Gary c Tesser Posted February 23, 2012 at 09:52 AM Report Posted February 23, 2012 at 09:52 AM I am puzzled by this distinction. Minutes record the procedures used to accomplish matters of substance in meetings. For example, when they record the adoption of a main motion, they obviously describe both substance (the content of the motion) and procedure (its adoption) Yeah. But aren't they pointless if they don't record the substance ... and isn't procedure pointless without the substance? You agree that the point of procedure is to produce substance, yes? The point of existence is substance? If we are going to discuss existentialism, particularly at 4 in the morning, we might better hit our heads agsinst a wall?Let me try it this way. (Agree, or disagree?) The point of minutes is the substance, yes? Because without substance, procedure is pointless, because the purpose of procedure is to get substance done.(I apologize that this might look insulting. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, but I must go on.)My problem here is that it looks to me as if you have definitively said that what is so, is not so.I completely can make no sense of this:"The distinction between what is covered by special rules of order and what is covered by standing rules is not between matters of procedure and matters of substance; it is between "rules . . . which are related ... to parliamentary procedure" and "rules which are related to the details of the administration of a society.""... because, Mr. B. it looks to me as if you are simply denyimn definitions, and I really don't think that's what happening.I understand the simple basics, p. 18 and around there, to say how one class of rules deals with procedure, and another with substance / administration / content. How can I possibly have this wrong? If minutes do not relate to parliamentary procedure, then why does RONR devote so much space to the details of their content and form,pp. 468-73? Oh but they do! But what happens outside a meeting is ... arguably ... not anything subject to a rule of order?The distinction between what is covered by special rules of order and what is covered by standing rules is not between matters of procedure and matters of substance; it is between "rules . . . which are related ... to parliamentary procedure" and "rules which are related to the details of the administration of a society." If minutes do not relate to parliamentary procedure, then why does RONR devote so much space to the details of their content and form,pp. 468-73?C'mon, to give us an example, because it says it's going to give us an example!-- To tell their content, which is what they are for, and incidentally, how it came about! Why argue about this?
David A Foulkes Posted February 23, 2012 at 11:53 AM Report Posted February 23, 2012 at 11:53 AM Since rules of order "relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings", their object being to "facilitate the smooth functioning of the assembly", I struggle with how the taking of notes fits in there. It seems we're talking about such things as considering one question at a time, speaking in turn, for a limited time so everyone gets a turn, following debate with a vote, moving on to the next order of business, properly but not finally disposing of motions along the way, and calling it a day when there's no more business.Were the secretary to simply stop taking notes, would disorder reign supreme? If a member were to notice, could he raise a Point of Order?Mr. A: "Mr. Chairman, a Point of Order?"Chair: "State your Point of Order?"Mr. A: "Margaret hasn't written one word in her substantial book or binder in the last five minutes."Chair: (snapping fingers in front of Margaret's eyes) "Margaret? Ms. Duffy?" (no response) "The member will come to order!"As we often read here, the map is not the territory. What happens at a meeting and how it happens are the substance and procedure. The minutes (or notes in preparation there of) are simply a recording of those. There'd be no disagreement here, I'm sure (and we've seen this too many times here in real life) that in the absence of the minutes being taken, the substance and procedure are not somehow magically negated, thus motions weren't made, votes weren't take, and decisions weren't arrived at by the assembly. As they say (and you know who you are out there), there's a lot of truth in what happened whether it was recorded or not.
Tim Wynn Posted February 23, 2012 at 01:53 PM Author Report Posted February 23, 2012 at 01:53 PM Perhaps the following will add some clarity to the underlying principle for Nut#1 and Nut#2 (GcT, DaF)*:"In contrast to bylaws, rules of order derive their proper substance largely for the general nature of the parliamentary process rather than from the circumstances of a particular assembly. Consequently, although the tone of application of rules of order may vary, there is little reason why most of these rules themselves should not be the same in all ordinary societies and should not closely correspond to the common parliamentary law." - p. 15, ll. 14-21.So, it's clear that taking minutes and making them available to members is not a principle specific to the United Cake Bakers Association or to the Flight Attendants Anti-Defamation League. It is, indeed, a part of parliamentary law that should properly be applied to ALL associations. *I'm banking on the fact that grouping these two together will be such an honor to each that they will not think to be offended by the category into which they have been grouped.
