Amending rules of order

[hkrantz]

Can an organization amend the rules to fit what the organization wants to do or are we bound by Robert's rules of order.

[Guest Edgar]

Can an organization amend the rules to fit what the organization wants to do or are we bound by Robert's rules of order.

Robert's Rules of Order is the low man on the parliamentary totem pole (which isn't as bad as it soudns considering the low man supports all the other men). So your organization is free to amend (or completely rescind) whatever rules it has adopted (including Robert's Rules). In fact, the way to dissolve an organization completely is to rescind its bylaws.

[jstackpo]

Whatever rules you adopt (with a proper vote and some other restrictions - see p. 15 ff.) will supersede whatever RONR may have to say about the same matter.

So go for it! But think carefully about unintended consequences of what you might adopt.

[sMargaret]

Can an organization amend the rules to fit what the organization wants to do or are we bound by Robert's rules of order.

You typically can't just amend the rules on the fly, but you can amend them by doing it properly (for example, by changing the bylaws).

[Shmuel Gerber]

Robert's Rules of Order is the low man on the parliamentary totem pole (which isn't as bad as it soudns considering the low man supports all the other men). So your organization is free to amend (or completely rescind) whatever rules it has adopted (including Robert's Rules). In fact, the way to dissolve an organization completely is to rescind its bylaws.

While organizations may amend or rescind their own rules, they cannot amend or rescind Robert's Rules of Order.

Of course, they may [foolishly] amend or rescind their adoption of Robert's Rules as their parliamentary authority. And, as Dr. Stackpole noted, they may adopt special rules of order that supersede particular rules in Robert's Rules.

[Guest Edgar]

While organizations may amend or rescind their own rules, they cannot amend or rescind Robert's Rules of Order. Of course, they may [foolishly] amend or rescind their adoption of Robert's Rules as their parliamentary authority.

Yes, I certainly could have phrased it better . . . though I seem to have been experiencing some distress as "soudns" somehow snuck in. (Actually, I was at a public computer wondering where the hand sanitizer might be located.)

[Gary c Tesser]

While organizations may amend or rescind their own rules, they cannot amend or rescind Robert's Rules of Order. ... And, as Dr. Stackpole noted, they may adopt special rules of order that supersede particular rules in Robert's Rules.

But Shmuel, I have often thought of special rules of order as amendments to the parliamentary authority; I don't at all see why not; and I have occasionally offered that thought on the world's premier Internet parliamentary forum without consequently having to visit the new ailerons shop (which I do not offer as dispositive proof that I was right, so much as that the self-correcting mechanism of the world's premier Internet parliamentary forum suggests that I was). My best example is the limit on speeches in debate, which since 1876 has been set in Robert's Rules as ten minutes. Should any organization want to reduce this number, the way to do it is by adopting a special rule of order that specifies the new, preferred limit. Let's say, three minutes. RONR, most recently on p. 17, suggests printing all of the organization's special rules in the same booklet (but made clearly distinct from) the bylaws, which should be given to all members, so that they will not, say, do the parliamentary equivalent of playing baseball with a quarterback (go, 49'ers! As we Mets fans say, wait till next year!). Presumably, then, a diligent member will read his booklet of bylaws and special rules; and, bearing them in mind, will then proceed to read his (or her, if a woman) parliamentary authority (at the risk of oversimplification, not to mention possibly inaccuracy -- although dammit I mentioned it! what a frustratingly illogically perverse cliche'! -- I will henceforth spell "parliamentary authority" as "RONR," although it's harder to pronounce, at least probably in Lithuanian) while taking especial care to note, when coming across the occasional mention of the ten-minute limit (those of you reading this website with a computer, unlike I, who make do, reading and writing on the Internet, with this sturdy twenty-three-year-old 1950's Remington here, can easily tell your computers to find out exactly how many times the ten-minute limit is mentioned; but please don't post it as a reply, since I'd prefer to think of this number as an almost whimsical, chimerical ideal, like the seven-billionth digit of pi, or Dan's birthday), that it has been superseded by an adopted special rule of order that specifies the different limit, three minutes.

