Fine line between amend and suspend

[loose]

I'm having trouble understanding the difference between amend and suspend. Seems to me you can amend something to death by striking, inserting and adding to the point of obliteration.

I understand you can't suspend the bylaws. You may suspend special rules contained within the bylaws. Okay. What about the clause in the bylaws naming RR as the parliamentary authority. Is that clause a suspendable special rule? I figure you can amend the bylaws to make another rulebook the authority. We have a chairman who wants to take the parliamentary authority clause out of our bylaws altogether and replace it with a few sentences of his own crafting which allude to RR but state that meetings are to take place with only RR in force for part of the meeting. I would call that an illegal suspension of the bylaws. Your thoughts please.

[jstackpo]

When you "suspend a rule" (p. 252 ff.) you do so for a specific purpose - to do something, spelled out in a motion, that would otherwise be against a rule.

It, "suspend", does not mean a wholesale suspension of a whole bunch of rules, such as suspending RONR.

Amending the bylaws to remove RONR as your parliamentary authority is proper, but probably not a good idea.

[hmtcastle]

Seems to me you can amend something to death by striking, inserting and adding to the point of obliteration.

An amendment is any change to the bylaws. So, yes, the bylaws could be amended to such an extent that the "new" organization is no longer recognizable to those familiar with the "old" organization. You could change the name, the purpose, the membership requirements, the officers, the board, the meetings, and, yes, even the parliamentary authority. But the president can't do this on his own and the bylaws should contain their own (reasonably arduous) process for their own amendment. They're not carved in stone but neither are they written in chalk.

As for "suspend the rules", it's an unfortunate term that suggests that all the rules are suspended. In fact, the only rule that's suspended (and only for the duration of the meeting) is the one that's getting in the way of what two-thirds of the assembly wants to do. And only if that rule is suspendable. A good rule of thumb is to assume that none of the rules in your bylaws can be suspended. That may not be true but it will keep you out of trouble.

[tctheatc]

I'm having trouble understanding the difference between amend and suspend. Seems to me you can amend something to death by striking, inserting and adding to the point of obliteration.

True, you can. But what are you referring to: a motion, or a rule? A motion normally be amended and in the process may end up looking very different from the original. That should reflect the will of the assembly and what came up in debate. The free exchange of ideas will sometimes change people's minds. You can amend the bylaws, too, which generally follows a specific, formal process. The bylaws may end up looking very different, too. To suspend a rule is a temporary thing; the rule will not end up looking different. rather, it will go back into effect when the suspension of it is over, at the next meeting at latest.

I understand you can't suspend the bylaws. You may suspend special rules contained within the bylaws

.

You may vote to suspend special rules, or rules of order. You may also vote to suspend a bylaw which is clearly in the nature of a rule of order. (not always easy to determine)

Okay. What about the clause in the bylaws naming RR as the parliamentary authority. Is that clause a suspendable special rule?

It's a bylaw if it's contained in the bylaws as your governing parliamentary authority.

I figure you can amend the bylaws to make another rulebook the authority. We have a chairman who wants to take the parliamentary authority clause out of our bylaws altogether and replace it with a few sentences of his own crafting which allude to RR but state that meetings are to take place with only RR in force for part of the meeting. I would call that an illegal suspension of the bylaws. Your thoughts please.

You (the assembly) sure can follow the process to amend your bylaws and adopt a different authority. Mr One-Finger-Salute figures he has a better way of doing things than the history, experience and collective wisdom of the years behind RONR? Good for him. Put it to a vote. If the necessary threshold of voters agrees with him, the assembly will surely get the leadership it deserves. Hope this helps; I'm no expert FWIW.

[David A Foulkes]

I'm going to offer this, and will willingly take my (corrective) lumps from the long-timers here should I stray.

The term Suspend The Rules doesn't mean that all the rules (bylaws, RONR, etc) go out the window. It might have been better termed Suspend A Rule, since it often involves the suspension of only one rule, though not always exclusively. But you can't adopt a motion to Suspend The Rules by itself and go off making your own rules. There has to be an underlying purpose, something that is desired to be done that a rule is prohibiting at that moment. So the motion is "to Suspend The Rules and ____" where the blank is filled with the actual meat of the motion, if you will.

For me, what has been my thinking so far is that rules of order are suspendable. I relate that phrase to "order of business" and what RONR's purpose (somewhat) is: to assist in the "orderly conduct of business" in a society. So, anything that deals with, in other words, how meetings are "run" is probably (possibly?) suspendable.

You should assume that (for the most part) anything in the bylaws is not suspendable. However, some things in there may be. The bylaw that defines the President's duties, for instance that he preside over meetings, may be suspended to allow the appointment/election of a Chair Pro Tem (let's say the VP), but only for that one meeting. To have the VP always preside, the bylaws would need to be amended.