David A Foulkes Posted February 23, 2012 at 02:29 PM Report Posted February 23, 2012 at 02:29 PM *I'm banking on the fact that grouping these two together will be such an honor to each that they will not think to be offended by the category into which they have been grouped. Just happy I only took the silver.
Burke Balch Posted February 23, 2012 at 02:52 PM Report Posted February 23, 2012 at 02:52 PM I understand the simple basics, p. 18 and around there, to say how one class of rules deals with procedure, and another with substance / administration / content. How can I possibly have this wrong?The way it is (more than possibly) wrong is by insertion of the words "substance" and "content," neither of which are found on p. 18, ll. 3-8.But what happens outside a meeting is ... arguably ... not anything subject to a rule of order?Since rules of order "relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings", their object being to "facilitate the smooth functioning of the assembly", I struggle with how the taking of notes fits in there.Please see Post # 20 in this thread.
Shmuel Gerber Posted February 23, 2012 at 04:46 PM Report Posted February 23, 2012 at 04:46 PM "In contrast to bylaws, rules of order derive their proper substance largely for the general nature of the parliamentary process rather than from the circumstances of a particular assembly. Consequently, although the tone of application of rules of order may vary, there is little reason why most of these rules themselves should not be the same in all ordinary societies and should not closely correspond to the common parliamentary law." - p. 15, ll. 14-21.So, it's clear that taking minutes and making them available to members is not a principle specific to the United Cake Bakers Association or to the Flight Attendants Anti-Defamation League. It is, indeed, a part of parliamentary law that should properly be applied to ALL associations. I'm going to chime in on this one point. This branch of the discussion started off with a question regarding the form of notice for meetings. The full manner and form of notice, as well as the number of days in advance of the meeting it must be sent, are indeed things that each society should work out for itself.
J. J. Posted February 23, 2012 at 08:51 PM Report Posted February 23, 2012 at 08:51 PM I'm not sure genealogical records and the legal records of a society's decisions are really comparable.In some organizations, like the one whose tee shirt I'm wearing, they are a requirement for eligibility.I would submit that a rule to permit those records to be inspected is a standing rule.Further, from what I can tell, if the society had specifically adopted the sixth or earlier editions, the would be no right of the member to inspect the minutes.
Josh Martin Posted February 23, 2012 at 11:09 PM Report Posted February 23, 2012 at 11:09 PM Since rules of order "relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings", their object being to "facilitate the smooth functioning of the assembly", I struggle with how the taking of notes fits in there. It seems we're talking about such things as considering one question at a time, speaking in turn, for a limited time so everyone gets a turn, following debate with a vote, moving on to the next order of business, properly but not finally disposing of motions along the way, and calling it a day when there's no more business.Were the secretary to simply stop taking notes, would disorder reign supreme? If a member were to notice, could he raise a Point of Order?Mr. A: "Mr. Chairman, a Point of Order?"Chair: "State your Point of Order?"Mr. A: "Margaret hasn't written one word in her substantial book or binder in the last five minutes."Chair: (snapping fingers in front of Margaret's eyes) "Margaret? Ms. Duffy?" (no response) "The member will come to order!"But Mr. Foulkes, there are many cases in which the secretary's notes are an important tool even for the conduct of the meetings themselves, such as for remembering what is to come up under Unfinished Business, or showing that notice was given or a motion to Reconsider was made within the time limit, etc. The scenario you present is imperfect, since the fact that the Secretary has written nothing in her notes for the past five minutes may or may not be an issue, depending on what's going on. If the Secretary completely fails to take minutes, however, this is a breach of a duty in connection with meetings.As we often read here, the map is not the territory. What happens at a meeting and how it happens are the substance and procedure. The minutes (or notes in preparation there of) are simply a recording of those. There'd be no disagreement here, I'm sure (and we've seen this too many times here in real life) that in the absence of the minutes being taken, the substance and procedure are not somehow magically negated, thus motions weren't made, votes weren't take, and decisions weren't arrived at by the assembly. As they say (and you know