smb

I'm sure this has been the subject of a prior thread, but I am unable to find it so apologies for bringing it up again. I'm willing to accept either fresh advice or a link to a prior thread

State corporation codes frequently provide default language for certain elements of procedure "unless otherwise provided by the bylaws."  So there has always been the lingering question whether a provision in the bylaws stating that RONR is the parliamentary authority satisfies that requirement or whether any override of the statute must be by an express bylaw.  

Thx

It's an unusual set-up.  The standing rules for this association's conventions are in the association's policy manual.  Per the bylaws, the sole authority for approving, amending, rescinding the policy manual resides in the Board of Directors. The convention delegates have never voted to adopt or amend the convention standing rules -- they are a fait accompli.  Delegates have occasionally suspended applicable procedural rules provided by RONR but they have never had occasion to suspend one of their own own standing rules.  So the question essentially is whether, under such a scheme, the convention delegates have the authority to suspend a standing rule adopted by the board without prior board authorization to do so or whether the rules from the board should be considered directive.   While the situation is somewhat akin to the Bylaws 'directing' that RONR be the parliamentary authority, RONR expressly provides for suspending its own rules.  The standing rules adopted by the board do not provide such express authority.  So the question, essentially, is whether the delegates need to be given express authority or whether the authority of delegates to suspend a standing rule is implicit.  My own opinion is that since RONR allows a body to suspend a procedural rule contained in the bylaws [certainly a 'directive' document], there is no reason it shouldn't be able to do so here as well. Obviously, this cannot be answered by reference to RONR -- so perhaps this is not an appropriate topic for this forum -- just curious to see if others have encountered such a situation before and how it was handled. 

The Standing Rules for annual conventions were prepared and adopted by the organization's Board of Directors.  Some members see a need to suspend one of the rules for this year's convention. There are three options: 1) at the next Board meeting a motion can be adopted to suspend the rule for the upcoming convention; 2) at the next Board meeting there can be a motion authorizing the convention delegates to suspend the rule if they wish to do so; 3) the convention delegates can suspend the rule themselves without board action.  Ordinarily, the latter can be done with a majority vote of the delegates.  

Questions: (a) If the Board wanted to amend or rescind the standing rule without prior notice, it would require a 2/3 vote or majority of the board.  Would that also be required to suspend the rule without prior notice, or would a suspension require only a majority vote?   RONR authorizes convention delegates to suspend a standing rule by a majority vote; can the Board adopt a motion requiring a 2/3 vote of the delegates instead? Wouldn't that, itself, be a standing rule that the delegates could suspend by a majority vote?  [c]  Since RONR authorizes convention delegates to suspend a standing rule by a majority vote, can the convention delegates do so even if the previously mentioned motions were made at the Board meeting but failed to receive a majority vote?

I am essentially with Kim on this one.  You are neither the parliamentarian nor the chair -- more importantly, unless one is in such a position, you do not surrender your own rights just because you know something about PL.  One of those rights is the right to rise to a point of order or NOT.  It may be a different situation if there is a ruling by the Chair and now you must decide whether to appeal the ruling or not.  Here there is more reason to speak up -- but not because there is an ethical duty; rather it is because the chair's ruling may become a precedent unless set aside and that is the time to set the record, and the rules, straight.  But...let us not confuse "doing the right thing", which is admirable, with having an "ethical duty."