First & Second Reading

[cwhite5]

Hi all, 

 

This is my first post here - I've come into position of Parliamentarian for our university's Student Government Association, and I'm trying to figure out the procedural mess that seems to have developed in the past 30 years.

 

Our order of business for weekly meetings has at its heart Unfinished Business, followed by New Business. Bills and resolutions get a first reading and questions of the sponsor under New Business. Under Unfinished business we've been debating, amending, and voting (rarely do we use any other motions in the course of business). 

 

From what I've read on this forum, Robert's Rules has nothing to do with the requirement that resolution has two readings before passage, correct? 

 

There is no explicit mention of two readings in the constitution or bylaws. There is one segment that says "2] No less than forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting of the Student Senate in which a piece of legislation shall have its first reading, said legislation shall be made available for the student body to read and consider." Would you interpret this, along with the structure of our agenda, to imply that there would also be a second reading? 

 

If not- is there anywhere else this requirement for two readings could reside? Could it be a matter of tradition that is binding because of how long it's been done? 

 

I'd like to know because occasionally people "move to suspend the rules and submit the bill as read for the second reading"-I'm trying to figure out if this makes sense or is even necessary, what majority it needs to pass by, etc. 

 

Thank you!

 

[Josh Martin]

Our order of business for weekly meetings has at its heart Unfinished Business, followed by New Business. Bills and resolutions get a first reading and questions of the sponsor under New Business. Under Unfinished business we've been debating, amending, and voting (rarely do we use any other motions in the course of business). 

 

This bears very little resemblance to how Unfinished Business and New Business work in RONR.

 

From what I've read on this forum, Robert's Rules has nothing to do with the requirement that resolution has two readings before passage, correct? 

 

Correct. RONR has no "two readings" requirement. Generally speaking, a member can introduce a motion in New Business and the assembly can deal with it right then and there.

 

There is no explicit mention of two readings in the constitution or bylaws. There is one segment that says "2] No less than forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting of the Student Senate in which a piece of legislation shall have its first reading, said legislation shall be made available for the student body to read and consider." Would you interpret this, along with the structure of our agenda, to imply that there would also be a second reading? 

 

I don't think the structure of your agenda implies anything about a second reading. The standard order of business RONR also has "Unfinished Business" and "New Business." I do think that mention of a "first reading" implies that, at some point, there would also be (at least) a second reading. If one was pressed to make the case that the bylaws require a second reading, however, the clause leaves something to be desired. If this is really all the bylaws say on the subject, I'd say the meaning is ambiguous and the assembly will need to interpret it.

 

If not- is there anywhere else this requirement for two readings could reside?

 

Certainly. Do you have any lower-level sets of rules? RONR calls rules of this nature "special rules of order," but it's certainly possible that they go by a different name in your organization.

 

Could it be a matter of tradition that is binding because of how long it's been done? 

 

No. Tradition (which RONR calls "custom") doesn't cut it here, since the rule conflicts with the rules in RONR. "If a customary practice is or becomes in conflict with the parliamentary authority or any written rule, and a Point of Order (23) citing the conflict is raised at any time, the custom falls to the ground, and the conflicting provision in the parliamentary authority or written rule must thereafter be complied with. If it is then desired to follow the former practice, a special rule of order (or, in appropriate circumstances, a standing rule or a bylaw provision) can be added or amended to incorporate it." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 19)

 

I'd like to know because occasionally people "move to suspend the rules and submit the bill as read for the second reading"-I'm trying to figure out if this makes sense or is even necessary, what majority it needs to pass by, etc. 

 

Well, in the ordinary case, a motion to Suspend the Rules requires a 2/3 vote when applied to a rule of order, which this rule would be. In my opinion, however, a "two readings" rule generally cannot be suspended, unless the rule specifically provides for its own suspension, since the purpose of such a rule is generally to protect absentees.

 

Of course, if the "two readings" rule does not actually exist (which seems quite possible), there is no need to suspend it.

[cwhite5]

Thank you so much for your thorough explanation!

 

Our bylaws specify that every new "senator" to take office should receive a guide to parliamentary procedure. I think something might be in there, but I might not be able to track that down before our next meeting, so I have a few other questions: 

 

(1) Would it be wiser for the chair and myself to act as if there was an explicit requirement for two readings before passage? 

 

(2) If a past group (we're in the 46th so say the 25th) passed a resolution that stipulated all bills be read a second time, would this still be applicable now or no since it's not in any of the governing documents? 

[Josh Martin]

Our bylaws specify that every new "senator" to take office should receive a guide to parliamentary procedure. I think something might be in there, but I might not be able to track that down before our next meeting, so I have a few other questions: 

 

Well, even if there was something, I'm not sure that a statement in a guide is actually a rule.

 

(1) Would it be wiser for the chair and myself to act as if there was an explicit requirement for two readings before passage? 

 

I think the chair and yourself will need to make your best attempt at interpreting the organization's rules and then enforce them based upon that interpretation. As I noted, based solely upon the facts provided, I think it could go either way.

 

(2) If a past group (we're in the 46th so say the 25th) passed a resolution that stipulated all bills be read a second time, would this still be applicable now or no since it's not in any of the governing documents? 

 

If the assembly adopted a special rule of order on this subject in the past, then yes, it is still in force, notwithstanding their failure to write the rule down.

[Gary c Tesser]

...(2) If a past group (we're in the 46th so say the 25th) passed a resolution that stipulated all bills be read a second time, would this still be applicable now or no since it's not in any of the governing documents?

... If the assembly adopted a special rule of order on this subject in the past, then yes, it is still in force, notwithstanding their failure to write the rule down.

If they adopted this resolution, it should be there in the minutes, apparently from 1993 if what you call groups proceed one a year.

Maybe somebody actually sensibly compiled resolutions of ongoing force into a collective document, maybe called "Adopted Resolutions of Ongoing Force," or, for the lowbrow undergraduates (or aspiring lowbrow undergraduates like me), "Our Rules." If no one has, then maybe somebody should, before putting such a collocation together begins to look like an unwieldy chore.