Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Bill W.

Members
  • Posts

    2
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Bill W.'s Achievements

  1. Thank you jstackpo, The example I cited was not because of a "real world" situation. I wanted to pick a RONR example that would absolutely reverse the original intent of the rule. Thanks, Bill W
  2. Hello, I am on a committee to review our organizations Bylaws. As we were reviewing our parent organizations recommended text changes, a question was raised regarding the usage and application of Special Rules of Order. Our current Bylaws state: Article X - Parliamentary Authority Section 1. In all matters not specifically covered by the provision of these Constitution and Bylaws, the rules contained in Robert's Rules of Order (Revised) shall govern the Club in all cases to which they are applicable. The proposed Bylaws state: Article X - Parliamentary Authority Section 1. The rules contained in the current edition of "Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised," shall govern the club in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any other special rules of order the club may adopt. 1st question: Under the current bylaws wording, is our organization permitted to adopt Special Rules of Order? 2nd question. If Special Rules of Order are adopted, are they documented similar to our standing rules, or can/should/must they be made part of the bylaws? Lastly, I'm having a difficult time grasping the concept of a special rule of order and how we are allowed to use them. I understand the difference between a special rule of order vs standing rule and also understand that an adopted special rule of order supersedes any rules of the parliamentary authority with which they may conflict. Specifically, my confusion lies with, Chapter I - Rules of Order, p15 The usual and preferable method by which an ordinary society now provides itself with suitable rules of order is therefore to place in its bylaws a provision prescribing that the current edition of a specified and generally accepted manual of parliamentary law shall be the organization's parliamentary authority, and then to adopt only such special rules of order as it finds needed to supplement or modify rules contained in that manual. I understand the need to supplement or modify the rules for particular situations, i.e. limiting the length or number of speeches permitted each member in debate, but can a Special Rule of Order substantially change an existing rule in RONR? What does "supplement and modify rules" mean specifically? Example: Chapter XIII - Voting, p407 ABSTAINING FROM VOTING ON A QUESTION OF DIRECT PERSONAL INTEREST. No member should vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization. For example, if a motion proposes that the organization enter into a contract with a commercial firm of which a member of the organization is an officer and from which contract he would derive personal pecuniary profit, the member should abstain from voting on the motion. However, no member can be compelled to refrain from voting in such circumstances. Question 3: Could you adopt a Special Rule of Order that changed "should" to "shall" and struck the last sentence; now requiring a member to abstain from voting? Is this allowed as a modification of an existing rule, or is it not allowed because it significantly changes the intent of the rule? If you got this far, thank you for your consideration of my questions. Regards, Bill W
×
×
  • Create New...