Divide between standing rules and special rules of order

[Sean Hunt]

Hey there,

I'm looking for some advice on the division between standing rules and special rules of order and hoping you folks could provide some advice.

I'm currently drafting a length set of rules for an organization which detail an election procedure to be overseen by a committee, since election at a meeting is sadly not feasible. The committee is to be given a sufficiently wide array of power to act (including to start by-elections of its own initiative) that I believe that this would not be in order as merely a standing rule.

The rules, however, are mostly rules that are not in the nature of rules of order and thus could, on their own, be standing rules.

Is it in order to adopt the entire thing as a special rule of order? Can it be adopted in such a way as to make only those provisions which must be special rules of order, and the rest standing rules, even though they are grouped together? The document reads much nicer that way.

[Dan Honemann]

Hey there,

I'm looking for some advice on the division between standing rules and special rules of order and hoping you folks could provide some advice.

I'm currently drafting a length set of rules for an organization which detail an election procedure to be overseen by a committee, since election at a meeting is sadly not feasible. The committee is to be given a sufficiently wide array of power to act (including to start by-elections of its own initiative) that I believe that this would not be in order as merely a standing rule.

The rules, however, are mostly rules that are not in the nature of rules of order and thus could, on their own, be standing rules.

Is it in order to adopt the entire thing as a special rule of order? Can it be adopted in such a way as to make only those provisions which must be special rules of order, and the rest standing rules, even though they are grouped together? The document reads much nicer that way.

I'm not entirely clear on exactly what it is you are doing, but an organization certainly can adopt a set of rules which contains a mixture of both special rules of order and ordinary standing rules. The vote required for adoption would be that required for the adoption of a special rule of order. You might want to compare what you have in mind to the procedure which is followed in the adoption of convention standing rules (RONR, !!th ed., pp. 619-20)

[Burke Balch]

I would only add that it makes a difference what is meant by "election at a meeting is sadly not feasible." RONR (11th ed.), p. 423, ll. 17-24, states, "It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the right to vote is limited to the members of an organization who are actually present at the time the vote is taken in a regular or properly called meeting, although it should be noted that a member need not be present when the question is put. Exceptions to this rule must be expressly stated in the bylaws. Such possible exceptions include: (a) voting by postal mail, e-mail, or fax, . . . ."

If all that is meant is that, during a meeting, members or delegates cast their ballots, and the process of counting them, officially determining and announcing the results and even, when a majority is not achieved, directing and conducting a re-ballot, is delegated to an election committee, instead of being handled by the standard process of tellers collecting and counting the ballots and reporting the count in a tellers' report to the meeting followed by an announcement of the result by the meeting chair, then special rules of order would be sufficient to authorize such procedures.

If, however, what is meant is that the election process is to take part wholly disconnected from a meeting, perhaps by postal or electronic mail, then authorization for such a process must be included in the bylaws. Certainly the bylaws need not (and, indeed, should not) specify all the details of the procedure, but they must provide clear authorization for it so that the details may then be specified by a mix of special rules of order and standing rules. Cf. RONR (11th ed.), p. 16 n.

[Sean Hunt]

I'm not entirely clear on exactly what it is you are doing, but an organization certainly can adopt a set of rules which contains a mixture of both special rules of order and ordinary standing rules. The vote required for adoption would be that required for the adoption of a special rule of order. You might want to compare what you have in mind to the procedure which is followed in the adoption of convention standing rules (RONR, !!th ed., pp. 619-20)

Excellent example, thank you.

If, however, what is meant is that the election process is to take part wholly disconnected from a meeting, perhaps by postal or electronic mail, then authorization for such a process must be included in the bylaws. Certainly the bylaws need not (and, indeed, should not) specify all the details of the procedure, but they must provide clear authorization for it so that the details may then be specified by a mix of special rules of order and standing rules. Cf. RONR (11th ed.), p. 16 n.

Of course.