Limiting debate by Special Rule of Order

[mikalac]

The Master suggests on p.16 that 10 minutes (and twice) for debate might be too long and I'm sure that all of our members would agree to that. To keep our bylaws tidy, and not waste time with the motion to Limit Debate during the owner meetings, suppose we amend (in blue) the bylaws thus:

 

1. Robert's Rules of Order. The most current edition of Robert's Rules of Order shall be the parliamentary authority for the Association and Board and shall govern all meetings and proceedings where they are not inconsistent with the Governing Documents or New Jersey Law.

 

2. Special Rule of Order. Member debate shall be limited to no more than two speeches of 3 minutes each on any one question on the same day. The second speech cannot be made until every other member has had the opportunity to speak at least once on the motion. The making of a secondary motion is not counted as speaking in debate. Making an inquiry or a brief suggestion is not be counted as speaking in debate. 

 

Would this change be in order?

 

PS. Assume that the Governing Docs and law are not prohibitive.

 

Thanks for your assistance.

[Richard Brown]

Would this change be in order?

 

Yes, but you might want to consider using the same verbiage used in RONR  re speaking in debate, e.g., that a member shall not be recognized for his second speech until all other members wishing to speak have had a chance, etc.

 

Also, RONR and most parliamentarians I know advise against making special rules of order bylaw provisions or actually including them in the bylaws.  I would recommend a separate document entitled "Special Rules of Order", even if this one rule is, for now, your only special rule of order.  It can be attached to the bylaws, but I would not actually put it in the bylaws for a variety of reasons.

[mikalac]

Yes, but you might want to consider using the same verbiage used in RONR  re speaking in debate, e.g., that a member shall not be recognized for his second speech until all other members wishing to speak have had a chance, etc.

 

Good idea. Added that important provision. (see above).

 

Also, RONR and most parliamentarians I know advise against making special rules of order bylaw provisions or actually including them in the bylaws.  I would recommend a separate document entitled "Special Rules of Order", even if this one rule is, for now, your only special rule of order.  It can be attached to the bylaws, but I would not actually put it in the bylaws for a variety of reasons.

 

What problems are encountered when the SRoO is included in the bylaws instead of in a separate document? The author discusses this in general terms on p.17, but does not give much support except to say "since it may lead to cases of uncertainty as to whether a particular rule can be suspended." How does putting limiting debate in the bylaws leave uncertainty about suspension or in some other way create problems?

 

[Gary Novosielski]

You should also consider using the recommended language for adopting RONR as your parliamentary authority.  The term "in connection with" is not at all well defined.

 

And don't put Special Rules of Order in the bylaws themselves--certainly not in that article.

[Timothy]

 

Yes, but you might want to consider using the same verbiage used in RONR  re speaking in debate, e.g., that a member shall not be recognized for his second speech until all other members wishing to speak have had a chance, etc.

 

Good idea. Added that important provision. (see above).

 

Also, RONR and most parliamentarians I know advise against making special rules of order bylaw provisions or actually including them in the bylaws.  I would recommend a separate document entitled "Special Rules of Order", even if this one rule is, for now, your only special rule of order.  It can be attached to the bylaws, but I would not actually put it in the bylaws for a variety of reasons.

 

What problems are encountered when the SRoO is included in the bylaws instead of in a separate document? The author discusses this in general terms on p.17, but does not give much support except to say "since it may lead to cases of uncertainty as to whether a particular rule can be suspended." How does putting limiting debate in the bylaws leave uncertainty about suspension or in some other way create problems?

 

 

 

Special rules of order can be suspended, whereas bylaws can't (unless it is a rule of order that is contained in the bylaws). The confusion is that one person looking at the bylaws thinks the rule can't be suspended while another person thinks it is a rule of order, so it can be suspended. By separating the special rules of order from the bylaws, there is no question.

[mikalac]

You should also consider using the recommended language for adopting RONR as your parliamentary authority.  The term "in connection with" is not at all well defined.

 

Your link does not compute here. However, I lifted some RR language from p.588 that might satisfy you. (see post #1)

 

And don't put Special Rules of Order in the bylaws themselves--certainly not in that article.

 

See my reply to Tim on this subject.