Thus you have the standard advised protocol for a member to understand his parliamentary authority as it is affected by adopted special rules of order.

But as an equally -- and, yea, I indeed perhaps iconoclastically propose, as a preferred -- valid alternative, what the organization may do, upon adoption of the special rule, is this. (Bear in mind that all members have their own copies of the current edition of Robert's Rules, and that all those copies are designated as applying exclusively to their owners' membership in this particular organization. That might necessitate some members' having to own more than one copy of RONR. Tsk tsk.) Upon the adoption of the change, in every member's copy of RONR, the ten-minute rule is crossed out and "three minutes" is inscribed in its place. (The precise mechanism for effecting this order is immaterial to this discussion: presume it done. Call it the Thought Police, bursting into everyone's houses with their little ball-points. Or just call it magic -- I just finished the latest Jim Butcher "Dresden Files" novel yesterday, so nothin' gets past me.) Thus has been established the existence and primacy of the adopted special rule; of course the process will have been diligently recorded in the minutes; the section in the Rules Booklet on Special Rules will of course include it, although that step has now been rendered superfluous.

(Ooo, I bet I left something out.)

[Shmuel Gerber]

But Shmuel, I have often thought of special rules of order as amendments to the parliamentary authority; I don't at all see why not; and I have occasionally offered that thought on the world's premier Internet parliamentary forum without consequently having to visit the new ailerons shop (which I do not offer as dispositive proof that I was right, so much as that the self-correcting mechanism of the world's premier Internet parliamentary forum suggests that I was). My best example is the limit on speeches in debate, which since 1876 has been set in Robert's Rules as ten minutes. Should any organization want to reduce this number, the way to do it is by adopting a special rule of order that specifies the new, preferred limit. Let's say, three minutes. RONR, most recently on p. 17, suggests printing all of the organization's special rules in the same booklet (but made clearly distinct from) the bylaws, which should be given to all members, so that they will not, say, do the parliamentary equivalent of playing baseball with a quarterback (go, 49'ers! As we Mets fans say, wait till next year!). Presumably, then, a diligent member will read his booklet of bylaws and special rules; and, bearing them in mind, will then proceed to read his (or her, if a woman) parliamentary authority (at the risk of oversimplification, not to mention possibly inaccuracy -- although dammit I mentioned it! what a frustratingly illogically perverse cliche'! -- I will henceforth spell "parliamentary authority" as "RONR," although it's harder to pronounce, at least probably in Lithuanian) while taking especial care to note, when coming across the occasional mention of the ten-minute limit (those of you reading this website with a computer, unlike I, who make do, reading and writing on the Internet, with this sturdy twenty-three-year-old 1950's Remington here, can easily tell your computers to find out exactly how many times the ten-minute limit is mentioned; but please don't post it as a reply, since I'd prefer to think of this number as an almost whimsical, chimerical ideal, like the seven-billionth digit of pi, or Dan's birthday), that it has been superseded by an adopted special rule of order that specifies the different limit, three minutes.

Thus you have the standard advised protocol for a member to understand his parliamentary authority as it is affected by adopted special rules of order.

But as an equally -- and, yea, I indeed perhaps iconoclastically propose, as a preferred -- valid alternative, what the organization may do, upon adoption of the special rule, is this. (Bear in mind that all members have their own copies of the current edition of Robert's Rules, and that all those copies are designated as applying exclusively to their owners' membership in this particular organization. That might necessitate some members' having to own more than one copy of RONR. Tsk tsk.) Upon the adoption of the change, in every member's copy of RONR, the ten-minute rule is crossed out and "three minutes" is inscribed in its place. (The precise mechanism for effecting this order is immaterial to this discussion: presume it done. Call it the Thought Police, bursting into everyone's houses with their little ball-points. Or just call it magic -- I just finished the latest Jim Butcher "Dresden Files" novel yesterday, so nothin' gets past me.) Thus has been established the existence and primacy of the adopted special rule; of course the process will have been diligently recorded in the minutes; the section in the Rules Booklet on Special Rules will of course include it, although that step has now been rendered superfluous.

