Standing Rules vs Rules of Order

[Tom Coronite]

RONR p. 574 l. 35 ff:  Since a reasonable rotation in office is desirable in almost all organizations, a section of this article may well provide that "No person shall be eligible to serve ... consecutive terms (specifying the number) in the same office."

 

I certainly understand the wisdom of these words, and also understand such language is not mandatory.  In my experience, many churches (mine included) have such language, and many (mine included) try to work around it because they find qualified volunteers harder and harder to come by, and when one has a great Treasurer, for example, why not keep him?

 

Here are my questions:

 

If bylaws contain such a provision as described in the quote, is that in the nature of a rule of order? Can it be suspended?

 

If we were to remove such a provision from the bylaws, would identifying it as a standing rule be what RONR has in mind on p. 18 ll. 1-8?

 

I often have difficulty discerning what exactly makes a rule in the nature of a rule of order, and I don't believe the rotation rule would "relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings" (p15 ll. 9-10) but am not clear if it relates to "duties of officers in that connection."  While not a duty, it does relate to the duties somewhat, or am I all wet?

 

We annually run into the issue of losing good people suited for various duties without a lot of options for replacing them.  I know we have other options such as removing the restriction entirely, so to a certain degree this is mental gymnastics.  I appreciate your patience with the hypothetical questions.

[Dan Honemann]

RONR p. 574 l. 35 ff:  Since a reasonable rotation in office is desirable in almost all organizations, a section of this article may well provide that "No person shall be eligible to serve ... consecutive terms (specifying the number) in the same office."

 

I certainly understand the wisdom of these words, and also understand such language is not mandatory.  In my experience, many churches (mine included) have such language, and many (mine included) try to work around it because they find qualified volunteers harder and harder to come by, and when one has a great Treasurer, for example, why not keep him?

 

Here are my questions:

 

If bylaws contain such a provision as described in the quote, is that in the nature of a rule of order? Can it be suspended?

 

 

No and no.

 

If we were to remove such a provision from the bylaws, would identifying it as a standing rule be what RONR has in mind on p. 18 ll. 1-8?

 

 

I'm not sure that I understand this question. If this rule is removed from the bylaws, there will be no such rule. Rules of this nature must be in the bylaws in order to be effective.

[jstackpo]

Term limits are not (exactly) rues of order (other than in a "large" definition of "order") but they do place a limit (literally-!) on the right of a member to serve as an officer in an association as often as he might wish to, or as often as the voters might want him to.    Since they deal with the rights of a member, such rules do indeed belong in the bylaws  --  p. 14  --  in order to be enforceable or effective.   Placing them in "Standing Rules" won't hack it.

[Edgar Guest]

We annually run into the issue of losing good people suited for various duties without a lot of options for replacing them.  I know we have other options such as removing the restriction entirely, so to a certain degree this is mental gymnastics.  I appreciate your patience with the hypothetical questions.

 

I'm afraid there's no magic bullet.

 

Many wanted George Washington to remain in office "forever" but he chose to limit himself to two terms. That precedent was followed for decades. Even Theodore Roosevelt, who only served one full elected term, limited himself (a decision he later regretted). Then along comes FDR who, in the midst of a lingering economic depression and an imminent world war, decides that continuity in office is more important than "a reasonable rotation". Then the Constitution is amended to establish a two-term limit. 

 

Do we wish some of our subsequent President's could have served a third term? A fourth? It depends on whom you ask.

 

Would Bill Clinton have run for a third term? Would George W. Bush? Would Barack Obama?

 

The percentage of incumbents that are re-elected is a strong argument for term limits. On the other hand, the will of the voters should be respected.

 

In short, there's no magic bullet.

[Tom Coronite]

 

 

If we were to remove such a provision from the bylaws, would identifying it as a standing rule be what RONR has in mind on p. 18 ll. 1-8?

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure that I understand this question. If this rule is removed from the bylaws, there will be no such rule. Rules of this nature must be in the bylaws in order to be effective.

 

In short, would such a detail (term limits) be what RONR refers to as the "details of the administration of a society"?  From the replies given, I am taking it that the answer is no.  I do understand the point about relating to a member's rights and therefore needing to be in the bylaws.  Once the first question I had was answered with a no, the remaining questions fall smartly into the same line.

[Tom Coronite]

 

In short, there's no magic bullet.

 

Indeed!

[Dan Honemann]

In short, would such a detail (term limits) be what RONR refers to as the "details of the administration of a society"?  From the replies given, I am taking it that the answer is no.  I do understand the point about relating to a member's rights and therefore needing to be in the bylaws.  Once the first question I had was answered with a no, the remaining questions fall smartly into the same line.

 

I think it is a detail of the administration of a society, but it is one which must be in the bylaws in order to be effective.

[Richard Brown]

There is an option available to help with the term limits issue, but I don't necessarily recommend it.  In fact, I don't think I recommend it at all.  But, for what it's worth, here it is:

 

You might consider a provision in your bylaws similar to what my city has in its Home Rule Charter about term limits.  City council members are limited to two consecutive terms in the same office.  But, there is a provision in the charter that allows a councilman to run for a third term if he submits a written petition signed by a certain percentage of the registered voters in his district asking that he be allowed  to run for a third term.  It's a high threshold and takes lots of work to achieve it and I'm aware of only one time that a councilman was able to obtain the necessary number of signatures to run for a third term.  He did run for the third term and won his election rather handily.   He was also very popular in his district.

 

The problem I see with that approach in your situation is that, unless you have a very high threshold, it will be too tempting for all officers who want to serve an additional term to petition for special permission.  And because everyone probably knows everybody else, it will be hard for members to refuse to sign the petition or for the board to refuse permission.  Perhaps something like a unanimous vote of the Board authorizing an additional term would be an option.  The candidate would still have to run for re-election:  the special permission to seek another term only gives him the right to seek it.  It doesn't guarantee that he will be elected.

