What is the best way to give a non-member permanent rights to speak?

[J. J.]

There doesn't seem to be a need for conferring any "rights" on these nonmembers. The group (or at least Robert) simply wishes to allow them to participate in the meetings, which I agree could be done by a special rule of order.

Personally, I think this whole idea goes in the wrong direction. Faculty advisers and elected officials should not be entering into debate on equal footing with the members at a meeting. They are important guests, but still guests. Like children in more polite times gone by, they should speak only when spoken to.

Could a special rule confer rights?

I would tend to agree that this one, as written does not.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Could a special rule confer rights?

Of course. All rules of order are designed to protect or restrict the rights of someone or other within the assembly.

[Guest Edgar]

All rules of order are designed to protect or restrict the rights of someone or other within the assembly.

All rules of order?

That's the kind of statement that would wake me up in the middle of the night, wishing I could edit my post.

[Shmuel Gerber]

All rules of order are designed to protect or restrict the rights of someone or other within the assembly.

All rules of order?

That's the kind of statement that would wake me up in the middle of the night, wishing I could edit my post.

If you have a counterexample, then please share it.

At the very least, a rule of order will protect the right of every member of the assembly to insist on that rule's enforcement.

[J. J.]

Of course. All rules of order are designed to protect or restrict the rights of someone or other within the assembly.

Well, in theory, couldn't a special rule also create a right for a nonmember?

A rule (I'll agree an ill-advised one) could read, "No motion on the subject of X may be entertained unless Shmuel Gerber is given ten days notice to render a written opinion to the members on the motion." That would not imply that you were a member of the group, but even if you are not, the assembly has agreed not to introduce such a motion unless you are informed. That could create a right for you, would it not?

[Shmuel Gerber]

Well, in theory, couldn't a special rule also create a right for a nonmember?

A rule (I'll agree an ill-advised one) could read, "No motion on the subject of X may be entertained unless Shmuel Gerber is given ten days notice to render a written opinion to the members on the motion." That would not imply that you were a member of the group, but even if you are not, the assembly has agreed not to introduce such a motion unless you are informed. That could create a right for you, would it not?

What do you mean "ill-advised"? :-)

A special rule of order like that would create a right for the assembly (and I think a pretty good one), but I don't think it would create a right for me. If the rule were in the bylaws, then maybe I would have a claim.

[George Mervosh]

There doesn't seem to be a need for conferring any "rights" on these nonmembers. The group (or at least Robert) simply wishes to allow them to participate in the meetings, which I agree could be done by a special rule of order.

Thanks I think I understand what you're saying much better now.

[J. J.]

What do you mean "ill-advised"? :-)

A special rule of order like that would create a right for the assembly (and I think a pretty good one), but I don't think it would create a right for me. If the rule were in the bylaws, then maybe I would have a claim.

Well, you could not enforce the right within the assembly, but a member could. If that right were violated, could a member enforce the right (your right) after the fact? I would not think that a violation of a right would have to be raised by the same person whose right was violated.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Well, you could not enforce the right within the assembly, but a member could. If that right were violated, could a member enforce the right (your right) after the fact? I would not think that a violation of a right would have to be raised by the same person whose right was violated.

Any member can raise a point of order whenever a rule of the assembly is being violated. I'm not sure what you're asking when you say, "could a member enforce the right (your right) after the fact?" As I said, I don't think the special rule of order gives me any rights at all, and the rule doesn't seem to protect absentees (i.e., absent members) or fit any of the other criteria for creating a continuing breach if violated, so I would say no. If a motion is introduced in violation of the rule, and no one raises a point of order at the time, it's too late to raise a point of order afterward.

[J. J.]

Any member can raise a point of order whenever a rule of the assembly is being violated. I'm not sure what you're asking when you say, "could a member enforce the right (your right) after the fact?" As I said, I don't think the special rule of order gives me any rights at all, and the rule doesn't seem to protect absentees (i.e., absent members) or fit any of the other criteria for creating a continuing breach if violated, so I would say no. If a motion is introduced in violation of the rule, and no one raises a point of order at the time, it's too late to raise a point of order afterward.

Well, in theory, it would create an absentee right. Any member not attending would know that nothing could be done about subject X, unless you were informed first.

[rthib]

Passing a special rule defeats the goal of simplicity. There are easy ways but to have to do it every meeting is not simple.

(In the past it was done by vote in an organization. There was always one person who will want to complain. So debate always happen and vote was always everyone to 1, huge waste of time.)

And while Shmuel may have a point in saying they should not be given special privileged, the organizations membership feel otherwise. (If they did not, would not be an issue).

I can think of lots of ways to do this each meeting, but looking for something more permanent and simple.

