Suspendable rule of order placed within the by-laws

[Guest Dan]

My question involves a governmental body subject to the open meetings law, hence, the wording related to advance notice of the meeting and open and closed session.

Here's the exact wording from the by-law.

The meeting agenda, prepared 10 days in advance, will indicate which portions of the meeting will be open or closed.

I am wondering whether RONR 10th Edition, page 17, lines 22-24 applies:

Rules clearly identifiable as in the nature of rules of order that are placed whitin the by-laws can also be suspended by a two-thirds vote;

I am not seeking an interpretation of the cited by-law, rather some guidance as to how the rule on page 17 applies to this by-law. In other words, how do you know when a rule is "clearly identifiable as in the nature of rules of order?"

[Guest Edgar]

In other words, how do you know when a rule is "clearly identifiable as in the nature of rules of order?"

In some cases you don't know. But if you assume that a particular rule (such as a rule requiring previous notice) can't be suspended, you'll be right most of the time.

[J. J.]

My question involves a governmental body subject to the open meetings law, hence, the wording related to advance notice of the meeting and open and closed session.

Here's the exact wording from the by-law.

The meeting agenda, prepared 10 days in advance, will indicate which portions of the meeting will be open or closed.

I am wondering whether RONR 10th Edition, page 17, lines 22-24 applies:

Rules clearly identifiable as in the nature of rules of order that are placed whitin the by-laws can also be suspended by a two-thirds vote;

I am not seeking an interpretation of the cited by-law, rather some guidance as to how the rule on page 17 applies to this by-law. In other words, how do you know when a rule is "clearly identifiable as in the nature of rules of order?"

I would say that this is an unsuspendable rule. It creates a right a right for absentee members, in theory. A member not wanting to attend an open session, where none of the interesting stuff happens, could look at the agenda and say, "No executive session, I think I'll stay home." As such, it is a rule protecting absentees, (pp. 263-4).

As these are public meetings, the principle would apply to nonmember guests as well, if not the actual rule.

[Gary c Tesser]

As Guest Edgar says, sometimes you don't know. But I'll point out that if you don't know, then you're in doubt; and if you're in doubt, then the object you're looking at is not clearly identifiable.

Whew! So far simple enough. But let's look on. I'll occasionally be dipping into RONR's 11th Edition, whose version of the quotation that Original Poster Guest Dan provided from the 10th Edition now appears on p. 17, lines 22 - 24, in substantially identical form. If we turn back a page or two, we see the pseudo- or semi- or quasi-definition of rules of order, which says that they relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings, &c. So you ask yourself, or someone else, or your aspidistra if you're so inclined, whether the rule in question relates to that transaction of business in meetings, &c.

From this, I can confidently say that the preparation of an agenda ten days before the meeting, or of anything else, or any related activity, especially feeding the crocodiles so that they will be sleepy and inactive and inert during the meeting after spending a week and a half snacking on tenderloin of irritating board member ... I say, activity that takes place outside of a meeting context* is something to which rules of order do not apply.

(I might ask whether that agenda is also required to be distributed to the membership. If it's not, then J. J's objection to the rule's suspendability is likely rebutted. But then what would be the purpose of the rule at all? Or I might not ask, as this ventures into an area of interpreting Guest Dan's bylaws, which I have not seen. Which would be imprudent for me.)

___________

* Strange phrasing that -- "a meeting context" -- eh? I have only seen it in RONR, and in discussions of RONR. You, Dan?

[Gary c Tesser]

One other thing: we don't give advice on this, the world's premier Internet parliamentary forum, about complying with open meetings law, or any other kind, or consequences of running afoul of it. Come to think of it, as Robert Silverberg said in Pittsburgh around 1972, "- in fact I've been in Brooklyn all weekend .-"

[Guest Edgar]

So you ask yourself, or someone else, or your aspidistra if you're so inclined, whether the rule in question relates to that transaction of business in meetings, &c.

And then you remind yourself that even if a rule is clearly identifiable as being in the nature of rules of order it might not be suspendable.

[J. J.]

(I might ask whether that agenda is also required to be distributed to the membership. If it's not, then J. J's objection to the rule's suspendability is likely rebutted. But then what would be the purpose of the rule at all? Or I might not ask, as this ventures into an area of interpreting Guest Dan's bylaws, which I have not seen. Which would be imprudent for me.)

___________

Gary, the initial quote indicated that this involved notice:

My question involves a governmental body subject to the open meetings law, hence, the wording related to advance notice of the meeting and open and closed session.

Here's the exact wording from the by-law.

The meeting agenda, prepared 10 days in advance, will indicate which portions of the meeting will be open or closed.

If I were pressed, I would have to conclude that this rule protects all absentees, if the agenda is accessible to the public in general. It protects anyone in the general population that wants to attend the meeting and that subset of the population, the members of the organization. I would note that where there is discussion of violations that create breaches of a continuing nature (p. 251, ll. 20-21) and rules that cannot be suspended (pp. 263-64), the term "absentees" is used, but not the term "absentee member."

This might be one of those rare cases where a rule creates a nonmember right.

[Guest Dan]

Gary, the initial quote indicated that this involved notice:

If I were pressed, I would have to conclude that this rule protects all absentees, if the agenda is accessible to the public in general. It protects anyone in the general population that wants to attend the meeting and that subset of the population, the members of the organization. I would note that where there is discussion of violations that create breaches of a continuing nature (p. 251, ll. 20-21) and rules that cannot be suspended (pp. 263-64), the term "absentees" is used, but not the term "absentee member."

This might be one of those rare cases where a rule creates a nonmember right.

So, if a motion were adopted that was in violation of the by-laws this would likely be considered a continuing breach subject to a point of order up until the action proposed in the motion is taken (assuming the action cannot be undone)?

[J. J.]

So, if a motion were adopted that was in violation of the by-laws this would likely be considered a continuing breach subject to a point of order up until the action proposed in the motion is taken (assuming the action cannot be undone)?

The motion to go into executive session would be a continuing breach until you left executive session, from a procedural standpoint.

You are talking this bylaw only applying to what "type" of session you were in, not to the actions taking place within that executive session. A legal standpoint may be different, but that is a legal question.

[Gary c Tesser]

The motion to go into executive session would be a continuing breach until you left executive session, from a procedural standpoint.

You are talking this bylaw only applying to what "type" of session you were in, not to the actions taking place within that executive session. A legal standpoint may be different, but that is a legal question.

O JJ, our first quarrel.

[J. J.]

O JJ, our first quarrel.

It may not be if you look at the other example. Notice is required for the executive session.