Sean Hunt Posted January 12, 2012 at 04:54 PM Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 at 04:54 PM Is a rule adopting a parliamentary authority suspendable?For instance, suppose that it has long been the practice of an organization without a parliamentary authority to take certain significant votes by mail ballot, without explicit bylaw authorization. The organization as a whole considers this to be an allowable and acceptable practice.Upon the suggestion of a few members, RONR is adopted as a parliamentary authority by special rule of order. Now, under RONR, such mail ballot votes are forbidden, even though the organization normally considers them to be legal. Is the rule adopting RONR as a parliamentary authority suspendable, or would any exceptions to the scope of its adoption have to be made by amending the special rule of order? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted January 12, 2012 at 05:16 PM Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 at 05:16 PM You can't suspend the whole parliamentary authority because there are many things within it that can't be suspended when you're bound by it. The SRO could be rescinded though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted January 12, 2012 at 05:39 PM Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 at 05:39 PM You can't suspend the whole parliamentary authority because there are many things within it that can't be suspended when you're bound by it. The SRO could be rescinded though.It's been my understanding that when you Suspend the Rules, the particular rule is not specified but rather the action to be taken, which is prevented by one or more rules, is included in the motion. Thus a motion to "Suspend the Rules to allow mail balloting" would seem to be appropriate, as the whole of RONR is not being suspended, just the rule regarding mail ballots.On the other side (he says as the voices in his head compete), since mail balloting is not something that would normally occur during a meeting, can a rule that covers out-of-meeting actions be suspended?I hate when I argue with myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted January 12, 2012 at 05:47 PM Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 at 05:47 PM David, Sean's question was "Is the rule adopting RONR as a parliamentary authority suspendable," I think the answer is clearly, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted January 12, 2012 at 06:03 PM Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 at 06:03 PM George - okay, I'll go along with that. I guess I was reading between the lines to the real question, which is (or I suspect is) how to authorize mail balloting without amending the bylaws, since it is prohibited in the recently adopted parliamentary authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted January 12, 2012 at 06:16 PM Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 at 06:16 PM George - okay, I'll go along with that. I guess I was reading between the lines to the real question, which is (or I suspect is) how to authorize mail balloting without amending the bylaws, since it is prohibited in the recently adopted parliamentary authority.You can't suspend the rules to authorize absentee voting when RONR is the parliamentary authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted January 12, 2012 at 06:33 PM Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 at 06:33 PM how to authorize mail balloting without amending the bylaws, since it is prohibited in the recently adopted parliamentary authority.I think the only way you could do so would be to amend the bylaws to remove RONR as the parliamentary authority and replace it with one that allows mail voting without a bylaw provision authorizing it (if one even exists). Of course, if you are going to go to that amount of trouble you might as well just keep RONR and add the authoriization to the bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hunt Posted January 12, 2012 at 06:52 PM Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 at 06:52 PM I think the only way you could do so would be to amend the bylaws to remove RONR as the parliamentary authority and replace it with one that allows mail voting without a bylaw provision authorizing it (if one even exists). Of course, if you are going to go to that amount of trouble you might as well just keep RONR and add the authoriization to the bylaws.Why would amending the bylaws be necessary here? The rule adopting RONR is a special rule of order, and thus could be rescinded by the rules applicable to special rules of order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted January 12, 2012 at 06:59 PM Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 at 06:59 PM Why would amending the bylaws be necessary here? The rule adopting RONR is a special rule of order, and thus could be rescinded by the rules applicable to special rules of order.That is true the SRO could be Rescinded. However, if my memory doesn't fail me absent some adopted parliamentary authority the default rules is the common parliamentary law which is pretty much what RONR was developed from. If that is the case I would imagine that mail voting is still not permitted and so the adoption of a more permissive parliamentary authoriity would be required in order to have mail voting without bylaw authorization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted January 13, 2012 at 12:23 AM Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 at 12:23 AM In theory, you could treat suspension of the rules as being "suspension of all the rules within the rules within the parliamentary authority that can otherwise be suspended that interefer with _____ ." Absentee voting is not one of those rules "that can otherwise be suspended." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted January 13, 2012 at 12:58 AM Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 at 12:58 AM ... I'm thinking ... I'm inventing the thin ice here as I step out onto a creaking limb ... if the establishment of the parliamentary authority is on the level of rules of order, then to some extent (please don't ask me how much), the authority of the PA is only on the level of rules of order.(I think that as Mr Mervosh says, in the first sentence of post 2, the answer to Mr Hunt's initial question is simply no.However ... although my reflex is to figure that disagreeing with George generally, and post 6 in particular, is a bad idea, this one intrigues me, and not only because of its naughtiness. Since Rescind, which George endorses, is one form of two, could not the special rule that adopted RONR be amended, as Mr Hunt asks? For that matter, could it not have been worded when it was adopted, so as to add after the boilerplate, for example, "-except that mail balloting is peachy-"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted January 13, 2012 at 01:38 AM Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 at 01:38 AM I'm thinking ... I'm inventing the thin ice here as I step out onto a creaking limb ... if the establishment of the parliamentary authority is on the level of rules of order, then to some extent (please don't ask me how much), the authority of the PA is only on the level of rules of order.