Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

How should a policy be adopted?


Timothy

Recommended Posts

As far as RONR is concerned it does not matter at all.  This is a non-parliamentary issue (i.e. it has nothing to do with the running of a meeting), so RONR does not worry about this.  The organization is free to do what it wants.

 

I have no doubt that it is missing from RONR; I've looked. But I'm not convinced that it has nothing to do with the subject matter of RONR. RONR talks about the treasurer, for example, but the fact is that the only thing the treasurer has to do with meetings is that he is elected and he gives a report. While this isn't true of every policy that an organization might adopt, I would argue that this particular type of policy impacts meetings far more than a treasurer's report.

 

Since the volunteers are elected, a nomination should only be accepted if the person meets the requirements of the policy. If there is a nominating committee involved, they are going to have to be familiar with the policy as well. So, we've got all this meeting related stuff going on because of a policy and RONR doesn't give us any help on adopting a policy so that it has proper weight in comparison to the other rules of the organization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While this sort of policy would not create a parliamentary rule, it would establish a prior decision. Until it was amended or rescinded, no future decision could be made that was in conflict. If the assembly tried to appoint someone who did not meet the guidelines, such a nomination would be properly ruled out of order by the chair, and if it was made, it would likely constitute a continuing breach that could be declared null and void at any later meeting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An organization that works with children wishes to adopt a policy known as the "Child Protection Guidelines" that applies to all volunteers and paid staff. How does such a policy relate to bylaws and other rules?

 

I'm not at all sure what it is that you're asking.

 

Certainly this prospective policy must not contain anything at all which conflicts with the organization's bylaws, and assuming it contains no rules of order (as defined on page 15), it's adoption will simply create a standing rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not at all sure what it is that you're asking.

 

Suppose a policy is in place, which is at the level of a standing rule. Now, suppose there is a motion to amend the bylaws in such a way that the bylaws and the policy would be in conflict. What would be the best way to handle this situation?

 

Or suppose the policy is in place, as a standing rule, but because of the nature of the policy, the organization wishes to make it more difficult to modify the policy than it is to modify most standing rules. Would it be sufficient to write the policy with a section that specifies how the policy may be modified? Would such a statement be in order, since the statement would not be consistent with what RONR says is required to amend something previously adopted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Standing rules are administrative rules--that's what policies are; so I agree with Daniel's post above.  In the hierarchy of rules, the bylaws are, of course, higher than the standing rules.  So in a conflict between bylaws and a standing rule, the bylaws would win, and the standing rule would have to be altered to comply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Standing rules are administrative rules--that's what policies are; so I agree with Daniel's post above.  In the hierarchy of rules, the bylaws are, of course, higher than the standing rules.  So in a conflict between bylaws and a standing rule, the bylaws would win, and the standing rule would have to be altered to comply.

 

I don't disagree, but therein lies what may be a problem. The intent of such a policy is to protect children by preventing certain individuals from having unobserved access to the children, but the policy doesn't protect against bylaws that were written without taking the policy into consideration or that were written before the policy was put into place. Based on what you guys are saying, it appears the policy is missing some teeth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suppose a policy is in place, which is at the level of a standing rule. Now, suppose there is a motion to amend the bylaws in such a way that the bylaws and the policy would be in conflict. What would be the best way to handle this situation?

 

I don't understand.  If you like the policy, why would you amend the bylaws to defang it?

 

... Or suppose the policy is in place, as a standing rule, but because of the nature of the policy, the organization wishes to make it more difficult to modify the policy than it is to modify most standing rules. Would it be sufficient to write the policy with a section that specifies how the policy may be modified? Would such a statement be in order, since the statement would not be consistent with what RONR says is required to amend something previously adopted?

 

I think this is allowable; it would at least be at the level of a special rule of order (p. 10, lines 20 - 25).

 

... but the policy doesn't protect against bylaws that were written without taking the policy into consideration or that were written before the policy was put into place. Based on what you guys are saying, it appears the policy is missing some teeth.

 

It is missing them if you have pulled them out, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suppose a policy is in place, which is at the level of a standing rule. Now, suppose there is a motion to amend the bylaws in such a way that the bylaws and the policy would be in conflict. What would be the best way to handle this situation?

 

I think the chair should inform the assembly that, if the amendment is adopted, certain sections of the assembly's policy on the subject will no longer be enforceable, at least to the extent that they conflict with the bylaws. It will be up to the assembly to determine how to deal with it from there. It would seem the best course of action is either to amend (or defeat) the proposed amendment to the bylaws or to later amend or rescind the policy.

