ptc122

Thank you everyone. The page references and the comments led me to Null and Void which provided more information. I realize that more specifics could lead to a clearer diagnosis. It appears the way this one was done was improper whether done without realization that there is an actual bylaw on the subject or some thinking that a new motion would suffice and therefore only a majority needed. Bottom line (for us anyway) is if it is a bylaw it needs 2/3 and previous notice to amend it. Paul

that is my reading. the situation is as though the board did not know a bylaw with the same wording existed. Now that is known what is the effect on the actual bylaw? What pages of RONR would be helpful? One might take the position that the bylaw was amended, another might say there was no amendment. What pages support either position? Appreciate the input, Paul

I need the page numbers that describe when there is an actual amendment of a bylaw even though the standard approach not used. A possible scenario would be a motion describing a change, or a motion creating an action without realizing that there is a bylaw in place. And the society going ahead with the motion and passing it and taking the action described. Then it is discovered there is a bylaw. What is the effect on the existing bylaw? Has it in fact changed? If the motion initiating the change or action was handled as a previous notice and passed with 2/3 or more, has it changed the existing bylaw? paul

You are most welcome. I respect all the work you do. Paul

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 requirement bylaw. Roberts suggest that the requirement for amending bylaws should be in the bylaws so that there is no confusion. Also Roberts suggest that societies bylaws, are a higher authority then Roberts (Roberts will be used when not inconsistent with these bylaws, or statutes, regulations, Laws) By publishing our bylaws separate from our authority, we are saying that this is the preferred and correct wording we want. It should not be necessary to add another line describing intentions. Bylaws are reviewed regularly and if question of clarity or interpretation come up, it could be dealt with by amendment. In the meantime: 56:67, 56:68 1) help us to establish our wording, and to,interpret. As to the list. One should be started. I have. It is long, but illuminating. Paul

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 list of rules of order. I will start now and send it along. I appreciate the debate. Paul

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. This conclusion is derived from the reading of the following pages pages from Roberts 12th ed.: 2:14, 2:16, 2:20, 2:21, 2:22, 10:26 1), 23:6 & n2, 25: 1,2, 7 thru 14, 35:2 (7), 44:11, 56:50 thru 56, 56:67, 56:68 1, 57:1 And, RONRIB pages provide shorter definitions: p.84 “bylaws a higher authority than PA” ; 85 “bylaws should include provisions for their own amendment”; p.86 “ 4. “Rules of Order: conduct business in MEETINGS is the function of rules of order”. It is also important to note that a society’s bylaws are separate from Roberts even when Roberts is the named authority there is a disclaimer: “if not inconsistent with these bylaws...”. Bylaws are a higher authority than Roberts or a named parliamentary authority. Robert’s rules cannot be used to set aside bylaws, or to suspend a society’s bylaw. Ex: PQ cannot be used to interfere with a member’s right to debate as outlined in the bylaws. On the other-hand, I can argue against interpretations of Roberts, but cannot impose by views even if my society’s bylaws wording. Paul, 11/30/20. Thank you for your work and courtesy Josh.

Pages from Roberts 12th ed.wpd

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 previous notice, a 2/3 requirement related to amending bylaws, could not be suspended. As to your specific questions. These could take us down a road of further debate but a learning experience so I will take a crack at them. A. There are 2/3rd requirements in meeting procedures and they could be rules of order. I focus on 25: 7-14 what cannot be suspended like quorum, majority vote, individual rights, previous notice and absentee rights. As to B. I ain't going there: A society with Roberts as its authority could use Robert's suggestion (twice with 10mins first time and 5mins 2nd time?) and PQ could interrupt that with a 2/3 vote to cut off debate. To avoid PQ cutting into a members right to debate, a society could place that in their bylaws specifying their own wording. Mr. Martin, I appreciate your approach on this. Much better than telling me to give-it-up. At a future time I would like to have your interpretation of 10:26 fn 1. Paul

"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

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 order contained within the bylaws would be interesting and educational. I would like to know how we come to the conclusion that "previous notice and a 2/3 vote required to amend bylaws" is in the nature of a rule of order? My investigation covering several pages of examples leads me to the conclusion that it is a bylaw, which cannot be suspended even by unanimous consent. I started this thread with questions from the new RONR 12th about 10:26 1) and the FN 1 these have come a long way from the asterisk leading us to p. 17, l. 22-25 describing what in the nature of a rule of order means. Breaches are rare, but interesting and complex. Makes for a good debate. It won't bother me to be proven wrong. That's what Roberts teaching is about. That's what books of rules are about. Thanks for responding. Paul

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 input and what I have learned. Paul

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 (as suggested by Roberts). it would not be thought of as "clearly in the nature of a rule of order". Perhaps when we are amending, I could suggest the cannot be suspended note because I respect the contributors on this site. Now I will give it up as advised. Respectfully Paul

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

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 bylaw is NOT clearly in the nature of a Rule or Order. My quest for clarity started with the asterisk from RONR 11, p. 251, l.10 that leads to p. 17, 22-25 "rules clearly identifiable....." but could not take from that, or any descriptions in Roberts that a bylaw stating that bylaws require previous notice and a 2/3 vote as being clearly identifiable as anything but a bylaw, not a rule of order. RONR 12 leads us to 10:26 1) and fn 1. which is much more detailed than 11's p. 17, 22-25 and does provide some examples. Which supports my position, I think, more than "it is clearly identifiable as a rule of order. As to my contention that a bylaw requirement cannot be suspended by a 2/3 vote it is because a: it is a bylaw and b: 25:1 supports and 25:2, item 2. (and 2:21 does not change that) and Item 7. supports why I believe a bylaw requiring 2/3 to be amended cannot be suspended by a 2/3 vote; and 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???? That is what prompted my original submission/question: On the meaning of fn 1? Does it not clarify even more what a rule of order is and is not? The editors put some work into that. I could find some to agree with me within this forum if they investigate from an opposite point of view. Take my side and find pages that agree with it. Paul

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 bylaw on amending our bylaws: "previous notice and a 2/3 vote". Same wording as Roberts suggests when adding an article to your bylaws so it won't be ambiguous. and therefore the society even by unanimous vote cannot change that meaning except by amending its bylaws (56:68 1} Paul "Rules that are in the nature of rules of order CAN BE SUSPENDED BY A 2/3 VOTE" This helps to identify what a rule of order is.

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

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 thru 8, 25:14, 56:67, 56:68 1, and 57:1 1 among others. Appreciate the input and interest in solving this. Paul

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

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 order CAN be suspended by a 2/3 vote" Hence my confusion and citations would help to clarify. Thank you again for responding quickly. Paul

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

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

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.

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? Paul

Thank you for the responses and the page references. Paul