Rob Elsman Posted October 9, 2011 at 02:02 AM Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 at 02:02 AM A rule restricting renewal of a main motion does not conflict with the basic rights of individual members, for a combination of two reasons: (1) It applies equally to all members; and (2) It simply raises the voting threshold, in the case of motions that have been rejected within some specified earlier period, required to permit a question to be considered from about one-third (which is required to defeat an objection to consideration) to two-thirds (which is required to suspend the rule).I don't agree. The proposed rule simply relates to the procedure for renewal of motions, and makes a specific change in the default rules regarding one aspect of the freedom of each new session. It does not redefine anything.The same could be said about a rule of order that redefines what constitutes a session; yet, RONR (11th ed.), p. 83, ll. 30-32, specifically requires that such a rule must be included in the bylaws. See also RONR (11th ed.), p. 16, footnote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted October 9, 2011 at 02:41 AM Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 at 02:41 AM The same could be said about a rule of order that redefines what constitutes a session; yet, RONR (11th ed.), p. 83, ll. 30-32, specifically requires that such a rule must be included in the bylaws. See also RONR (11th ed.), p. 16, footnote.No, the same could not be said for redefining what constitutes a session, as that redefines the term on a global basis, which is specifically what RONR says cannot be done except in the bylaws. Actually, such a redefinition would not be a rule of order at all, which is one of the reasons why the authorship team for the 11th edition, when reviewing all requirements in RONR for bylaws-level rules, left intact the requirement that such a rule must be in the bylaws to be effective and also replaced the phrase "a special rule in the bylaws" with simply "the bylaws" in the sentence (p.83, ll. 30-32) that you have so aptly referred to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted October 9, 2011 at 03:10 AM Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 at 03:10 AM The same could be said about a rule of order that redefines what constitutes a session; yet, RONR (11th ed.), p. 83, ll. 30-32, specifically requires that such a rule must be included in the bylaws. See also RONR (11th ed.), p. 16, footnote.No, the same could not be said for redefining what constitutes a session, as that redefines the term on a global basis, which is specifically what RONR says cannot be done except in the bylaws. Actually, such a redefinition would not be a rule of order at all, which is one of the reasons why the authorship team for the 11th edition, when reviewing all requirements in RONR for bylaws-level rules, left intact the requirement that such a rule must be in the bylaws to be effective and also replaced the phrase "a special rule in the bylaws" with simply "the bylaws" in the sentence (p.83, ll. 30-32) that you have so aptly referred to.Could, while not redefining a session, a special rule be adopted to permit something to be postponed to a session beyond the quarterly time interval.(I would normally question the advisability of adopting such a rule.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted October 9, 2011 at 03:12 AM Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 at 03:12 AM No, the same could not be said for redefining what constitutes a session, as that redefines the term on a global basis, which is specifically what RONR says cannot be done except in the bylaws. Actually, such a redefinition would not be a rule of order at all, which is one of the reasons why the authorship team for the 11th edition, when reviewing all requirements in RONR for bylaws-level rules, left intact the requirement that such a rule must be in the bylaws to be effective and also replaced the phrase "a special rule in the bylaws" with simply "the bylaws" in the sentence (p.83, ll. 30-32) that you have so aptly referred to.I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think Dr. Stackpole has this exactly right. Nevertheless, if this discussion can prod the authors to give the subsection beginning on p. 263 another whack for the next edition, I will be pleased. The corresponding section in the 10th edition was troublesome, and I suspect this one will prove to be no less so.As for what is, or is not, a rule of order--always a troublesome thing on this forum--the definition in RONR (11th ed.), p. 15, is insufficient to make a definite circumscription possible. It's an odd thing to have to say, but we have a book of rules of order that does not yet adequately define what they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted October 9, 2011 at 03:28 AM Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 at 03:28 AM I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think Dr. Stackpole has this exactly right. Nevertheless, if this discussion can prod the authors to give the subsection beginning on p. 263 another whack for the next edition, I will be pleased. The corresponding section in the 10th edition was troublesome, and I suspect this one will prove to be no less so.Frankly, it seems very clear that a special rule can prevent a motion or type of motion from being introduced in the next session, even if beyond the quarterly time interval. It also seems obvious that there are many circumstances where a member cannot make a particular motion, without impinging on any individual right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted October 9, 2011 at 03:35 AM Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 at 03:35 AM Frankly, it seems very clear that a special rule can prevent a motion or type of motion from being introduced in the next session, even if beyond the quarterly time interval. It also seems obvious that