Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

ptc122

Members
  • Content Count

    41
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ptc122

  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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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.
  20. 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?
  21. Thank you for the responses and the page references. Paul
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. "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?
×
×
  • Create New...