Interpreting bylaws

[helphelpme]

The two guest posts above are mine, I was not logged in.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Is there a reference in Robert's Rules that I can direct someone to that indicates that it is the job of the pres/chair to interpret rules/bylaws...

 

RONR says:

 

"It is the right of every member who notices a breach of the rules to insist on their enforcement." (p. 249, ll. 32-34)

"By electing a presiding officer, the assembly delegates to him the authority and duty to make necessary rulings on questions of parliamentary law. But any two members have the right to Appeal from his decision on such a question." (p. 255, ll. 26-29)

 

The chair making a ruling is just a step in the process. It may be the only step if there are no points of order or appeals from the members.

[Josh Martin]

Also, if the bylaw that I am looking impacts the full organization, who is considered the assembly? Conventions are not but every 3 years and that is where the bylaws can be changed by the delegates.

The board could interpret the bylaws between conventions, but the ultimate authority to interpret the bylaws would rest with the convention.

I'd say your ruling stands unless and until it is successfully overturned by a Point of Order and subsequent Appeal at a meeting of the board or at a convention.

[J. J.]

The motion could, in the future, be determined to have violated the bylaws, so it would be as permanent as precedent. 

 

I think I agree with Josh. 

[helphelpme]

HHH,

 

How would appeals be handled?  Meaning if someone wants to appeal a decision, who is it appealed to if the members that vote on bylaws do not get together but at conventions? 

[Edgar Guest]

 , , , if someone wants to appeal a decision, who is it appealed to if the members that vote on bylaws do not get together but at conventions? 

 

 . . . the ultimate authority to interpret the bylaws would rest with the convention.

[Sean Hunt]

If your bylaws don't provide a means of appeal outside a convention, there isn't one. The Board has the authority to run the organization between conventions.

[Edgar Guest]

The Board has the authority to run the organization between conventions.

 

Though "run the organization" seems a tad infelicitous.

[Gary Novosielski]

HHH,

 

How would appeals be handled?  Meaning if someone wants to appeal a decision, who is it appealed to if the members that vote on bylaws do not get together but at conventions? 

Appeals are handled immediately, by a member saying "I appeal from the decision of the chair", and a second member saying, appropriately enough "Second."

 

After explaining the ruling, if necessary, the chair states the question "Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?"

 

Presuming it's debatable (which it usually is) the chair may speak twice, and everyone else only once.  The chair has the right to speak first, and last, after all others who wish to have spoken.

 

The question is then put, with those supporting the ruling saying "Aye" and those opposed saying "No".   A majority or tie vote sustains the chair.

 

For the full description of the motion, see RONR §24. APPEAL.

 

The assembly in this case is the body which is meeting.  This assumes the the decision of the chair pertains to the business currently before that body, and that the decision, whether sustained or overruled, will affect only that body.

 

I eagerly await further discussion on how this would apply in a situation where the assembly then meeting was, say, a board, and the effect of the ruling was on the entire society.

[Josh Martin]

How would appeals be handled?  Meaning if someone wants to appeal a decision, who is it appealed to if the members that vote on bylaws do not get together but at conventions? 

 

As I noted, the board can interpret the bylaws between meetings of the convention. If the past chair is a board member, she can raise a Point of Order followed by an Appeal at the next board meeting. (Alternately, she can get someone on the board to do this for her, if she is not a board member.) A majority vote is sufficient to overturn your ruling. This ruling could, of course, later be overturned by the convention.

 

If the past chair is not a board member and cannot find anyone on the board who supports her interpretation, then it looks like it will be a while before she will have any opportunity to challenge your ruling.

 

I eagerly await further discussion on how this would apply in a situation where the assembly then meeting was, say, a board, and the effect of the ruling was on the entire society.

 

If the board is granted "full power and authority over the affairs of the society between conventions" or the like (which seems extremely likely if the convention only meets once every three years), then the board may interpret the bylaws between meetings of the convention. This ruling could, of course, be overturned at a meeting of the convention.

[Dan Honemann]

If the assembly wishes to clarify the meaning of an ambiguous bylaws rule, outside of the context of a specific Point of Oder, the proper course is to amend the language to remove the ambiguity, under the applicable rules for such amendments.

 

Right on.

[Shmuel Gerber]

It's a bit late in the discussion, and the OP may have left already, but I would add that there is nothing in RONR that gives the president of an organization the right to "rule" on questions of bylaw interpretation that arise outside a meeting context.

 

Also, points of order and appeals relate to parliamentary procedure in a meeting. It's true that a question of bylaw interpretation may arise and need to be ruled on by the chair, but only when something happens at a meeting that causes it to, such as a motion being proposed that conflicts with the bylaws, or a question relating to whether a particular person is eligible to vote at a meeting.

 

I don't think it is proper to raise a point of order at a meeting simply because something that happened outside a meeting, relating to an administrative matter, may have violated a rule of the organization and calls for an interpretation of the rule. In the situation described here, if we assume that the executive board is going to handle the matter, the proper course would be for someone to make a motion directing the appropriate officer, say the treasurer, what to do in the case. At that time, a board member who believes that taking such action would violate the bylaws could raise a point of order to that effect. Or, suppose the treasurer has already acted. At the next meeting, no point of order can be raised directly against the treasurer's action, because it has nothing to do with any procedural violation occurring at a meeting. Instead, someone may make a motion ordering the treasurer to provide a refund (or whatever the member believes is appropriate), and a point of order may be raised against that motion.