Some rules in RONR can be suspended. If you're following the standard order of business (see page 25), it would be possible to Suspend The Rules to take up a Special Order (#4) ahead of officer reports (#2). But you can't adopt a motion to Suspend The Rules and dispense with the entire order of business itself, picking and choosing only one or two classes of business to attend to before adjourning.

Some rules are fundamental rules of parliamentary law and cannot be suspended: giving non-members (who have no rights at meetings) the right to vote, for example. Can't be done. However, you can Suspend The Rules to allow them to speak in debate. You can even allow only one such non-member to speak (it does not necessarily and automatically allow all non-members to speak, if worded properly), and that "right" can be revoked at any time. It is not necessarily in force for the entire meeting thereafter.

This all presumes a moderate knowledge of RONR, bylaws, and the conduct of meetings, and a willingness to agree to the rules and "play fair." Your president is not one of these types of people, so you have a challenge ahead, which will be easier met with at least a majority of members (and in some cases 2/3 of them) on your side.

Ultimately, you need a new leader, and I believe that's been mentioned enough times here, with references to FAQs and RONR pages. Until then, keep fighting the good fight.

[Rob Elsman]

I'm having trouble understanding the difference between amend and suspend. Seems to me you can amend something to death by striking, inserting and adding to the point of obliteration.

I understand you can't suspend the bylaws. You may suspend special rules contained within the bylaws. Okay. What about the clause in the bylaws naming RR as the parliamentary authority. Is that clause a suspendable special rule? I figure you can amend the bylaws to make another rulebook the authority. We have a chairman who wants to take the parliamentary authority clause out of our bylaws altogether and replace it with a few sentences of his own crafting which allude to RR but state that meetings are to take place with only RR in force for part of the meeting. I would call that an illegal suspension of the bylaws. Your thoughts please.

A motion to amend the bylaws by substituting a different paragraph for the parliamentary authority's adopting language is not an improper main motion under the rule of RONR (10th ed.), p. 106, ll. 26-31. Such a motion has nothing to do with suspending the rules.

[loose]

True, you can. But what are you referring to: a motion, or a rule? A motion normally be amended and in the process may end up looking very different from the original. That should reflect the will of the assembly and what came up in debate. The free exchange of ideas will sometimes change people's minds. You can amend the bylaws, too, which generally follows a specific, formal process. The bylaws may end up looking very different, too. To suspend a rule is a temporary thing; the rule will not end up looking different. rather, it will go back into effect when the suspension of it is over, at the next meeting at latest.

Oops. Of course, suspend is for duration of the current meeting. I was thinking it was a deletion.

Glad for confirmation that amend can make unrecognizable.

You may vote to suspend special rules, or rules of order. You may also vote to suspend a bylaw which is clearly in the nature of a rule of order. (not always easy to determine)

So it's hard to tell what's a bylaw and what's a special rule within bylaw - that's right - thus the wisdom of putting special rules in a document separate from bylaws.

It's a bylaw if it's contained in the bylaws as your governing parliamentary authority.

That's great to know! Higher voting threshold to amend a bylaw vs. a special rule within bylaws.

You (the assembly) sure can follow the process to amend your bylaws and adopt a different authority. Mr One-Finger-Salute figures he has a better way of doing things than the history, experience and collective wisdom of the years behind RONR? Good for him. Put it to a vote. If the necessary threshold of voters agrees with him, the assembly will surely get the leadership it deserves. Hope this helps; I'm no expert FWIW.

FWIW?

I'm getting the idea that you trust the process. They get what they deserve - all I have to do is wait fiendishly till the annual meeting. Thanks.

[loose]

I'm going to offer this, and will willingly take my (corrective) lumps from the long-timers here should I stray.

The term Suspend The Rules doesn't mean that all the rules (bylaws, RONR, etc) go out the window. It might have been better termed Suspend A Rule, since it often involves the suspension of only one rule, though not always exclusively. But you can't adopt a motion to Suspend The Rules by itself and go off making your own rules. There has to be an underlying purpose, something that is desired to be done that a rule is prohibiting at that moment. So the motion is "to Suspend The Rules and ____" where the blank is filled with the actual meat of the motion, if you will.

For me, what has been my thinking so far is that rules of order are suspendable. I relate that phrase to "order of business" and what RONR's purpose (somewhat) is: to assist in the "orderly conduct of business" in a society. So, anything that deals with, in other words, how meetings are "run" is probably (possibly?) suspendable.

You should assume that (for the most part) anything in the bylaws is not suspendable. However, some things in there may be. The bylaw that defines the President's duties, for instance that he preside over meetings, may be suspended to allow the appointment/election of a Chair Pro Tem (let's say the VP), but only for that one meeting. To have the VP always preside, the bylaws would need to be amended.

