Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

313 profile views
  1. You are most welcome. I respect all the work you do. Paul
  2. Our bylaws cannot be suspended. If there meaning is clear they cannot be suspended by any vote. We do not have meeting rules in our bylaws. They are separate. The bylaw that describes how we must amend our bylaws is a bylaw with nothing in it that is in the nature of a rule of order. The combination of a requirement of previous notice and at least a 2/3 vote is most certainly not a rule of order. Other 2/3rd requirement that are in the procedural rules are rules of order as they are used in meetings. It does not mean that every "2/3" is a rule of order, especially when appearing as part of a r
  3. My "absurd" claim is that a bylaw requirement that states bylaws require previous notice and a 2/3 vote is a bylaw, not a rule of order nor clearly in the nature of a rule of order. And, our group placed in our bylaws that each member may speak to each motion and listed time and frequency. We did that in keeping with the right to speak and to eliminate PQ interrupting that right. Our bylaws are a higher authority than a parliamentary authority and should not need additional notes as what the purpose is. Although, not a bad suggestion. I think it is time for all of us to work on a l
  4. Mr. Josh Martin, Thank you for your work on this. We may be working at cross purposes. I am concentrating on effects of our bylaws. You, and others concerns may be with interpreting Roberts. Although I do not agree with those interpretations of Roberts as they relate to my concerns. Situations: A societies bylaw on amending bylaws reads: ” Bylaws may be amended by previous notice and at least a 2/3 vote.” My conclusion is that a society’s bylaw on the requirement for amending its bylaws is NOT “clearly in the nature of a rule of order”, nor a rule of order. It is an unambiguous BYLAW.
  5. A.) This is in our bylaw: Bylaws require previous notice and a 2/3 vote for their amendment. Our bylaws are each on a separate sheet (standalone). Our Procedural Rules are on a separate sheet with a note that they may be suspended with a 2/3 vote at any meeting. 2:14 seems to be about rules of order for meetings and ones that may be in a bylaw that are "clearly in the nature of a rule of order" A method of amending bylaws placed as a separate bylaw within the bylaws section would not be "clearly in the nature of a rule of order". Previous notice could not be suspended and coupled with pr
  6. "you have been proven wrong" If you could send the citations that prove me wrong, and support that a bylaw stating previous notice and a 2/3 vote is a rule of order, I would be grateful. Those actual pages could convince me. Thanks for your patience. Paul
  7. I am speaking about OUR bylaws, and a single bylaw that governs all our bylaws, that instructs how bylaws are to be amended. It is not a rule of order and would not be mistaken for one, and a society would not put a rule of order in their bylaw which was for the purpose of governing the amendments of bylaws. Perhaps a sample of a bylaw and a rule of order within that bylaw would be helpful. And some page numbers that would provide examples. Some experiences with continuing breaches and how they were handled, interpreted, would be helpful to me. Some examples covering rules of orde
  8. Thanks. There is some confusion and I am responsible. I am referring to A Bylaw. Bylaws cannot be suspended by a 2/3 vote or suspended at all. I mixed the statement from 25:2 item 7 "no rule protecting a minority of a particular size can be suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as the minority protected by the rule" which is a suspend the rules item. Whereas my main concern has to do with bylaws and the requirement (in our bylaws) of previous notice and 2/3. Sorry. I guess I (we) should pay attention to Roberts advice: to deal with only one item at a time. Still appreciate the
  9. Thanks for the smile and your endurance. It is not necessary to identify a bylaw as a bylaw. If it is a rule of order placed in the bylaws it could or should be identified as such. Our society has a separate sheet for procedural meeting rules or rules of order. The same sheet says these may be suspended by a 2/3 vote. Our bylaws are standalone (actually on separate sheets each). Our bylaw governing the amendment of those bylaws is also standalone and very specific and clear (as in Interpretations clear 56:68). It simply states bylaws amendments require previous notice and at least a 2/3 vote
  10. A bylaw cannot be suspended by any vote, if a society wants to change a bylaw it must do so by amendment. our bylaws are clear on that and Robert's interpretations 56:68 supports this. The suggestion that rules of order placed in a bylaw should be identified as such, does not mean that a bylaw should be noted as "cannot be suspended" or "these are not rules of order". Roberts suggest that rules of order be kept out of bylaws or listed as a separate document to avoid confusion. That is what we have done. Paul
  11. Who told you that? Our bylaws told me. And it is confirmed in RONR 12th ed. 56:66 thru 56:68 1) We cannot suspend our bylaws, we can only amend them. I think our differences are based on our interpretations of what is clearly in the nature of a rule of order. Some start with the conclusion that a requirement written into a stand alone bylaw statement "These bylaws can be amended by previous notice and at least a 2/3 vote" is a bylaw and therefore cannot be suspended, other's interpretation is that it is clearly in the nature of a rule of order. I submitted page numbers to support that the byl
  12. The bylaw requirement cannot be suspended for the occasion or permanently. The fact that it cannot be suspended means it is not a rule of order. Also, in some cases, if you cannot get 2/3 to pass the amendment you are not going to get 2/3 to suspend. And previous notice is as essential part of the bylaw as is at least a 2/3 vote. Not to mention that a 2/3 vote could not be used to suspend a 2/3 requirement. It would require, I opine, a vote greater than the minority (1/3) that it is protecting (25.2, item 7. (p. 247 if RONR 12th ed.) Our Society, for instance, has a specific stand alone
  13. No. Limit debate is listed on TP p. 14 1. but, no bylaws, and the bylaw on amending bylaws, are not listed there. The requirement of previous notice and a 2/3 vote to amend bylaws is mentioned in several pages. Also the requirement of a 2/3 vote in amending bylaws cannot be suspended. It would have to be amended (57) ergo previous notice and a 2/3 vote as spelled out in the bylaw on amending bylaws would be used. Appreciate the input. Respectfully, Paul
  14. We cannot suspend the requirement of a 2/3 vote within a bylaw, by a 2/3 vote. Also see 25:1 Suspend Rules, items 2 and 7. And Rules of Order 2:14 does not describe what a bylaw is, and does not describe a bylaw requirement of 2/3 for amending bylaws as a rule of order. 2:15 states "in contrast to bylaw". Staying with the question: What pages in Roberts state that a bylaw, describing a requirement for amending bylaws, is a rule of order? My opinion that the requirement is NOT a rule of order is taken from RONR12th., pages 23.6 a), and 10:26 1) & FN 1.; pp. 25:1, 25:2, 1 thr
  • Create New...