 

Or suppose the policy is in place, as a standing rule, but because of the nature of the policy, the organization wishes to make it more difficult to modify the policy than it is to modify most standing rules. Would it be sufficient to write the policy with a section that specifies how the policy may be modified? Would such a statement be in order, since the statement would not be consistent with what RONR says is required to amend something previously adopted?

 

Such a statement is in order, but the statement is in the nature of a special rule of order. This means that if it is included with the policy, adopting the policy will have the same requirements as for adopting a special rule of order. It would also be in order to adopt the special rule of order separately.

 

I don't disagree, but therein lies what may be a problem. The intent of such a policy is to protect children by preventing certain individuals from having unobserved access to the children, but the policy doesn't protect against bylaws that were written without taking the policy into consideration or that were written before the policy was put into place. Based on what you guys are saying, it appears the policy is missing some teeth.

 

If there is a concern that certain rules in higher-level rules (such as the bylaws) will undermine the policy, then yes, the rule is certainly "missing some teeth," and it will be necessary for the organization to review its higher-level rules to address those problems, if it wishes to do so. The policy itself (or perhaps some of the most important sections of it) could also be placed in the bylaws, if the society really wanted to give it some teeth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand.  If you like the policy, why would you amend the bylaws to defang it?

 

My concern is more along the lines of an unintentional defanging. Some bylaws may have a non-obvious relationship to a policy, so that it appears the policy has nothing to do with the jobs some people are doing, but they have a means to gain access to what the policy is intended to protect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My concern is more along the lines of an unintentional defanging. Some bylaws may have a non-obvious relationship to a policy, so that it appears the policy has nothing to do with the jobs some people are doing, but they have a means to gain access to what the policy is intended to protect. 

 

There is no practical way to completely protect against people making bad decisions.  This is a danger with nearly any bylaws amendment, and is a strong argument in favor of considering all bylaws amendments with extreme care, and with an eye toward unintended consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no practical way to completely protect against people making bad decisions.  This is a danger with nearly any bylaws amendment, and is a strong argument in favor of considering all bylaws amendments with extreme care, and with an eye toward unintended consequences.

 

True, but assuming that a policy is well thought out and well written, but a bylaw was adopted that gives people of unknown character unobserved access to children via a "backdoor" that people didn't realize was there, there ought to be a way for those responsible for implementing the policy to apply the policy to the backdoor as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but assuming that a policy is well thought out and well written, but a bylaw was adopted that gives people of unknown character unobserved access to children via a "backdoor" that people didn't realize was there, there ought to be a way for those responsible for implementing the policy to apply the policy to the backdoor as well.

 

The fact remains that if a conflict exists between an adopted policy and the bylaws, the bylaws take precedence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact remains that if a conflict exists between an adopted policy and the bylaws, the bylaws take precedence.

 

We don't disagree on that point. And in many more times than not, that is the way it ought to be, but some policies deal with things that are so important that it should be the case that if a bylaw is in conflict with the policy, the bylaws would be in conflict with with themselves as well. Is there a way to make that happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't disagree on that point. And in many more times than not, that is the way it ought to be, but some policies deal with things that are so important that it should be the case that if a bylaw is in conflict with the policy, the bylaws would be in conflict with with themselves as well. Is there a way to make that happen?

 

Amend the bylaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  . . . but some policies deal with things that are so important that it should be the case that if a bylaw is in conflict with the policy, the bylaws would be in conflict with with themselves as well. 

 

I'm not sure what that means but if you want to kick things up a notch, require all volunteers and paid staff to sign a contract. That elevates this from the world of parliamentarians into the world of lawyers (and judges and juries and jail).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but assuming that a policy is well thought out and well written, but a bylaw was adopted that gives people of unknown character unobserved access to children via a "backdoor" that people didn't realize was there, there ought to be a way for those responsible for implementing the policy to apply the policy to the backdoor as well.

The way for responsible people to do that is to bring it up during debate on the bylaw amendment, and get that language fixed before the bylaws are amended.  

 

You can also include that entire policy in the bylaws, but it seems to me if you could get support for that, you could get support for not including damaging language in the bylaws to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what that means but if you want to kick things up a notch, require all volunteers and paid staff to sign a contract. That elevates this from the world of parliamentarians into the world of lawyers (and judges and juries and jail).

 

I'm not sure that this would help. There are already laws against what a child protection policy guards against.

