Meeting Standing Rules

[Guest WannaBe]

RONR has information about convention standing rules for a convention of delegates, consisting of both "parliamentary" rules relating to the conduct of business and "nonparliamentary" rules that resemble a combination of special rules of order and ordinary standing rules. Would adoption of "convention" standing rules be applicable to an annual meeting of an association where any member can attend? For that matter, could you adopt "convention" standing rules at any meeting that would apply to that meeting only? Is there a citation in RONR that provides for this?

[jstackpo]

A couple of specifics...

"Parliamentar Rules" ARE Special Rules of Order; "non-parliamentary rules" are (presumably) administrative rules ("Wear badges to get it, no smoking, &c.) -- they are not "mixed.

Any meeting can pass or adopt special rules of order that apply to that particular meeting, only (2/3 vote), usually to cover specific issues when they come up. If the special rules are to apply to all meetings, they require previous notice and a 2/3 vote.

Give us an example of what you are calling "convention standing rules".

[Guest WannaBe]

1. Registration is required of all members and guests attending full or part time.

2. Identification badges shall be worn at all times.

3. Debate shall be limited to two minutes for each speaker and ten minutes for each question and its amendments.

4. The President shall appoint a committee of three to approve the minutes, a time keeper, and tellers.

5. A member wishing to speak shall rise, address the chair, and give name and unit.

6. When requested by the President, the maker of a motion shall write the motion and send it to the presiding officer.

7. Nominations for officers made from the floor must imply consent and willingness to serve by the nominee.

8. Chief Teller shall be instructed to destroy the ballots at the end of the meeting.

[Gary c Tesser]

... "Parliamentar[y] Rules" ARE Special Rules of Order; "non-parliamentary rules" are (presumably) administrative rules ("Wear badges to get it, no smoking, &a;c.) -- they are not "mixed[close quotes? Why open quotes?]

I trust that Dr Stackpole does not imply that the rubric "parliamentary rules" excludes unspecial rules of order (such as those provided in the parliamentary authority). (Oh here, have a genial smiley-face: ;&mm. Oh I bet that one will work.)

Any meeting can pass or adopt special rules of order that apply to that particular meeting,

John! Like Wannabe, I wanna citation for this!

[jstackpo]

Looking at WannaBe's Rules (and responding to GcT where relevant)...

1) Administrative rule, not in RONR for a General (Annual) Meeting although required by RONR for a convention of delegtes

2) Administrative

3) This could either be considered a special rule of order which, if addopted at the start of the meeting, would apply for that meeting only (will that example satisfy you, rather than a citation of what is implied throughout the book, GcT?)

or

An application of the subsidiry motion to limit debate presented as an incidental main motion. Again it would apply for that meeting only.

2/3 vote required, in either interpretation.

4) An administrative motion (with dubious syntax: The committee approves the time keeper?). Not a "rule of order" at all; it's a standing rule because it applies outside the meeting.

5) Rule wouldn't be appropriate for an annual meeting of members as (probably) any "Unit" designation would have no meaning. "Unit" representation more or less implies a convention with representative delegates, not "all" the members.

6) Just a reiteration of an existing RONR rule - p. 40.

7) A Special Rule that applies for the whole meeting. Consent is not required by RONR.

8) Administrative.

[Dan Honemann]

Any meeting can pass or adopt special rules of order that apply to that particular meeting, only (2/3 vote), usually to cover specific issues when they come up. If the special rules are to apply to all meetings, they require previous notice and a 2/3 vote.

John! Like Wannabe, I wanna citation for this!

It seems to me fair to use RONR, 11th ed., page 620, lines 4-11, as a citation in this regard, since, if what John said is incorrect, then there has got to be something drastically wrong with this sentence in RONR.

[Gary c Tesser]

It seems to me fair to use RONR, 11th ed., page 620, lines 4-11, as a citation in this regard, since, if what John said is incorrect, then there has got to be something drastically wrong with this sentence in RONR.

I did have that sentence in mind; I don't question what John said as far as procedure goes, but I don't see how that sentence, or the description of "Rules of Order" on p. 15 - 17, would justify calling such a thing a "special rule of order." I'd think that only John's second alternative in his answer to Question 3 (in the list in post #3) would apply. But I'm getting a lot of surprises this year.

[Dan Honemann]

I did have that sentence in mind; I don't question what John said as far as procedure goes, but I don't see how that sentence, or the description of "Rules of Order" on p. 15 - 17, would justify calling such a thing a "special rule of order." I'd think that only John's second alternative in his answer to Question 3 (in the list in post #3) would apply. But I'm getting a lot of surprises this year.

I agree that such a thing is not a "special rule of order"; so make up your own name for it.

[Gary c Tesser]

We can start with "Fred," and then get inventive.

[Guest WannaBe]

I agree that such a thing is not a "special rule of order"; so make up your own name for it.

Does RONR p. 621 apply?

"In a convention, parliamentary standing rules—which are in the nature of suspensions of the regular rules of order for the duration of the convention session...."

At a regular (or special) meeting that is not a convention could we just adopt a motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to the Following....? And then list FRED's Provisions?

RONR p. 620 refers to them as "provisions which, in an ordinary local society or assembly, would need a two-thirds vote to be placed in effect for the duration of a meeting or session...."

That is, are these provisions "placed in effect" by suspending the rules and agreeing to them, rather than adopting special rules of order? What should these provisions be called? Would Parliamentary Standing Rules be an appropriate term since that is what RONR calls them on p. 621?

[Dan Honemann]

At a regular (or special) meeting that is not a convention could we just adopt a motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to the Following....? And then list FRED's Provisions?

No, I wouldn't do it that way. Early on in the meeting, just have someone move "the adoption of the following rules, to be effective for the duration of this session."

The motion you suggest using will preclude any debate or amendment of the proposed rules.

[Guest WannaBe]

No, I wouldn't do it that way. Early on in the meeting, just have someone move "the adoption of the following rules, to be effective for the duration of this session."

The motion you suggest using will preclude any debate or amendment of the proposed rules.

But couldn't a member raise a point of order that such a motion is out of order because it conflicts with the association's written rules?

[Dan Honemann]

But couldn't a member raise a point of order that such a motion is out of order because it conflicts with the association's written rules?

No, but it will, of course, take a two-thirds vote to adopt the proposed rules

[Gary Novosielski]

But couldn't a member raise a point of order that such a motion is out of order because it conflicts with the association's written rules?

No. No more than an amendment to the bylaws could be ruled out of order because it conflicts with the (current) bylaws.

[Guest WannaBe]

No. No more than an amendment to the bylaws could be ruled out of order because it conflicts with the (current) bylaws.

But an amendment to the bylaws is processed as a motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted, so it is not the same thing as adopting a motion that conflicts with the written rules.

[Gary c Tesser]

But an amendment to the bylaws is processed as a motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted, so it is not the same thing as adopting a motion that conflicts with the written rules.

No, Guest_Wannabe, it is the same thing: amending something previously adopted is, indeed, legitimately adopting a motion that conflicts with the written rules -- in an intrinsicaly legitimate way, and which, by its adoption, changes those written rules. In this instance, you are doing so, but with the minor wrinkle that the change has a built-in time of its expiration.

[Dan Honemann]

We can start with "Fred," and then get inventive.

Works for me, and we can name the corresponding type of standing rule "Wilma".