The Transition

[Rob Elsman]

For an organization having as its bylaws the sample bylaws in RONR (10th ed.), pp. 565-570, would a motion to delay implementation of the 11th edition of RONR to some future, fixed date--say, January 1, 2012--be in order, provided that the requirements of Article IX were observed? In other words, can an organization adopt some kind of transitional rule to provide a little breathing room for training of officers and other members before the 11th edition is put into force and effect?

[Josh Martin]

For an organization having as its bylaws the sample bylaws in RONR (10th ed.), pp. 565-570, would a motion to delay implementation of the 11th edition of RONR to some future, fixed date--say, January 1, 2012--be in order, provided that the requirements of Article IX were observed? In other words, can an organization adopt some kind of transitional rule to provide a little breathing room for training of officers and other members before the 11th edition is put into force and effect?

I don't think the changes are going to be substantial enough that such a motion is likely to be necessary for most societies, but it would seem that such a motion would be in order. The assembly could adopt an amendment for the Bylaws, for instance, changing the word "current" in Article VIII to the word "10th," with the proviso that it would revert back to "current" as of January 1, 2012.

[Rob Elsman]

I don't think the changes are going to be substantial enough that such a motion is likely to be necessary for most societies, but it would seem that such a motion would be in order. The assembly could adopt an amendment for the Bylaws, for instance, changing the word "current" in Article VIII to the word "10th," with the proviso that it would revert back to "current" as of January 1, 2012.

Just to be clear, are you agreeing that a transitional rule (somewhat in the nature of a proviso) could be adopted that would not amend the bylaws, provided the rule of Article IX was observed?

[Josh Martin]

Just to be clear, are you agreeing that a transitional rule (somewhat in the nature of a proviso) could be adopted that would not amend the bylaws, provided the rule of Article IX was observed?

Well, certainly one could be adopted that would not permanently amend the Bylaws. Adopting a motion to amend the Bylaws with just a proviso seems irregular, but I suppose I can't think of a reason it would be out of order, provided the rule of Article IX was observed.

[Shmuel Gerber]

For an organization having as its bylaws the sample bylaws in RONR (10th ed.), pp. 565-570, would a motion to delay implementation of the 11th edition of RONR to some future, fixed date--say, January 1, 2012--be in order, provided that the requirements of Article IX were observed? In other words, can an organization adopt some kind of transitional rule to provide a little breathing room for training of officers and other members before the 11th edition is put into force and effect?

Nope. Place your advance order right now.

[George Mervosh]

Nope. Place your advance order right now.

And, let's be honest, EVERYONE (sans the fab 5) is going to have a learning curve with the new edition, the way they did in 2000......let's just deal with it and forget the rest.

[Rev Ed]

I am of the view that either you have a By-law or you don't. There should be no reason why a delay in using the 11th Edition of RONR would be necessary - and I am of the opinion that if you don't want to follow the By-law as written then you need to amend it. There is no point amending it just to amend it back again a few months later.

[Shmuel Gerber]

And, let's be honest, EVERYONE (sans the fab 5) is going to have a learning curve with the new edition, the way they did in 2000......let's just deal with it and forget the rest.

The truth is, I sympathize somewhat with the concern that led to Mr. Elsman's question, because it is reasonable for people to want to know what the rules are before they are bound by them. However, that concern is mostly theoretical. In actuality, I think what you'll find in the new edition, in the vast majority of places where there is a change, is a clearer statement that accords with what good parliamentarians would have advised under the 10th edition anyway.

[Chris Harrison]

Do we know what date RONR/11 will be available to the public?

[Shmuel Gerber]

Do we know what date RONR/11 will be available to the public?

The official publication date for the new editions of RONR as well as RONR In Brief is September 27, 2011. Pre-orders can be submitted via the links below, and copies are also scheduled to be available at the National Association of Parliamentarians convention in Florida, September 23-26.

