Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Interpreting motions not phrased directly as a special rule of order

Sean Hunt

By Sean Hunt
in Advanced Discussion

Recommended Posts

Sean Hunt

Sean Hunt

Posted
Posted

Suppose that, with the necessary notice and voting threshold to adopt a special rule of order, a society's assembly adopts a motion "that no motions shall be made to recolour the clubhouse for the next three years."

 

At the next meeting, someone asks what, exactly, the effect of the motion is. Should this motion be interpreted as:

 

a. A motion that is null and void because it was not framed as a special rule of order, and needed to be a special rule of order to accomplish its desired outcome.

b. A suspendable special rule or order.

c. A special rule of order that cannot be suspended because suspension would violate some right of a member (such as an absentee's right to assume that such a motion will not be considered).

d. A special rule of order that cannot be suspended because it (implicitly) prohibits its own suspension.

 

Suppose that, instead of adopting this motion, a point of order had been made at the time that it was under consideration. Should the chair rule it out of order? Would an alternate motion explicitly framed as a motion to adopt a special rule of order be within the scope of the notice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Josh Martin

Josh Martin

Posted
Posted

Suppose that, with the necessary notice and voting threshold to adopt a special rule of order, a society's assembly adopts a motion "that no motions shall be made to recolour the clubhouse for the next three years."

 

At the next meeting, someone asks what, exactly, the effect of the motion is. Should this motion be interpreted as:

 

a) A motion that is null and void because it was not framed as a special rule of order, and needed to be a special rule of order to accomplish its desired outcome.

B) A suspendable special rule or order.

c) A special rule of order that cannot be suspended because suspension would violate some right of a member (such as an absentee's right to assume that such a motion will not be considered).

d) A special rule of order that cannot be suspended because it (implicitly) prohibits its own suspension.

 

The second one. The fact that it was not framed as a special rule of order does not undermine its validity - and certainly not to the point that it would be null and void. I do not believe the rule, as written, provides any rights to absentees or individual members or prohibits its own suspension. Thus, the assembly has validly adopted a special rule of order which may be suspended by a 2/3 vote.

 

Suppose that, instead of adopting this motion, a point of order had been made at the time that it was under consideration. Should the chair rule it out of order? Would an alternate motion explicitly framed as a motion to adopt a special rule of order be within the scope of the notice?

 

I think the chair should rule the point not well taken. I don't believe it is strictly necessary (although it is certainly helpful) to explicitly state in the motion that it intends to adopt a special rule of order. It seems clear enough to me that the proposed motion can only be properly adopted as a special rule of order, so the chair should process it as such.

 

I do think a motion "To adopt a special rule of order that no motions shall be made to recolour the clubhouse for the next three years." would be within the scope of notice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dan Honemann

Dan Honemann

Posted
Posted

Even though it specifically refers to motions? That sounds more like special rule of order territory.

 

It's deceptive. A motion that the clubhouse shall not be repainted for the next three years is nothing more than that, even although it is disguised as a rule prohibiting a motion to do so. Special rules of order do not deal with what may or may not be the substance of a main motion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Josh Martin

Josh Martin

Posted
Posted

Special rules of order do not deal with what may or may not be the substance of a main motion.

 

I might find it persuasive that this particular rule is a standing rule in special rule of order clothing, but it certainly seems in order to, for instance, adopt a special rule of order providing that a motion to repaint the clubhouse requires previous notice, or requires a 2/3 vote for adoption, or whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Josh Martin

Josh Martin

Posted
Posted

Would it not violate the principle that the assembly cannot bind a future session, and thus need to be a special rule of order to be effective? I think I've heard that expressed elsewhere.

 

It would need a special rule of order in order to be particularly effective. A standing rule may be rescinded or amended like any other main motion (and therefore, it does not violate the principle that the assembly cannot bind a future session).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dan Honemann

Dan Honemann

Posted
Posted

I might find it persuasive that this particular rule is a standing rule in special rule of order clothing, but it certainly seems in order to, for instance, adopt a special rule of order providing that a motion to repaint the clubhouse requires previous notice, or requires a 2/3 vote for adoption, or whatever.

Yes, a special rule of order may be adopted providing that a motion to repaint the clubhouse will require previous notice or a 2/3 vote for adoption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shmuel Gerber

Shmuel Gerber

Posted
Posted

Is the meaning of the rule really "that no motions shall be made to recolour the clubhouse for the next three years", or is it actually a rule "that no motions shall be made for the next three years to recolour the clubhouse"?

(Also, why is the clubhouse in Canada, when meetings of the 2FP are in Pittsburgh?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sean Hunt

Sean Hunt

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Is the meaning of the rule really "that no motions shall be made to recolour the clubhouse for the next three years", or is it actually a rule "that no motions shall be made for the next three years to recolour the clubhouse"?

(Also, why is the clubhouse in Canada, when meetings of the 2FP are in Pittsburgh?)

 

The latter. The former, I think, is out of order for being beyond the objectives of the society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dan Honemann

Dan Honemann

Posted
Posted

How does that not "deal with what may or may not be the substance of a main motion?"

 

A special rule of order providing that a motion to repaint the clubhouse will require previous notice or a 2/3 vote for adoption does not deal directly with the substantive question as to whether or not the clubhouse should be repainted, but, instead, deals with the requirements for the adoption of a motion to do so.

 

My response in post #9 is based upon the following: "Whenever it is desired that the basis for decision be other than a majority vote or (where the normal rules of parliamentary law require it) a two-thirds vote or a vote of a majority of the entire membership, the desired basis should be precisely defined in the bylaws or in a special rule of order." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 404, ll. 20-24, emphasis supplied.) However, it may be of interest to note that, prior to the 10th edition, this sentence ended with the words "should be precisely defined in the bylaws." The question as to whether or not this phrase "or in a special rule of order" is also applicable to the inclusion of a requirement of previous notice (as discussed in the remainder of the paragraph) is debatable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Sean Hunt

Sean Hunt

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Okay, I've decided I'm not totally satisfied by this answer. I don't have the time to dig an example up at the moment, but we've had a number of discussions where people have asked "How do I keep someone from making the same motion over and over each session." and the answer has usually been that a special rule of order would be the minimum required to actually impose such a rule. How does that reconcile with this thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Josh Martin

Josh Martin

Posted
Posted

Okay, I've decided I'm not totally satisfied by this answer. I don't have the time to dig an example up at the moment, but we've had a number of discussions where people have asked "How do I keep someone from making the same motion over and over each session." and the answer has usually been that a special rule of order would be the minimum required to actually impose such a rule. How does that reconcile with this thread?

 

I'm not sure it has to be reconciled. It's entirely possible that we've all been wrong for some time. It's been known to happen before. Now that I think back, I don't believe this is the first time Dan has raised these objections. I seem to recall that he had a lengthy debate with J. J. on this subject in one of the discussions you're referring to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...