(Ooo, I bet I left something out.)

I'm not sure this even calls for a response, but a couple of points:

1) Unless an organization (such as the House of Representatives) publishes its own manual of rules, the proper way to modify a rule in the parliamentary manual is to adopt a special rule of order: "The usual and preferable method by which an ordinary society now provides itself with suitable rules of order is therefore to place in its bylaws a provision prescribing that the current edition of a specified and generally accepted manual of parliamentary law shall be the organization's parliamentary authority, and then to adopt only such special rules of order as it finds needed to supplement or modify rules contained in that manual." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 15)

The fact that you have often thought of special rules of order as amendments to the parliamentary authority is lamentable (accent on the first syllable for those still browsing the Internet on Remingtons). The simplest fix, I suppose, is to call the Thought Police and have them take care of it.

2) The example of RONR's ten-minute limit on speeches in debate is a particularly poor one, as the actual rule is "Without the permission of the assembly, no one can speak longer than permitted by the rules of the body—or, in a nonlegislative assembly that has no rule of its own relating to the length of speeches, longer than ten minutes." (ibid., p. 43). Crossing out the "ten-minute rule" would therefore be completely unnecessary to the purpose of adopting a three-minute limit on speeches in debate.

[Guest Edgar]

I'm not sure this even calls for a response . . .

I was pretty sure. In any event, it certainly seems excessive to quote it in its entirety.

[Shmuel Gerber]

I was pretty sure. In any event, it certainly seems excessive to quote it in its entirety.

It's OK, the Internet still has a few bits remaining. :-)

[David A Foulkes]

(Ooo, I bet I left something out.)

One can only hope not. Apparently, there are only a few bits of space left on the Internet.

[J. J.]

While organizations may amend or rescind their own rules, they cannot amend or rescind Robert's Rules of Order.

Of course, they may [foolishly] amend or rescind their adoption of Robert's Rules as their parliamentary authority. And, as Dr. Stackpole noted, they may adopt special rules of order that supersede particular rules in Robert's Rules.

... for the most part. There a few exceptions where RONR requires the overriding rule to be in the bylaws.

[Gary Novosielski]

It's OK, the Internet still has a few bits remaining. :-)

And I understand that all the electrons are recycled, too.

[Guest jdr02]

... for the most part. There a few exceptions where RONR requires the overriding rule to be in the bylaws.

Where in RONR does it specify that? And is there a list of these exceptions anywhere?

[J. J.]

Where in RONR does it specify that? And is there a list of these exceptions anywhere?

There is no list, but some examples would be the requirement that cumulative voting for officers be in the bylaws, and that a member in arrears my vote.

[Josh Martin]

Where in RONR does it specify that?

The general rule is in RONR, 11th ed., pg. 16, footnote.

And is there a list of these exceptions anywhere?

There's no list, but here's some general categories of rules that would need to be in the Bylaws:

• Rules which permit absentee voting (such as teleconferences, e-mail, or mail voting).
  
• Rules which deprive individual members of their rights through a method other than formal disciplinary procedures (such as a rule which automatically drops members if they have not paid their dues by a certain date, or "conflict of interest" rules which prohibit members from voting on certain motions).
  
• Rules which tinker with the "one person, one vote" principle (such as cumulative voting, weighted voting, or proxy voting).
  
• A rule that a plurality is sufficient to elect officers.
  

[Gary Novosielski]

There is no list, but some examples would be the requirement that cumulative voting for officers be in the bylaws, and that a member in arrears m[a]y vote.

Actually, a member in arrears may vote, absent any rule in the bylaws. There would have to be a rule in the bylaws to prevent it.