Some rules in RONR can be suspended. If you're following the standard order of business (see page 25), it would be possible to Suspend The Rules to take up a Special Order (#4) ahead of officer reports (#2). But you can't adopt a motion to Suspend The Rules and dispense with the entire order of business itself, picking and choosing only one or two classes of business to attend to before adjourning.

Some rules are fundamental rules of parliamentary law and cannot be suspended: giving non-members (who have no rights at meetings) the right to vote, for example. Can't be done. However, you can Suspend The Rules to allow them to speak in debate. You can even allow only one such non-member to speak (it does not necessarily and automatically allow all non-members to speak, if worded properly), and that "right" can be revoked at any time. It is not necessarily in force for the entire meeting thereafter.

This all presumes a moderate knowledge of RONR, bylaws, and the conduct of meetings, and a willingness to agree to the rules and "play fair." Your president is not one of these types of people, so you have a challenge ahead, which will be easier met with at least a majority of members (and in some cases 2/3 of them) on your side.

Ultimately, you need a new leader, and I believe that's been mentioned enough times here, with references to FAQs and RONR pages. Until then, keep fighting the good fight.

Thank you for your time. I'll try not to harp on this. Meantime, could you point me in the direction of answer to this question: which rules in RR constitute fundamental rules of parliamentary law? I know there's a page on this in the book but it says nothing about the necessity of motions, debate or voting - or calling a meeting to order.

[J. J.]

Thank you for your time. I'll try not to harp on this. Meantime, could you point me in the direction of answer to this question: which rules in RR constitute fundamental rules of parliamentary law? I know there's a page on this in the book but it says nothing about the necessity of motions, debate or voting - or calling a meeting to order.

The defined ones are "one question at a time" on p. 56, l. 20-25, the limiting of the right to vote to members present (p. 408, l. 31-34), and the one prohibiting the member from transferring votes (p. 429, l. 26-9). See also p. 255, l. 2-12.

[tctheatc]

FWIW?

I'm getting the idea that you trust the process. They get what they deserve - all I have to do is wait fiendishly till the annual meeting. Thanks.

By FWIW (for what it's worth) I simply mean take my advice with a grain of salt as a novice, as opposed to the more knowledgeable and actual parliamentarians who still visit here in the shallow end of the pool.

It's not so much that I trust the process, as I believe RONR is not a hammer and you can't bash people into order. It's rules of order for those who want order. There was a recent thread where allegedly knowledgeable people were using APPEAL in an improper manner to get with a majority vote what should require a 2/3 vote. People are gonna break the rules if they're so inclined. If your assembly wants a hybrid process (part RONR, Part stinky-finger) they're gonna have it, by hook or by crook. You might be better served becoming the best expert in that hybrid process.

[jstackpo]

You might be better served becoming the best expert in that hybrid process.

Problem with that is that everybody, and every assembly, may have their own version of the "hybrid process". Better to appeal to an accepted defined standard and become an expert in that.

[Gary Novosielski]

Problem with that is that everybody, and every assembly, may have their own version of the "hybrid process". Better to appeal to an accepted defined standard and become an expert in that.

And whether these forms be in all cases the most rational or not is not really of so great importance. It is much more material that there should be a rule to go by than what the rule is; that there may be a uniformity of proceeding in business not subject to the caprice of the Speaker or captiousness of the members.

I note the pleasing philosophical harmony of your response with your chosen signature quotation. This situation is the very embodiment of the "caprice of the Speaker" that concerned Mr. Jefferson.

[tctheatc]

Problem with that is that everybody, and every assembly, may have their own version of the "hybrid process". Better to appeal to an accepted defined standard and become an expert in that.

I meant as far as loose getting people won over to loose's way of thinking. Work from within rather than beat people about the head and neck with RONR 'til they bleed...

[loose]

Thanks for the pragmatics on top of the philosophy.

[Gary Novosielski]

I meant as far as loose getting people won over to loose's way of thinking. Work from within rather than beat people about the head and neck with RONR 'til they bleed...

Kindness always works, but first you gotta get their attention. <he said, holding a two-by-four>

[Josh Martin]

I meant as far as loose getting people won over to loose's way of thinking. Work from within rather than beat people about the head and neck with RONR 'til they bleed...

From what I read about the "process" the President wants to introduce, I don't think working within it will be possible. Loose's best option is to defeat the proposed amendment.

[tctheatc]

agreed. It's best. Don't know if it's most likely.

[tctheatc]

Kindness always works, but first you gotta get their attention. <he said, holding a two-by-four>

Some people look more menacing than others holding a 2 x 4, nome sane??