there are many circumstances where a member cannot make a particular motion, without impinging on any individual right.Is it your opinion that a special rule of order not included in the bylaws can prohibit the making of motions to amend the bylaws except at the annual meeting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted October 9, 2011 at 04:04 AM Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 at 04:04 AM Is it your opinion that a special rule of order not included in the bylaws can prohibit the making of motions to amend the bylaws except at the annual meeting?For what it's worth from a WannaBe, I don't think a rule that specifies when amendments to the bylaws can be made is a rule of order at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanh49 Posted October 9, 2011 at 04:16 AM Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 at 04:16 AM Is it your opinion that a special rule of order not included in the bylaws can prohibit the making of motions to amend the bylaws except at the annual meeting?IMO If the bylaws do not say how they can be amended yes because in that case you're just changing the default rule for amending bylaws that do not provided for their amendment. But if they do provided for their amendment no because any such special rule of order would conflict with the bylaws and be null and void for that reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted October 9, 2011 at 04:43 AM Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 at 04:43 AM Is it your opinion that a special rule of order not included in the bylaws can prohibit the making of motions to amend the bylaws except at the annual meeting?Do the bylaws specify how they are amended?I think in the absence of such a clause, a special rule could be adopted to provide how bylaws are amended (though it would generally be impractical to do so). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hunt Posted October 9, 2011 at 04:59 AM Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 at 04:59 AM I think it would depend on how the bylaws were worded and/or other context. For instance, if the bylaws said "General meetings can amend the bylaws by two-thirds vote", I might be viewed more simply as granting the power generally to general meetings. If by contrast they said "The bylaws can be amended at any general meeting by two-thirds vote", I would view that a restriction on a bylaw amendment taking place at a specific meeting would be null and void. I think that interpreting a rule in the bylaws defining the amendment procedure too broadly could lead to disastrous consequences, such as a rule like "Any member may move the adoption of a bylaw amendment at any general meeting" being interpreted as overriding the prohibition against renewing motions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted October 9, 2011 at 06:58 AM Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 at 06:58 AM The Previous Question can't be moved immediately after the question has been stated if the maker wants to make a speech to open the debate, since the maker of a main motion has preference in recognition, RONR (11th ed.), p. 379, ll. 10-13.Point well taken...Replace "immediately move P.Q." with "immediately move Object to Consideration".Even if Charley does get the floor (nobody moves "Object") the whole thing will still be simpler than all the parliamentary rewriting of the rules and concern over whether the rewrite belongs in the bylaws. (I know, I know, Charley could talk for ten minutes, but that is highly unlikely.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted October 9, 2011 at 11:47 AM Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 at 11:47 AM Thanks to all who have responded so far to my question. My take-away from all this discussion it that it seems to me that Shmuel has it right.Just keep this "Shmuel has it right" concept in mind at all times and your apprenticeship on the road to becoming a genuine parliamentarian will be easier and of substantially shorter duration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted October 9, 2011 at 03:29 PM Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 at 03:29 PM Frankly, it seems very clear that a special rule can prevent a motion or type of motion from being introduced in the next session, even if beyond the quarterly time interval. It also seems obvious that there are many circumstances where a member cannot make a particular motion, without impinging on any individual right.Is it your opinion that a special rule of order not included in the bylaws can prohibit the making of motions to amend the bylaws except at the annual meeting?Rob,That is an interesting question, but as can be seen from the responses posted already, it is very different from the original question posed in this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted October 9, 2011 at 03:32 PM Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 at 03:32 PM Could, while not redefining a session, a special rule be adopted to permit something to be postponed to a session beyond the quarterly time interval.(I would normally question the advisability of adopting such a rule.)That's another interesting yet perhaps slightly different question. But I don't see why not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted October 9, 2011 at 03:40 PM Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 at 03:40 PM Just keep this "Shmuel has it right" concept in mind at all times and your apprenticeship on the road to becoming a genuine parliamentarian will be easier and of substantially shorter duration.Thank you, Dan. Of course, I do appreciate Rob Elsman's well-articulated dissents, which help keep us all on our toes and in good fighting shape.As for Dr. Stackpole's views, I liked it better when he was of two minds on the question -- that way at least one of them might have been right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.