(I think that as Mr Mervosh says, in the first sentence of post 2, the answer to Mr Hunt's initial question is simply no.However ... although my reflex is to figure that disagreeing with George generally, and post 6 in particular, is a bad idea, this one intrigues me, and not only because of its naughtiness. Since Rescind, which George endorses, is one form of two, could not the special rule that adopted RONR be amended, as Mr Hunt asks? For that matter, could it not have been worded when it was adopted, so as to add after the boilerplate, for example, "-except that mail balloting is peachy-"?Gary I think absentee voting needs a bylaw level rule to be peachy...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted January 13, 2012 at 02:44 AM Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 at 02:44 AM However ... although my reflex is to figure that disagreeing with George generally, and post 6 in particular, is a bad idea, this one intrigues me, and not only because of its naughtiness. Since Rescind, which George endorses, is one form of two, could not the special rule that adopted RONR be amended, as Mr Hunt asks? For that matter, could it not have been worded when it was adopted, so as to add after the boilerplate, for example, "-except that mail balloting is peachy-"?I'm not sure what you are specifically talking about, but I think I understand your point.Let's assume that we are talking about RONR. In the rule that adopts RONR, you could have a clause that says: "... except that rules permitting absentee voting may be adopted by a special rule." No matter the level of the rule, this would supersede RONR, so long as it is at the same (or higher) level as the rule adopting RONR. It is tatamount to only adopting part of RONR. The alternative is not adopting RONR.Certainly, the society could amend the rule adopting the parliamentary authority and replace it with a different parliamentary authority (even one written specifically for the society), one which would permit something less than a rule in the bylaws to authorize absentee voting. I would question the wisdom of doing so, but it would be in order.Is this your point Gary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 13, 2012 at 03:04 AM Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 at 03:04 AM Is a rule adopting a parliamentary authority suspendable?Not in its entirety, no, since not all the rules within the authority are suspendable.Is the rule adopting RONR as a parliamentary authority suspendable, or would any exceptions to the scope of its adoption have to be made by amending the special rule of order?The rule adopting RONR as the parliamentary authority is not suspendable, especially when the true aim is to suspend another unsuspendable rule. As for amending the special rules... well, that's a murky issue.Thus a motion to "Suspend the Rules to allow mail balloting" would seem to be appropriate, as the whole of RONR is not being suspended, just the rule regarding mail ballots.On the other side (he says as the voices in his head compete), since mail balloting is not something that would normally occur during a meeting, can a rule that covers out-of-meeting actions be suspended?A motion to "Suspend the rules and permit mail balloting" is out of order because it occurs outside of a meeting context and it would suspend a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, neither of which is permissible under a motion to Suspend the Rules.I guess I was reading between the lines to the real question, which is (or I suspect is) how to authorize mail balloting without amending the bylaws, since it is prohibited in the recently adopted parliamentary authority.There is no way to authorize mail balloting except by a provision in the Bylaws.Why would amending the bylaws be necessary here? The rule adopting RONR is a special rule of order, and thus could be rescinded by the rules applicable to special rules of order.Well, certainly nothing in RONR can stop a society from adopting a rule when the society has not adopted RONR as its parliamentary authorityIf the society desires to adopt a mail vote without authorization in the Bylaws, however, it would be highly advisable to consult a lawyer first. Organizations with no parliamentary authority are still bound by the common parliamentary law, and violating the more fundamental provisions of the common parliamentary law can sometimes lead to legal trouble. As to what the common parliamentary law is, RONR is often considered to be persuasive, and the rule in question is hardly unique to RONR.Since Rescind, which George endorses, is one form of two, could not the special rule that adopted RONR be amended, as Mr Hunt asks? For that matter, could it not have been worded when it was adopted, so as to add after the boilerplate, for example, "-except that mail balloting is peachy-"?Well... RONR states that the rule in question may only be adopted by a rule in the Bylaws, however, if RONR is adopted as a special rule of order it is questionable whether this rule is enforceable. In any event, be sure to keep in mind the same caveats I mentioned above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted January 13, 2012 at 03:33 AM Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 at 03:33 AM Well... RONR states that the rule in question may only be adopted by a rule in the Bylaws, however, if RONR is adopted as a special rule of order it is questionable whether this rule is enforceable. In any event, be sure to keep in mind the same caveats I mentioned above.I think the rule would be just as enforceable. The question is, would the rule still exist, within the society? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 13, 2012 at 04:04 AM Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 at 04:04 AM I think the rule would be just as enforceable. The question is, would the rule still exist, within the society?Well, fair enough, and I believe the answer to this is unclear. Your last post on the subject certainly seems quite reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted January 13, 2012 at 06:14 AM Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 at 06:14 AM Well, fair enough, and I believe the answer to this is unclear. Your last post on the subject certainly seems quite reasonable.The question is that, with the bylaw languaged I described, and perhaps Gary described, is there still that rule in the rules of the assembly? I would say no, and I'm one of the people that held that the rule cannot be adopted by a special rule (and that there may be an unstated FPPL involved).In otherwords, in this situation, the rules might permit absentee voting to be "just peachy." