Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

254 profile views
  1. Then you can tell me where in RONR it is stated that the requirement in a bylaw of a 2/3 vote is rule of order. Not an attempt to resurrect, just to obtain some clarity as to why a requirement in a bylaw, on amending bylaws, is interpreted as a rule of order?Pages 15 and 17 are about rules of order but do not state that a 2/3 vote is one. Or if a 2/3 remains a rule of order when placed within a bylaw. The page references do not clarify that a requirement of a 2/3 vote for amending bylaws is a rule of order. What pages do? What if an organization has a separate list of rules of order, and the 2/3 requirement to amend bylaws is not listed? I appreciate how much work goes into deliberating this subject, and the feedback. Paul
  2. "There is no doubt that a rule requiring a 2/3 vote is a rule in the nature of a rule of order". Which pages in RONR or RONRIB would confirm this? I cannot find any. Specifically: RONR p. 588 suggests the wording in a bylaw lines 10 - 16. If an organization adopts same wording and places them in its bylaws, what causes it to be interpreted as a rule of order? Isn't a rule of order contained in the bylaws supposed to be identified? And have requirements for its own suspension?
  3. Good discussion. I think it is determined that previous notice and a 2/3 vote is needed to amend a by-law. And this amendment should have been done with a 2/3 vote. Continuing Breach is a question that may require lawyer's interpretations. We could correct something that was improper by Rescind or Amend. I have gathered several page references to this if anyone would like them. Paul
  4. It is a good question. It is a body that can make decisions and has it's on Bylaws. There is a superior body that could change the results, but they could be changed by the body that performed the improper amendment. Even if it does not fall under P 251 a continuing breach, which makes it automatically null and void, they could change through Rescind or Amend.
  5. It was a motion to change (amend) an existing bylaw. To amend a bylaw requires a 2/3 vote. The amendment was passed without a 2/3 vote. I cannot find anything in RONR that supports a majority being sufficient but I can find several pages that support 2/3 and our own bylaw uses 2/3 (not majority of membership). Thanks for input and RONR pages would be helpful. Paul
  6. The problem is that the vote taken was not 2/3. Are you saying that if previous notice given then NOT having a 2/3 vote is not a breach? The main problem with the vote to amend a by-law was not as per the RULE that previous notice AND a 2/3 vote is needed. Thanks for the quick response and page reference. Paul
  7. We changed a by-law and thought that a majority would suffice. Or we may have changed it without knowing that what we were passing affected that by-law. We used the same by-law title so we know the changes affected the wording. It also affected members as their positions and locations changed. Is majority ever sufficient? (we do not use RONR's majority of entire membership, our Rules By-Law reads: Previous notice and 2/3 vote. Does it become a continuing breach? And how do we undo it. Paul
  8. RONR indicates that laws replace some rules within a parliamentary authority. The terms legislative and ordinary define two different bodies. Does legislative have to conform to Laws and ordinary not? What would be examples of rules in RONR that could not be used by Legislative assemblies. some of my confusion comes from wording on pages 3 and 4 lines 30 thru 2. We are a deliberative assembly of elected officials that use RONR as our authority and for procedures. Paul
  9. Exactly. I agree and that is what we did with our by-laws. We use Roberts with the exception of right to speak is enshrined so that Previous Question not be used until every member who wishes to speak has spoken. Our by-laws are now clear and legal.
  10. Not suggesting that Previous cannot be used. The wording in our by-laws is to clarify that each member has the right to speak (with limitations on frequency and time). Previous Question can be called as long as each member who wishes to speak has spoken. We do not want 2/3 vote to stop 1/3 from participating.
  11. They are not hypothetical. They are our Procedural by-laws and we structured them to ensure each voting member, who wishes to speak, gets the chance. We chose and voted for the limits and understand that they can be changed or suspended. The right to speak cannot be suspended by a 2/3 or any vote because we are legislated by an Act and, in Canada, all Acts must conform to Charter of Rights and Freedoms which specifies the right to opinion and expression. Even if there was no Acts to conform to, we would have adjusted our by-laws to ensure equity in deliberation even though we state Roberts as our method of procedures, the vote can not be called for by using Previous Question until each member who wants to speak has spoken. Saves a lot of potential stress.
  12. And how does anyone know? The by-laws state that each voting member has the right to speak twice for up to five minutes...or wording to this effect. We use Roberts but state in our by-laws the right to speak and the limits, for the purpose of equity and to off-set the use of Previous Question before everyone who wishes to speak has spoken.
  13. When Roberts is mentioned in your by-laws it must be kept in mind that your by-laws must conform to law. If you are using Roberts and it states that Previous Question may keep 1/3 from participating in debate and your laws or constitution state that everyone has the right to participate then this would trump Roberts. But you are right Roberts does not have to conform. It only needs to state that laws do take precedent. P 3 and 4, 10. I should have been clearer and will continue to learn.
  14. Last? as in the present person speaking is finished? Cannot INTERRUPT a speaker. Also requires a 2/3 vote because you are cutting of debate and up to 1/3 of the persons who wish to speak have not spoken. Keep in mind that Roberts must conform to Law, the constitution of your organization and your by-laws. Previous Question may not conform.
  15. Ah! My favourite subject. According to Roberts: Yes it can be used to stop debate before every voting member has had their right to debate (but CANNOT interrupt), It could be used to to stifle a 1/3 minority. Unless your by-laws clarify that every voting member has the right to speak in debate (even if limited as to time and frequency) OR, there are legal reasons for not allowing the interruption of the right to debate. P. 202 even though the wording appears that states "Care should be taken that failure to understand this fact does not lead to VIOLATION of members' rights of debate." And "to shut off debate against the will of even one member who wishes to speak and has not exhausted his right to debate" Does not mean that the right is absolute and cannot be taken away by a 2/3 vote. All other parliamentary manuals allow this also. So if your organization wants everyone to have the right to speak at least once and for a limited time, put it in your by-laws.
  • Create New...