who you are out there), there's a lot of truth in what happened whether it was recorded or not.Yes, but it is true of a great many rules of order that their neglect does not invalidate the substance and procedure, so I'm not sure this fact has much bearing on this discussion.In some organizations, like the one whose tee shirt I'm wearing, they are a requirement for eligibility.I would submit that a rule to permit those records to be inspected is a standing rule.Point well taken. I didn't think that one through.Further, from what I can tell, if the society had specifically adopted the sixth or earlier editions, the would be no right of the member to inspect the minutes.I'm not sure about the text of the editions themselves, but PL contains this statement: "Any member has a right to examine the minutes, but this privilege must not be abused to the annoyance of the secretary." (Parliamentary Law, pg. 314)
J. J. Posted February 23, 2012 at 11:30 PM Report Posted February 23, 2012 at 11:30 PM Point well taken. I didn't think that one through.I'm wearing my Sons of the American Revolution tee shirt. I'm not sure about the text of the editions themselves, but PL contains this statement: "Any member has a right to examine the minutes, but this privilege must not be abused to the annoyance of the secretary." (Parliamentary Law, pg. 314)The actual versions do not give that "duty" to the secretary. I would think that, under the 4th edition, for example, a rule could be adopted, by majority vote without notice, prohibiting members from seeing the minutes.
Rev Ed Posted February 24, 2012 at 04:28 AM Report Posted February 24, 2012 at 04:28 AM I would go with #3 - the organization is free to adopt any standing rules that it wants to. RONR would act as a default set of rules and the organization is open to limit, change, or add to those rules. I doubt an organization would add rules, RONR covers virtually all issues that will come up (any that RONR would not are probably so unlikely to occur that I can't think of any off hand or else they would be included in RONR.) The organization, for example, can come up with its own rules regarding discipline, or follow RONR Chapter XX, or do a combination of both.
Tim Wynn Posted February 25, 2012 at 04:32 AM Author Report Posted February 25, 2012 at 04:32 AM Okay, p. 124, ll. 5-6, "at the expense of the organization."A member makes the following parliamentary inquiry:"What vote is required to adopt a motion 'That members requesting that notice be sent with the call shall be personally responsible for any expense related to the sending of such notice?'"
Burke Balch Posted February 26, 2012 at 02:31 AM Report Posted February 26, 2012 at 02:31 AM "What vote is required to adopt a motion 'That members requesting that notice be sent with the call shall be personally responsible for any expense related to the sending of such notice?'"The vote required to adopt a special rule of order. Previous notice of a motion is, obviously, an integral concept in parliamentary procedure -- whether it is given affects the vote needed to adopt a motion and in some circumstances whether the motion is in order at all. RONR provides, as a right of a member, that the member may arrange for the giving of such notice by providing it to the secretary, who then has the duty of sending it with the call. RONR (11th ed.), p. 124, ll. 2-6. [footnote 1] While it is understandable that a rule dealing with who bears the expense of something might plausibly be thought to be a matter of administrative detail rather than parliamentary procedure, here the rule is intimately bound up with a matter of parliamentary procedure, namely the right and ability of a member to give previous notice. [footnote 1] I recognize that RONR's saying this is a duty the secretary "should" perform may be seen as adding a note of ambiguity, but believe in this case RONR is stating a rule, not advice. If it were simply advice then the RONR would not be creating a rule at all, standing or special, and the query posed by this thread would be irrelevant.]
Josh Martin Posted February 27, 2012 at 11:42 PM Report Posted February 27, 2012 at 11:42 PM I doubt an organization would add rules, RONR covers virtually all issues that will come up (any that RONR would not are probably so unlikely to occur that I can't think of any off hand or else they would be included in RONR.)This is true for special rules of order, but not for standing rules. Standing rules relate to administrative details and are thus beyond the scope of parliamentary procedure and RONR. In many organizations, rules pertaining to expenditures are a common example.The organization, for example, can come up with its own rules regarding discipline, or follow RONR Chapter XX, or do a combination of both.Rules regarding discipline are unlikely to be in the nature of standing rules. They would generally be in the Bylaws or special rules of order.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.