Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

ptc122

Members
  • Content Count

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

273 profile views
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. thank you. is there a difference between effect on a motion and the effect on an amendment to the bylaws? My concern is with amending bylaws and a specific bylaw on amending bylaws that requires bylaws to be amending by previous notice and a 2/3 vote. Regards, Paul
  6. Thank you. Those pages do help to define what a rule of order is. A requirement within a bylaw on what is needed to amend bylaws, namely "previous notice and a 2/3 vote" would NOT be a rule of order, nor in the nature of a rule of order according to those pages. I was responding to Mr. Honeman's response that "previous notice and a 2/3vote are in the nature of rules of order" and I requested page numbers. The wording ( ...a 2/3 vote) is within a bylaw that would not be suspendable by a 2/3 vote. Whereas one definition of a rule of order is "rules that are in the nature of rules of or
  7. what pages (either edition) leads to the conclusion that a bylaw amendment requirement of previous notice and a 2/3 vote are rules of order. And even more helpful what is an example of something within a bylaw that could not be a rule of order or in the nature of a rule of order? I need to point out by citations how to explain each. Really appreciate it. Paul
  8. Maybe an example would make it clearer to me. Our amendment bylaw is: Previous notice and a 2/3 vote is required to amend a bylaw. A bylaw is amended by a majority vote in error. Is the requirement of a 23 vote to amend a bylaw in the nature of a rule of order? Thanks for the quick response. Paul
  9. Good point. it is fn 1, 10:26 (1). To clarify it is page 102, line 4, fn 1. the old way. We are referred here from 23:6 a) line 2 "or assembly" fn 2.
  10. the new edition's fn on 10:26 seems to have replaced: the former asterisk on p. 251, l, 10 which referred us to p. 17, ll, 22-25 to describe a rule of order. The fn on 10:26 is lengthier and more descriptive, but difficult to understand its purpose. Is this an effort to better describe the type(s) of rules of order (or in the nature of a rule of order)? The descriptions on p. 251 (now 23:6 in 12) is clear about what a continuing breach is IF there was no asterisk or 2 references. Some work has been done by editors on this item, what does the fn mean relative to rules of orders being in bylaws?
  11. Thank you for the responses and the page references. Paul
  12. HOW LONG CAN A MOTION BE HELD IN COMMITTEE IN VIEW OF RULES AGAINST POSTPONING ACTIONS BEYOND THE NEXT MEETING? WHAT PAGES TO STUDY TO DETERMINE WHAT HAPPENS TO A MOTION WHEN REFERRED TO A COMMITTEE? RATHER THAN POSTPONED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. HOW LONG, ACCORDING TO ROBERTS, CAN A MOTION BE HELD BY A COMMITTEE WITHOUT REPORTING BACK TO THE BOARD WHO REFERRED IT. PAUL
×
×
  • Create New...