 

[mikalac]

Special rules of order can be suspended, whereas bylaws can't (unless it is a rule of order that is contained in the bylaws). The confusion is that one person looking at the bylaws thinks the rule can't be suspended while another person thinks it is a rule of order, so it can be suspended. By separating the special rules of order from the bylaws, there is no question.

I don't see any confusion problem. It ought to be clear to everyone from the language that the new rule is not to be suspended. In the rare case where members want more time to discuss the motion or its amendment(s), RR provides an escape: kill the motion or amendment(s) and begin again. Adding more paperwork as an addendum to the bylaws seems so bureaucratic to me.

 

PS. Governing Docs = Certificate of Incorporation + Master Deed + bylaws. I define this in the beginning of my revised bylaws to save words throughout the bylaws text.

[Richard Brown]

Ken,  ignore our advice if you want to... that's up to you.  We are all telling you not to put a special rule of order in the bylaws.  RONR advises against it, too.   You can rest assured that somewhere down the road.... maybe even frequently... there will be disagreement whether that rule in the bylaws can be suspended and whether violating it constitutes a continuing breach.  Don't go there. 

[jstackpo]

Point 1:  At least copy the RONR reference correctly in your edited original posting (#1) :

 

The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised  shall govern the Association in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order that the Association may adopt [, and the Governing Documents and New Jersey Law].

 

The [...] phrase isn't in the standard, of course, but you seem to think you need it, even though it is stated in RONR.

 

 

By leaving out the "special rules" phrase from the RONR reference you have denied yourself the opportunity of adopting other special rules, other than by amending the bylaws which, depending, may be more difficult that adopting new special rules of order - p. 17. 

 

Point 2:  Here's a reason why NOT to include your "Special Rule..." provision in the bylaws at all:  By placing it there you have introduced the strong presumption that it is the only Special Rule to be found in your bylaws  --  p. 589 #4, line 33.  Thus if there are any identifiable special rules elsewhere in your bylaws (Such as the one stating that the President shall preside at all meetings...) those rules could NOT be suspendable.

 

This could bite you in the future.

[Chris Harrison]

I don't see any confusion problem. It ought to be clear to everyone from the language that the new rule is not to be suspended.

It isn't and shouldn't be clear that the rule can't be suspended.  Since this is a rule of procedure (of how to run the meeting) I would for sure be arguing it can be suspended.  If you really want to make it clear the rule can't be suspended you should specifically say so in the language (though doing so will with little doubt eventually shoot you all in the foot).

 

 

RR provides an escape: kill the motion or amendment(s) and begin again.

Not really.  If the motion is defeated it can't be renewed until the next session.  While in theory you could use Reconsider to accomplish your objective that isn't what the motion is supposed to be used for (RONR has a handy motion called "Extend Limits of Debate" that is there just for your type of situation ).

[Richard Brown]

You should also consider using the recommended language for adopting RONR as your parliamentary authority.  The term "in connection with" is not at all well defined

Gary, your link is not working.

[jstackpo]

The web page at   <<  www.robertsrules.com  >>

 

seems to be failing for everybody.  I (using Firefox) get this message:

 

The connection was reset

The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading.

    The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try again in a few moments.
    If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network connection.
    If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure that Firefox is permitted to access the Web.

 

 

Safari also fails to reach the web page.  Chrome anybody?

[mikalac]

OK, since the pundit multitudes are uniformly against my brilliant idea, I'm dropping it. Also, from the discussion it is obvious that I need to study p.588ff more carefully so I don't make a mess of my revision.

[Richard Brown]

The web page at   <<  www.robertsrules.com  >>

 

seems to be failing for everybody.  I (using Firefox) get this message:

. . . . . .

 

Safari also fails to reach the web page.  Chrome anybody?

I don't have Chrome, but it's not working with Internet Explorer, either.

[mikalac]

Not really.  If the motion is defeated it can't be renewed until the next session.  While in theory you could use Reconsider to accomplish your objective that isn't what the motion is supposed to be used for (RONR has a handy motion called "Extend Limits of Debate" that is there just for your type of situation ).

 

 

Yeah, might just as well go with this simple motion instead of messing up the bylaws with complications that I don't fully understand.

[Richard Brown]

OK, since the pundit multitudes are uniformly against my brilliant idea, I'm dropping it. Also, from the discussion it is obvious that I need to study p.588ff more carefully so I don't make a mess of my revision.

Good!!!   It was a bad idea.  :-)