 

The way for responsible people to do that is to bring it up during debate on the bylaw amendment, and get that language fixed before the bylaws are amended.  

 

You can also include that entire policy in the bylaws, but it seems to me if you could get support for that, you could get support for not including damaging language in the bylaws to begin with.

 

I have no doubt that people in favor of the policy would also be in favor of fixing the bylaws. But that is a little late for the situation in which an organizer for a children's activity sees a new member walk in with key access to the front door to perform duties specified in the bylaws or to exercise rights specified in the bylaws. The organizer realizes that the new member isn't well known and the background check hasn't been done as the policy would require if he were assigned to work with children. Once the weakness in the policy and/or bylaws is seen, the bylaws can be fixed, but that takes time. It could take weeks or months to fix. In the meantime, if you knew the new member was a child molester, you might have legal basis for restricting the new member's rights, no matter what the bylaws said. But you don't. This person could be a good person and will eventually be working with children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In doing so, would one want to include a statement in the bylaws that mentions the policy, or would one want to include a section in the bylaws for policies and dump the whole policy into the bylaws?

 

Either is acceptable. Which is preferable probably depends on how lengthy and complex the policy is (and on which parts of the policy really need to be in the bylaws).

 

I have no doubt that people in favor of the policy would also be in favor of fixing the bylaws. But that is a little late for the situation in which an organizer for a children's activity sees a new member walk in with key access to the front door to perform duties specified in the bylaws or to exercise rights specified in the bylaws. The organizer realizes that the new member isn't well known and the background check hasn't been done as the policy would require if he were assigned to work with children. Once the weakness in the policy and/or bylaws is seen, the bylaws can be fixed, but that takes time. It could take weeks or months to fix. In the meantime, if you knew the new member was a child molester, you might have legal basis for restricting the new member's rights, no matter what the bylaws said. But you don't. This person could be a good person and will eventually be working with children.

 

Mr. Fish, I'm afraid that any solution to the problem of what to do until the bylaws are amended will likely be beyond the scope of this forum, since any solution will necessarily involve a number of non-parliamentary matters. I suggest that the leaders of the organization put their heads together, possibly with the assistance of a lawyer, and figure out what option will best protect the children and the organization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either is acceptable. Which is preferable probably depends on how lengthy and complex the policy is (and on which parts of the policy really need to be in the bylaws).

 

 

In this case, the policy is three pages of legalese with attachments. None of it matches the formatting of the bylaws.

 

 

 

Mr. Fish, I'm afraid that any solution to the problem of what to do until the bylaws are amended will likely be beyond the scope of this forum, since any solution will necessarily involve a number of non-parliamentary matters. I suggest that the leaders of the organization put their heads together, possibly with the assistance of a lawyer, and figure out what option will best protect the children and the organization.

 

I'm not sure I want to go there, because then we would end up consulting a lawyer every time we wanted to amend the bylaws. I could be wrong in my thinking, but what I'm actually aiming for a way to remove RONR from the picture. I figure the established leadership of the organization can bluff their way through the situation based on the policy, as long as someone can’t point to RONR as the reason why the poorly written bylaw would take priority over the policy. The person could appeal to the organization at the next meeting, but the leadership is likely to be recommending a change to the bylaws at that meeting anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this case, the policy is three pages of legalese with attachments. None of it matches the formatting of the bylaws.

 

Given that, it is probably best to include a much briefer statement in the bylaws which references the full policy for additional details.

 

I'm not sure I want to go there, because then we would end up consulting a lawyer every time we wanted to amend the bylaws.

 

The main reason I suggested the possibility of the lawyer is if you think someone is likely to sue the organization over this issue.

 

I could be wrong in my thinking, but what I'm actually aiming for a way to remove RONR from the picture. I figure the established leadership of the organization can bluff their way through the situation based on the policy, as long as someone can’t point to RONR as the reason why the poorly written bylaw would take priority over the policy. The person could appeal to the organization at the next meeting, but the leadership is likely to be recommending a change to the bylaws at that meeting anyway.

 

Well, let me put it this way. It is certainly improper to violate the bylaws. From a parliamentary perspective, however, it is up to the society to enforce its own bylaws. So if one or more persons were to consider violating the bylaws in a particular instance, it would be prudent to consider whether the society will have any interest in punishing the responsible parties.

 

From a legal perspective, however, I understand that bylaws are viewed as in the nature of a contract. Thus, if the affected member is of a litigious nature, it may also be prudent to seek legal advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...