Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Can a policy be written to prevent its review


Guest Allan N

Recommended Posts

A government board I'm on discussed and passed a controversial new, 4-page policy last month that had a line that stated, "These policies can only be reviewed by the body every six (6) years."

I spoke against this line, because I did not believe it was OK to prohibit future boards from reviewing something. I've heard of policies that require review every such-and-such years, but never one that prohibits it from happening. Unfortunately, my amendment to strike that line got shot down, 11 to 8.

Is there a provision in Roberts Rules of Order that addresses this? I just don't see how a body can prevent future boards from amending or repealing something it passed. What's to stop a board from making a policy that says, "No one can change any part of this for a million years"?

The majority put the provision in because they know they won't have the majority next year, and want to prevent us from changing the controversial policy that passed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They cannot impose such a provision. Such a provision would undermine a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, which is that no action taken by the body can tie the hands of a future session of the body, and usually a session is a single meeting. As a result, the decision to do so is null and void, and a Point of Order to that effect can be made at any time (including next year).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, there is no actual motion "to review" in RONR. Whatever constitutes "review" would have to be defined by your own rules.

Under RONR, it would be possible to, in most cases, use the motion, Rescind/Amend Something Previously Adopted, to change an existing rule.

An assembly may tie the hands of future session by what is known as a "special rule of order." The bylaws may also do so. See p. 87, ll. 6-20. It is possible to adopt a special rule stating "The ____ Policy shall not be subject to the motion Rescind/Amend Something Previously Adopted for six years from the date of adoption." The vote required would be a 2/3 vote with notice or a majority of the entire membership.

There is no fundamental principle of parliamentary law involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is possible to adopt a special rule stating "The ____ Policy shall not be subject to the motion Rescind/Amend Something Previously Adopted for six years from the date of adoption." The vote required would be a 2/3 vote with notice or a majority of the entire membership.

But, of course, such special rule of order can be suspended, amended or rescinded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A motion that limited this "review" for six years, however, could be legitimately adopted by the vote necessary to adopt a special rule.

But since it cannot effectively tie the hands of assemblies-of-the-future, adopting it would be pointless, if not strictly dilatory.

Yes, we've all seen enough pointless motions passed to know that the two are not the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But since it cannot effectively tie the hands of assemblies-of-the-future, adopting it would be pointless, if not strictly dilatory.

Yes, we've all seen enough pointless motions passed to know that the two are not the same.

It would change the vote total needed to rescind or amend the rule.

It may also create a different standard in the vote total to suspend the rule, assuming that it could be suspended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But since it cannot effectively tie the hands of assemblies-of-the-future, adopting it would be pointless, if not strictly dilatory.

Yes, we've all seen enough pointless motions passed to know that the two are not the same.

It would not be pointless. In order to amend the assembly's rules except every six years, the special rule would need to be amended or rescinded (which requires a 2/3 vote with notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership) or suspended (which requires a 2/3 vote). This is higher than one of the permitted thresholds for amending a standing rule, which is a majority vote with previous notice. I think the proposed rule has some ambiguity issues, but it seems to be in order and serves the purpose of making the assembly's rules more difficult to amend. The rule could be given more "teeth" if it specified a higher threshold for amendment and/or suspension, or if it was placed in the Bylaws.

Whether the rule is wise is another question entirely. but that will be for the board to determine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would not be pointless. In order to amend the assembly's rules except every six years, the special rule would need to be amended or rescinded (which requires a 2/3 vote with notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership) or suspended (which requires a 2/3 vote). This is higher than one of the permitted thresholds for amending a standing rule, which is a majority vote with previous notice. I think the proposed rule has some ambiguity issues, but it seems to be in order and serves the purpose of making the assembly's rules more difficult to amend. The rule could be given more "teeth" if it specified a higher threshold for amendment and/or suspension, or if it was placed in the Bylaws.

I think that the rule, depending on its wording, might not be subject to suspension. It could create an absentee right.

Now, if a majority of the entire membership is there, the rule could be repealed, the action taken, and a new rule, identical to the rule that was repealed, be adopted by the majority of the entire membership. It is a technical difference, but it would be quite similar to suspending the rule in function.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...