[Guest Edgar]

There was always one person who will want to complain. So debate always happen and vote was always everyone to 1, huge waste of time.

Given those numbers, disposing of the issue should take all of about ten seconds.

[Bruce Lages]

A special rule of order would not have to be adopted at every meeting. Adopt it once, and it will remain in effect until rescinded or, amended (It could also be suspended, but only for that meeting).

[Dan Honemann]

Well, in theory, it would create an absentee right. Any member not attending would know that nothing could be done about subject X, unless you were informed first.

J.J., if you really want to pursue this stuff, you really ought to start your own thread. This goes way beyond the questions which Robert is asking.

[Trina]

Passing a special rule defeats the goal of simplicity. There are easy ways but to have to do it every meeting is not simple.

(In the past it was done by vote in an organization. There was always one person who will want to complain. So debate always happen and vote was always everyone to 1, huge waste of time.).

...

I can think of lots of ways to do this each meeting, but looking for something more permanent and simple.

As Mr. Lages points out, adopting a special rule of order means that you do not have to keep doing something at every meeting.

I'd recommend getting and reading a copy of RONR In Brief (often called RONRIB around here) -- that way you could fairly quickly get some familiarity with the terms being used (in other words, understand what a special rule of order is, and how such a rule can be adopted).

[rthib]

Missed Trina's "Special Rule of Order" part and just saw special rule discussion on membership rights so read special as "A good rules" vs RONR "Special Rule of Order".

I think Trina has the correct idea and language,

Accomplish what is needed and no oxymoronic non-voting member.

Only concern is the by constitution - Bylaws and Constitution can only be changed at a meeting when notice given etc...

Don't have my RONR with me today -

But if I recall, Special Rule of Order can be changed/adopted at any meeting by 2/3 vote.

So theoretically even if the membership of the whole body wants to require/allow them to speak and debate at a board meeting, the board membership with a 2/3 vote could stop it - or is my memory of special rules of order faulty?

[Sean Hunt]

But if I recall, Special Rule of Order can be changed/adopted at any meeting by 2/3 vote.

So theoretically even if the membership of the whole body wants to require/allow them to speak and debate at a board meeting, the board membership with a 2/3 vote could stop it - or is my memory of special rules of order faulty?

A special rule of order can be adopted by a 2/3 vote with notice, or by a majority of the membership (i.e. half of te membership of the board votes in favour) without notice.

[Trina]

A special rule of order can be adopted by a 2/3 vote with notice, or by a majority of the membership (i.e. half of te membership of the board votes in favour) without notice.

I think Robert was thinking more of a rule of order of the society, not a rule adopted for itself by the board. If that's the case, adoption of a special rule of order, without notice, would require a vote of more than half of the membership of the society (or a 2/3 vote, with notice).

...

So theoretically even if the membership of the whole body wants to require/allow them to speak and debate at a board meeting, the board membership with a 2/3 vote could stop it - or is my memory of special rules of order faulty?

Yes, if it is a suspendable rule, it can be suspended (with a 2/3 vote). The rule could contain language specifically prohibiting the board from suspending it (while still allowing the general membership to suspend it at one of its meetings). However, it the rule cannot be suspended, then I'd be concerned that you are in fact trying to create membership rights for a nonmember via a special rule of order (in which case see Mr. Mervosh's caution in post #15).

Also, I'm still trying to digest Mr. Honemann's and Mr. Gerber's obvious distaste for the type of rule I suggested. Since their names are on the cover of RONR, their reaction is worth pondering .

[rthib]

However, it the rule cannot be suspended, then I'd be concerned that you are in fact trying to create membership rights for a nonmember via a special rule of order (in which case see Mr. Mervosh's caution in post #15).

If the body wants to give the rights but also allow them to be taken away, Special rule would seem to be ok.

It appears that the desire of the body is make sure that those rules can not be suspended, so I am in the should be in bylaws camp.

Which brings all this back around to my original concern. That they are given membership rights except those of the right to vote and my distaste for the no-voting member term.

I think the simplest way is to create a separate class of membership in bylaws called an "adviser membership" and the describe the rights and responsibilities they are given (debate) vs calling them a member and the saying the right they are not given (vote.)

The more I think of it, there are many things that are required/requested of "membership" that are not of the adviser, so calling them non-voting members is even less correct.

Will also clear up some other issues. I believe one of the items in the constitution refers to 2/3 of total membership for a vote. Never been an issue, but one could make an argument that they are a member for count since it just says "member". So if there are 9 members and one non-voting member and the vote is 6-3 is that 2/3 of total membership?

Not looking for an answer, but by creating a separate class, that question goes away.