what if has been my custom not to stop at that stop sing and the stop sign is removed?

I disagree. That they have been generally following RONR, is implied in the question; nothing the question suggests that the assembly has not generally been following RONR. The question does not state that the assembly wishes to discontinue referring to RONR when there is a procedural question. What ever the particular practice has been, no matter what the source of that practice is, should be adhered to, if it does not conflict with some written rule, until the majority decides otherwise. It is repeated usage that creates a practice, no matter if the reason for that usage is because it the assembly chooses to correctly follow an adopted rule, by misinterpreting an adopted rule, or because the society ignores, or is unaware of, an adopted rule. That practice creates a custom, though that custom would fall to the ground in many circumstances. The society can, by continuing to follow a practice in a circumstance, create a custom. That custom might fall to the ground, when challenged, because it conflicts with a written rule, including the parliamentary authority, but it is still a "customary practice." RONR does envision this, on p. 19, ll. 9-17. To give an analogy, assume that, day in and day out for a decade, you drive to an intersection with a stop sign. You stop all the time. While it is required by law, it is your practice to stop there; by doing this for a decade, it is your customary practice. One day, the authorities take down the stop sign; you are no longer required to stop there by law. You still have been stopping there for a decade, so that is still your customary practice. You may choose, in the future, to follow your customary practice and stop there; you may choose not to follow what has been your customary practice. It is, until that point, still your customary practice to stop at that stop sign. [I am waiting for someone to ask me, in effect, what happens if you have not been stopping at that stop sign. ]

A rule is written and adopted. A custom isn't and has a lower rank that an adopted rule. That is the difference. Custom is created by doing a practice repeatedly over time. Here is an example: An assembly has no parliamentary authority. It is said to operate under "general parliamentary law (p. xxix)." They have "particular practice" that conforms to the general parliamentary law, that has been used in the same way for a long period of time; the usage creates the custom. Following that, the assembly adopts RONR. At the very least, RONR is going to be identical to the general parliamentary law is some aspects. This "particular practice" is one of them; this custom is identical to the rule in RONR. Just because they have adopted a written rule (in RONR) does not mean that they have the assembly no longer have a usage of the rule. It means that the written rule and the custom, which is the practice developed by usage, are identical. Now, we take away RONR, it is repealed as a parliamentary authority; the society still has the usage of this particular practice. That usage creates the custom. Maybe an example will be better: 1. An assembly has no parliamentary authority. However, when a main motion is made, the chair requires a second. They have 10 meetings a year and has been around for 20 years. Each of those meetings has had multiple main motions considered; each time a main motion has been considered, a second was required. The practice of requiring a second has created a custom of requiring a second for main motions 2. RONR is adopted; the rule is that a main motion requires a second. It is still practice of the assembly to require a second for main motions.. 3. Five years later, the assembly repeals the adoption of RONR. What has the practice been? The practice is still that assembly requires a second for main motions. That practice has created a custom that the assembly require a second for main motions. That's off of page 19. It can also be expressed this way: Keep doing what you're doing: 1. Unless you decide not to, or; 2. Unless you have a rule to the contrary.

The book indicates "a particular practice may sometimes come to be followed as a matter of established custom so that it is treated practically as if it were a prescribed rule (p. 19, ll. 3-5)." If the assembly, has, for example, for along period of time, required that only a member that voted on the prevailing side may move to reconsider (on motions that can be reconsidered), they have developed this as a custom. That custom is identical to the rule in RONR, but by repeatedly following RONR on this point, it is still the custom. If the assembly were, for along period of time, required that any member may move to reconsider (on motions that can be reconsidered), the have developed that custom, though it will fall to the ground if challenged (p. 19, ll. 9-14). [And yes, that has very strong implications in this case.] Basically, if the assembly had been doing a "particular practice" the same way for a long time creates the custom; if the way of doing things happens to correspond to a written rule, ll. 9-14 does not apply. If the assembly did so because of a written rule, and the written rule goes away, the assembly has still been doing a "particular practice" the same way for a long time. The usage creates the custom, not the reason for the usage. I also find the 2000 edition of Mason, p. 36, persuasive. All that said, and as hinted at here, it is a terrible idea not to adopt a parliamentary authority. First, there can be questions about what the specific custom for a given practice. Second, it provides no stability of procedure; the majority can decide to a "particular practice" many different ways, possibly in the same meeting.

The use of any practice over time creates a custom of using that practice. It makes no difference if the rule was, at some point, written or not. Whether or not that custom will be binding on the assembly in a given instance is a different question.

They still have been following a particular practice for a number of years, even though it will no longer be a matter of following a written rule. There is a difference, though not much of one in practice, between some source being persuasive and some source being custom. If an assembly wishes to make a decision on procedure, and it has no written rule or custom governing the matter, it may find some parliamentary authority, or other text, persuasive. At that point, the assembly may choose to follow the persuasive text. It would do so by majority vote, but until that vote, there is no rule. If an assembly wishes to make a decision on procedure, and it has a custom, but no written rule, governing the matter, the assembly would follow the custom. The assembly may choose, at that point, decide not to follow the custom. It would do so by majority vote, and as a result, that unwritten rule is changed. The assembly has to do something not to follow that custom. There can be some situations where it is meaningful. If a parliamentary authority is adopted, it will not be an issue.

There is no rule regarding campaigning outside of the meeting. You cannot object to a nomination; you could raise a point of order if the member is ineligible, but you have not suggested that she is. Nominations are debatable, but the rules of debate would prohibit you accusing another member as this would reflect on the member's "conduct and character (P. 344)." There could be several "back door" methods. Some are dependent on your bylaws. It may be possible to make a motion to censure the individual, which would permit debate regarding the member's "conduct and character." There is no guarantee that you could do this before the election, if you try to do this at the election meeting. The motion would have to be seconded, and I think you will need very strong support to discuss it.

Even if they don't adopt RONR, they have a custom of using the rules in it. Until the assembly decides to do something different, those rules are binding. This group started by establishing RONR in its bylaws. Now it which not to have it formally adopted. The rules that RONR established are now the custom of this assembly. The assembly may to diverge from each rule established by custom by a majority vote.

Notice is required, but your bylaws should state how much notice.

And you would be correct.

The rules in RONR are binding until the majority says otherwise (p. 19, ll. 6-9).

Just for clarity, a special could permit dropping a nominee from the ballot (p. 441, fn.). However, the "dropped nominee" could still be written-in.

I would note that, even if the clause is removed, your group still has the custom of using RONR.

Not to disagree, but there some details. If the nonboard member did second a motion, a point of order would have to be raised at the time; if debate has begun it too late. The next meeting would obviously be too late. If this is a small board, seconds are not required.

I would note that some organizations require that some contact information be distributed. If you are a member and don't like that, you can resign or not to join in the first place. I am familiar with one group that does it.

If this has been done for a while, it might become custom.

I know of one meeting, prior to being hired by the group that broke into a near riot and ended about 10 minutes into the meeting.

Yes, under several circumsances: 1. Their next regular meeting is in March. 2. There next regular meeting is after March and they establish an adjourn meeting in March. 3. They have a regular meeting in February. They postpone the election to the February meeting, and when it becomes pending in Fenruary, they postpone it until March.