11th ed. paperback:

http://www.amazon.co...d/dp/030682020X

http://search.barnes...e/9780306820205

11th ed. hardcover:

http://www.amazon.co...d/dp/0306820218

http://search.barnes...e/9780306820212

deluxe 11th ed. leatherbound:

http://www.amazon.co...e/dp/0306820226

http://search.barnes...e/9780306820229

In Brief, 2nd ed.:

http://www.amazon.co...d/dp/0306820196

http://search.barnes...e/9780306820199

[Josh Martin]

I am of the view that either you have a By-law or you don't.

It's not that simple. While I agree that a proviso is unnecessary in this case, provisos to facilitate transitions are common and often quite useful.

There is no point amending it just to amend it back again a few months later.

That's what the proviso is for (although again, I agree that is is likely unnecessary in this case).

[Rob Elsman]

Nope. Place your advance order right now.

I think I am tending away from "nope". I think the case is no different than if the 10th edition had been inline in the bylaws and was being replaced by the 11th edition inline with a proviso that the new wording would be in effect at some future, fixed date. Not so?

[Shmuel Gerber]

I think I am tending away from "nope". I think the case is no different than if the 10th edition had been inline in the bylaws and was being replaced by the 11th edition inline with a proviso that the new wording would be in effect at some future, fixed date. Not so?

I don't see how the society can comply with the applicable provisions for amending the bylaws if they are not amending the bylaws.

[J. J.]

I think I am tending away from "nope". I think the case is no different than if the 10th edition had been inline in the bylaws and was being replaced by the 11th edition inline with a proviso that the new wording would be in effect at some future, fixed date. Not so?

You could amend your bylaws to set a future time for the 11th edition to become the parliamentary authority without problems.

You might be able (with some exceptions) to suspend the rules for a session to use the tenth edition. Obviously, you could not suspend some types of rules, and any changes in the 11th edition that are in the unsuspendable rule category could not be suspended. Rules of Order are arguably rules in the nature of a rule of order included in the bylaws.

[Josh Martin]

You might be able (with some exceptions) to suspend the rules for a session to use the tenth edition.

I don't think you could. That does not seem to fit with the purpose of the motion to Suspend the Rules - to do something that cannot normally be accomplished under the rules. Using it to suspend whole categories of rules does not seem proper.

[Sean Hunt]

"The parliamentary authority of the Society is Roberts Rules of Order, Newly Revised.

Notwithstanding anything in the parliamentary authority, the 10th edition shall be used prior to $DATE. After $DATE, the President can amend the bylaws by removing this paragraph by announcing such at a meeting, notwithstanding the usual procedure for amendment of the bylaws."

[J. J.]

I don't think you could. That does not seem to fit with the purpose of the motion to Suspend the Rules - to do something that cannot normally be accomplished under the rules. Using it to suspend whole categories of rules does not seem proper.

As pointed out previously, General Robert permitted the rules to be suspended for the duration of the session, in Parliamentary Practice. I think he used amend as an example. RONR does currently as well. Even under the incidental motion to suspend notes that "the particular rule or rules to be suspended are not mention (p. 253, l. 24)." So you can suspend a whole category of rules.

Suppose, totally hypothetically, that the 11th edition just has these changes:

A. Lay on the Table may be used to kill a motion by majority vote.

B. Tertiary amendments are permitted.

C. A motion to take from the table may be raised at any point during the meeting.

D. The vote needed to amend a special rule of order shall be a 2/3 vote with notice (no MEM option).

E. Postpone Indefinitely is no longer permitted.

It is in order (assuming there is no change in the motion to suspend the rules) for an incident main motion to be adopted "to suspend the rules for the duration of the session that interfere with the rules in RONR 10th edition as they relate to A." You could do the same for A, B, C, and E.

I don't see a fundamental problem with an IMM, "to suspend the rules in the parliamentary authority that are capable of being suspended and interfere with using the rules the rules of order in RONR 10th edition for the duration of the session." That would cover A, B, C, and E as well.

