Suspending rules, bylaws

[Guest Nash]

A member asked to suspend the rules, by which he meant suspend the bylaws. (If the bylaws were suspended, in this case they would also have violated local law.) What is the appropriate response from another member?

***

One member objected to the question (to suspend the "rules" [bylaws]). The chair ruled that member out of order and failed to rule on the objection.

1) Would it be appropriate to request the record reflect the members objection to the question? (There is a legal duty that also applies in this instance--thus the question having the objection noted.)

2) Assuming the request to suspend the rules (bylaws and local law) are out of order, and assuming the chair was wrong, is there potentially a continuing breach that could/should be again addressed?

[J. J.]

A member asked to suspend the rules, by which he meant suspend the bylaws. (If the bylaws were suspended, in this case they would also have violated local law.) What is the appropriate response from another member?

***

One member objected to the question (to suspend the "rules" [bylaws]). The chair ruled that member out of order and failed to rule on the objection.

1) Would it be appropriate to request the record reflect the members objection to the question? (There is a legal duty that also applies in this instance--thus the question having the objection noted.)

Assuming this was properly raised as a point of order, the chair did rule. in essence. The ruling might have been incorrect.

2) Assuming the request to suspend the rules (bylaws and local law) are out of order, and assuming the chair was wrong, is there potentially a continuing breach that could/should be again addressed?

Yes, however, RONR does permit a rule in the nature of a rule of order included in the bylaws to be suspended (p. 17, ll. 22-25). It also permits a bylaw that provides for its own suspension to be suspended.

It is a separate question on what law is violated. If this is an applicable procedural rule of law, that would also create a breach of a continuing nature (p. 251 ll. 16-17). Violation of a non procedural rule of law would not create a continuing breach.

Since nobody here knows what the rule is, we can only answer generally.

[Guest Nash]

In this case the rule was about permitting a Board member to attend via telephone. This is a public Board. The bylaws require members present. The local law requires members present. The majority of the Board believe it is fine to have members attend via telephone if they are otherwise busy. The minority disagree; I am one of the minority.

Any help from this forum with regards to suggested responses and citations, to help and educate me and the full Board would be appreciated.

[Gary c Tesser]

1. The appropriate response, as J.J. indicated, is to raise a point of order, which points out that a rule is being violated, which must be redressed. Your member who "objected" clearly did this, although maybe he did not use the parliamentary technical term. (Which I, among others, say is a distinction of no consequence. Some other parliamentarians, or other aspiring parliamentarians like me, might differ; in which case they and I will Have Words, as we aspiring Canadians delicately put it.)

1 (a ). As far as the record is concerned, proper minutes must be taken for all meetings; and proper minutes must include all points of order raised, together with any appeals of the presiding officer's rulings that might be raised by any of the members (appeals "from" his rulings, in our quaint 20th-Century argot), along with the officer's reasons (p. 470, item 10; clerical drudges might call it lines 15 - 17).

Now. If the minutes are not being taken properly, this must be fixed also; you can start with insisting that minutes [must include every point of order raised; and the chairman's ruling on each of them; and all appeals raised on any of the chairman's rulings; and the chairman's (i[]required) reasoning for all of his rulings.

Now I take it, Guest Nash, that you have your RONR 11th Ed. handy.

2. J.J. has given you p. 251 (c ) (he calls it by its line numbers, 16 - 17), referring to the severe, ongoing prohibition against violating "applicable procedural rule of law" is concerned. As far as parliamentary procedure is concerned, the similar -- and binding -- prohibition against violating the bylaws is just up the page a little, as what some cognoscenti parliamentarians (and aspiring cognoscenti parliamentarians like me) breezily call the p. 251 (a ) rule (which sticklers like JJ might cite as lines 9 - 10).

3. The prohibition of absentee voting, as a violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, is on p. 423, lines 17 - 20.

Probably more soon, when the excitable East Coast Americans get up.

[Guest Nash]

Mr. Gary c "aspiring, cognoscenti parliamentarian" Tesser, I thank you.

I will do my work carefully reading and studying the citations you and J.J. have kindly provided. I hope to a) clearly understand, commit to memory, and c) find some reason to ask another question or find some twist, just for the pleasure of reading another amusing reply from such an aspiring and cognoscenti parliamentarian as yourself.

[Guest Nash]

Mr. Gary c "a.c.p." Tesser,

Just to add clarification, the member who objected objected to the consideration of the question (which was to suspend the rules, and violate law). Why would it be more correct to raise a point of order rather than the way this gentleman stated his objection?

[Gary c Tesser]

Mr. Gary c "a.c.p." Tesser,

Just to add clarification, the member who objected objected to the consideration of the question (which was to suspend the rules, and violate law)...

O now my head hurts. And even before eating the first live frog of the day.

Why would it be more correct to raise a point of order rather than the way this gentleman stated his objection?

These are both addressing different aspects of "it should not be brought up in the first place." Objecting to consideration of the question addresses specifically the substance of the question: it says, you lowbrow, you arriviste, you who would eat your peas with honey so they stick to your knife in front of the Queen of England, you who wore those same socks yesterday: how could you even dream of bringing this subject up in polite company, let alone the Queen of England over there, or even me?

Raising the point of order, now, brings up that he did not have the legitimate right to bring up the question from the get-go. It has the strength of procedural impropriety, it's like trying to vote for Obama or Romney a couple of months ago in any country other than the USA -- it's a non-starter. It's like wanting to play quarterback on a baseball team, or pitch a no-hitter at a chess match....

Really, you ought to watch for those East Coast Americans.

[Guest Nash]

*muses that a meal of frog is not kosher thus certainly more offensive than the previous question*

Nevertheless,...*serves a platter of frog*

Bon apetite, Mr. "a.c.p," Tesser.

[J. J.]

In this case the rule was about permitting a Board member to attend via telephone. This is a public Board. The bylaws require members present. The local law requires members present. The majority of the Board believe it is fine to have members attend via telephone if they are otherwise busy. The minority disagree; I am one of the minority.

Any help from this forum with regards to suggested responses and citations, to help and educate me and the full Board would be appreciated.

First, under RONR, the member must be present to vote, unless the bylaws or rules say otherwise (p. 423, ll. 17-23). Even if they were both silent, it would not be permitted and the violation would create a breach of a continuing nature. So, in this case, assuming you are correct about the law and bylaws, a point of order could be raised on several grounds (p. 251, c and d).

Now, if the absentee's vote did not effect the result, the motion adopted would still be in effect. Assume that this is a 9 member board. The vote is 7-2 in favor of the motion, with the absent member voting in favor of the motion. The motion would be validly adopted. If the vote is 5-4 in favor, with the same member voting in favor, the motion would be null and void.

So, you might have a continuing breach (which is still subject to a point of order), but the motion was still adopted.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Now, if the absentee's vote did not effect the result, the motion adopted would still be in effect.

Assuming that a quorum was actually present.

[Guest Nash]

There aren't any issues with sufficient numbers for a quorum. Neither are we addressing the impact of the "absentee" member's vote...yet.

The only issue before us is a body that meets in person, save one member whom a majority of the body wants to join us telephonically.

I appreciate everyone's responses...and the early morning frog.

[g40]

You will need to interpret your own rules and bylaws, but it seems to that if this remote board member merely wants to "attend" electronically, but not vote, make motions, etc., then you may not have an issue and there would be no need to suspend anything (even if you could).