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 13, 2012 at 12:03 PM Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 at 12:03 PM If the society desires to adopt a mail vote without authorization in the Bylaws, however, it would be highly advisable to consult a lawyer first. Organizations with no parliamentary authority are still bound by the common parliamentary law, and violating the more fundamental provisions of the common parliamentary law can sometimes lead to legal trouble. As to what the common parliamentary law is, RONR is often considered to be persuasive, and the rule in question is hardly unique to RONR.I agree that it is always highly advisable to consult a lawyer. In this connection, however, unless one suffers from a basic misunderstanding of what is meant by the terms "parliamentary law" and "common parliamentary law", the purpose of the consultation will be to determine whether or not there are any applicable constitutional or statutory provisions governing the question involved. For an understanding of what is meant by the terms "parliamentary law" and "common parliamentary law", I suggest a very careful reading of the first part of the Introduction to RONR, and also a careful reading of the first part of the Introduction to both the 1876 and 1915 Editions.If not restricted by the rules of a parent body, an association or organization of any kind may adopt whatever rules of procedure it wishes for the governance of its meetings, whether it finds them in any book or simply makes them up out of whole cloth, provided that such rules do not violate the constitutional rights of any of its members or conflict with any federal, state, or local statutes or ordinances which are applicable to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted January 13, 2012 at 06:30 PM Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 at 06:30 PM I have simple solution: Amend the By-laws to add RONR as your parliamentary authority and to specifically allow for ballot by mail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted January 13, 2012 at 06:36 PM Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 at 06:36 PM ". . . to determine whether or not there are any applicable constitutional or statuary provisions governing the question involved. . . ."You mean, as in a statue of limitations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted January 13, 2012 at 07:36 PM Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 at 07:36 PM You mean, as in a statue of limitations? Justice is not only blind, but needs a spell checker (like I should talk). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 13, 2012 at 08:03 PM Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 at 08:03 PM You mean, as in a statue of limitations? Okay, wise guys, I fixed it (I hope). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Britton Posted January 13, 2012 at 08:27 PM Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 at 08:27 PM In an organization that hasn't adopted a parliamentary authority and is a Non-profit Corporation in a state that generally provides for majority vote (at a meeting) and unanimous written consent (outside of a meeting), mail ballot voting would generally be prohibited, unless provided for somewhere else in the statute or bylaws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 14, 2012 at 04:56 PM Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 at 04:56 PM In this connection, however, unless one suffers from a basic misunderstanding of what is meant by the terms "parliamentary law" and "common parliamentary law", the purpose of the consultation will be to determine whether or not there are any applicable constitutional or statutory provisions governing the question involved. For an understanding of what is meant by the terms "parliamentary law" and "common parliamentary law", I suggest a very careful reading of the first part of the Introduction to RONR, and also a careful reading of the first part of the Introduction to both the 1876 and 1915 Editions.If not restricted by the rules of a parent body, an association or organization of any kind may adopt whatever rules of procedure it wishes for the governance of its meetings, whether it finds them in any book or simply makes them up out of whole cloth, provided that such rules do not violate the constitutional rights of any of its members or conflict with any federal, state, or local statutes or ordinances which are applicable to it.I appreciate the reminder and the clarification. I think certain other parliamentary authorities (which I've been studying for the CP exam) may have led me astray on this point, and it's good to come back to what RONR has to say about it. In an organization that hasn't adopted a parliamentary authority and is a Non-profit Corporation in a state that generally provides for majority vote (at a meeting) and unanimous written consent (outside of a meeting), mail ballot voting would generally be prohibited, unless provided for somewhere else in the statute or bylaws?Such an organization is free to adopt its own rules of procedure and in the absence of such rules, it is up to the organization to interpret the common parliamentary law as it applies to the assembly. Whether the fact that the organization "is a Non-profit Corporation in a state that generally provides for majority vote (at a meeting) and unanimous written consent (outside of a meeting)" has any bearing on the case seems like more of a legal issue than a parliamentary one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burke Balch Posted February 1, 2012 at 01:10 AM Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 at 01:10 AM RONR (11th ed.), p. 16, ll. 1-2 states, "Special rules of order supersede any rules in the parliamentary authority with which they conflict." To this sentence, the footnote adds the qualification, "However, when the parliamentary authority is prescribed in the bylaws, and that authority states that a certain rule can be altered only by a provision in the bylaws, no special rule of order can supersede that rule." (Emphasis added.) In the scenario given, the parliamentary authority was not prescribved in the bylaws, but by a special rule of order (although it should have been by "the same vote as is required to adopt a special rule of order," p. 15, ll. 30-31 -- since a "special" rule of order by definition supersedes the parliamentary authority, and adoption of a parliamentary authority establishes general rather than special rules of order for the assembly). Accordingly, a special rule of order could be adopted authorizing mail balloting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.