There are some drawbacks. The suspension ends when the session ends. Some rules in RONR 11 are probably not capable of being suspended.

Likewise, if the society had specified using RONR 10 in the bylaws, the rules could be suspended to use the 11th edition under the same condition.

BTW: That makes an assumption that the nature of the motion Suspend the Rules has not changed.

[J. J.]

"The parliamentary authority of the Society is Roberts Rules of Order, Newly Revised.

Notwithstanding anything in the parliamentary authority, the 10th edition shall be used prior to $DATE. After $DATE, the President can amend the bylaws by removing this paragraph by announcing such at a meeting, notwithstanding the usual procedure for amendment of the bylaws."

Unless that was in the bylaws, the motion would be null and void.

[Shmuel Gerber]

As pointed out previously, General Robert permitted the rules to be suspended for the duration of the session, in Parliamentary Practice. I think he used amend as an example. RONR does currently as well. Even under the incidental motion to suspend notes that "the particular rule or rules to be suspended are not mention (p. 253, l. 24)." So you can suspend a whole category of rules.

Suppose, totally hypothetically, that the 11th edition just has these changes:

...

If you really want to pursue this question, then instead of making up (nonsense) examples, you can use the example of the 10th edition when it had just recently superseded the 9th.

[Sean Hunt]

Unless that was in the bylaws, the motion would be null and void.

Of course. It would definitely have to be put into the bylaws.

[J. J.]

If you really want to pursue this question, then instead of making up (nonsense) examples, you can use the example of the 10th edition when it had just recently superseded the 9th.

Okay, but several people on this thread may not be familiar with the 9th edition. I tried to pick several examples that would probably (and hopefully) not be in the 11th edition.

Let's take it in reverse. The 10th edition has been adopted. 2/3 of the members wish to, for this meeting, wish to use the 9th edition. The could adopt an IMM "to suspend the rules in the parliamentary authority that are capable of being suspended and interfere with using the rules the rules of order in RONR 9th edition for the duration of the session."

In such a case,

A. A rescind a motion in the nature of a contract is out of order.

B. Have a ballot voting for or against a candidate would be in order.

However, if the bylaws require 10 days notice for a special meeting, notice sent out on 9/1 for a special meeting to be held on 9/10 would not be valid, even though it might be regarded as 10 days notice under the 9th edition.

There would also be some other things that could be subject to a point of order, possibly well taken, if the 9th edition is used, that would be clearly not well taken under the 10th.

For example, it could be claimed that custom of the assembly supersedes the rule in the parliamentary authority (though I would not so find). It could also be claimed that waiving the secrecy of a ballot was impossible, so a motion adopted by ballot votes could not be reconsidered, solely on the ground that the original vote of the maker could not be determined.

[George Mervosh]

Why does this need to be complicated?

[J. J.]

Why does this need to be complicated?

I was trying to use something a bit more hypothetical. RONR 11 is, for any group, hypothetical at this point. It won't be 9/27/11.

Could a society that has adopted the current edition adopt an IMM, "to suspend the rules in the parliamentary authority that are capable of being suspended and interfere with using the rules of order in RONR 9th edition for the duration of the session." I cannot come up with any solid reason for ruling the motion out of order.

Likewise, could the Society that has specifically adopted the 9th edition of RONR adopt a motion "to suspend the rules in the parliamentary authority that are capable of being suspended and interfere with using the rules of order in RONR 10th edition for the duration of the session." I cannot come up with any solid reason for ruling the motion out of order, either.

I would note that in both cases, some rules could not be suspended. Many rules would be identical.

[George Mervosh]

When the 11th hits the streets I'll only be immediately concerned with any material change that would incur the wrath of what now is p. 244 a. through e.

[J. J.]

When the 11th hits the streets I'll only be immediately concerned with any material change that would incur the wrath of what now is p. 244 a. through e.

Unless I was in a meeting at about the time, pp. 244, 255 would be my principle concerns.