Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Mijoki's Achievements

  1. Thank you for your response. Although it would not be unwelcome I did not request anyone to interpret the bylaws. I provided a summary of the dispute along with my own interpretation. I then invited others to offer their opinion on my analysis, particularly the question: "Is my reasoning here cogent and persuasive?" As for the suspension of the rules issue I no see grounds in the Bylaws or RONR (12th ed.) 25:10 for treating the time requirements as "rules protecting absentees."
  2. There are two issues upon which your considered opinion would be welcome. I do not currently have access to the full text of RONR (12th ed.). Quotation of any relevant text would be much appreciated. Issue I. A Post of an American Legion state organization, called a Department, is trying to get the Department's Executive Committee (DEC) to consider a resolution at the "second Department Executive Committee meeting" early next month. There is a dispute over the interpretation of the bylaws. Two relevant sections of the bylaws say: There is no dispute that the resolution was not submitted 90 or more "days prior to ... the second Department Executive Committee meeting." It was not. Likewise, there is no dispute that the resolution was not submitted 90 or more "days prior to the opening date of the Convention." It was. The resolution at issue does not propose to amend the bylaws. The dispute is whether the 90 and 60 day deadlines are applicable to resolutions submitted to the DEC's upcoming second meeting. I contend that the comma placement, common sense, and context are dispositive in determining that the time restrictions are inapplicable to resolutions submitted to the second DEC meeting. Here's my argument: A. The comma after the phrase "opening date of the Convention" indicates "that not less than 90 days prior" applies only to resolutions submitted to Convention. Admittedly, the sentence in question is not a picture of clarity on this point. B. The Convention is a longer annual event with much larger attendance and more resolutions to be considered. It makes sense that an extended time period for receiving, processing, and distributing resolutions is required. The long periods make no so such sense for the second DEC meeting. C. The context supports arguments A and B above as Sect. 2, Para. C of the Bylaws makes no mention whatsoever of the resolutions submitted to the DEC's second meeting. It only requires distribution of resolutions "at least 60 days prior to Convention." Is my reasoning here cogent and persuasive? Issue II. The Bylaws specify that: "The current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised shall be the parliamentary guide of the Department and all bodies therein and apply in cases to which they are not inconsistent with the Bylaws adopted by the Department." Assuming for the sake of argument that the resolution is out of order because it was submitted "less than 90 days prior to the opening date of ... the second Department Executive Committee meeting" I contend the DEC has the authority under RONR to suspend, by a two-thirds vote, the time requirements specified in Sections 1 & 2 above as they are "rules of order" within the meaning of RONR (12th ed.) 2:8(4), 2:14, 25:7. Is my interpretation correct?
  • Create New...