 

I would think long and hard about such an approach, though:  I see the possibility of lots of unintended consequences with the ultimate result that term limits may become meaningless.

[Guest Nancy N.]

...Term limits ... do place a limit (literally-!) on the right of a member to serve as an officer in an association as often as he might wish to, or as often as the voters might want him to.    Since they deal with the rights of a member, such rules do indeed belong in the bylaws  ...

 

I don't see this, in that, absent explicit provisions, non-members may serve as officers (p. 447).

[jstackpo]

Yeah...   I would suppose that, as non-members, since they have no rights (of membership) at all, there is nothing to limit. 

 

So a non-member could be returned to office any number of times, even if there were term limits imposed on member-officers.

 

OTOH, since the original poster's bylaw citation read:  "No person may..." he might be term limited after all.

 

Logic is such fun.

[Dan Honemann]

Term limits are not (exactly) rues of order (other than in a "large" definition of "order") but they do place a limit (literally-!) on the right of a member to serve as an officer in an association as often as he might wish to, or as often as the voters might want him to.    Since they deal with the rights of a member, such rules do indeed belong in the bylaws  --  p. 14  --  in order to be enforceable or effective.   Placing them in "Standing Rules" won't hack it.

 

 

I don't see this, in that, absent explicit provisions, non-members may serve as officers (p. 447).

 

So, because a rule placing limits on the rights of members doesn't place limits on the rights of nonmembers, you don't see that it places limits on the rights of members?

[Guest Nancy N.]

So, because a rule placing limits on the rights of members doesn't place limits on the rights of nonmembers, you don't see that it places limits on the rights of members?

 

You jsut couldn't be satisfied answering the Original Poster's questions completely by the second post.  You just have to wake every7body up at 7 in the morning.

[jstackpo]

So what am I, chopped liver?

 

I beat Dan out by 8 minutes.

[Guest Nancy N.]

So, because a rule placing limits on the rights of members doesn't place limits on the rights of nonmembers, you don't see that it places limits on the rights of members?

 

Oh, all right.

 

Of course tautologies are apodictic, and I won't deny one when it pokes me in the eye, like now.*  But at 7 in the morning, I'm not sure members do have a right to serve as officers -- for that matter (opening a can of salmon or something), without explicit rules prohibiting non-members from serving as officers (notwithstanding what's "usual," p. 447), non-members therefore have as much right to serve as officers as members do.

 

In which case, if members do indeed have officer-service as a right, then it's a right that non-members equally have.  Which refutes the frequently-read (and -typed, by me and others) statement that non-members have no rights.

 

So yes, of course, a rule that places limits on the rights of members, does so.  My point was that a rule that limits the rights of members and non-members alike (assuming such right exists -- for the moment) does not derive its strength, in the rule's pure form (applied to both classes of person), from its effect only on members.  Which I expected Dr. Stackpole, having gone to logic school (whence his expertise on wind tunnels and cyclones and such typhoonery) (and O, where's Dr. Seabold when we need him, which is like always), to have caught onto without so much acrobatic wriggling.

 

I think we're left with the last sentence of post 2 (and it reiteration, or rephrasing, or recapitulation, or a capella if you want to go there, which I think you shouldn't if you know what's good for you, in post 7) -- which I find pleasing but, if you would, please tell me why I do.

_______

N.B.  I got it!  It's not a can of salmon, it's a kettle of worms or a can of fish.

 

Maybe I don't got it.

__________

*I was on the fence about writing "and I won't deny one when I know what's good for me, like now." 

 

Also I was on the fence about whether the asterisk should precede or follow the period, and I'm still not sure.  Where's Thomas Ralph when I need him.  Or that Latin scholar, what's'is'name.

[Guest Nancy N.]

So what am I, chopped liver?

 

I beat Dan out by 8 minutes.

 

Hopscotching (or whatever you call it grown-up tadpoles do) posts, you'll get your turn.

[Guest Nancy N.]

Yeah...   I would suppose that, as non-members, since they have no rights (of membership) at all, there is nothing to limit. 

 

So a non-member could be returned to office any number of times, even if there were term limits imposed on member-officers.

 

OTOH, since the original poster's bylaw citation read:  "No person may..." he might be term limited after all.

 

Logic is such fun.

 

OK.

 

Maybe this has already been covered here, and I've lost track of it, like how I lost track of how many bullets I shot from my Smith & Wesson (Reg. U.S. Pat.Off.) in the first shoot-out in the first "Dirty Harry"  movie, but I think what we're dealing with is not limiting a right of members (or anyone else) to serve, but of members to elect somebody.  If you agree, John -- or even if you disagree, as an exercise, like keeping your hat on in them dang wind tunnels in graduate school, not to mention orals, with all the blowing and bloviating hot air -- could you kindly recast Post 3 in that light?

 

(You ast for it)

[Tom Coronite]

Yeah...   I would suppose that, as non-members, since they have no rights (of membership) at all, there is nothing to limit. 

 

So a non-member could be returned to office any number of times, even if there were term limits imposed on member-officers.

 

OTOH, since the original poster's bylaw citation read:  "No person may..." he might be term limited after all.

 

Logic is such fun.

 

JD, I didn't post any bylaws.  That's a quote from RONR.

[jstackpo]

JD, I didn't post any bylaws.  That's a quote from RONR.

Ah, yes.  But I suppose I was arguing "as if" it came from some bylaws.

 

 

OTOH, since the original poster's bylaw citation read:  "No person may..." he might be term limited after all.

 

Arguing for this position (vice Posting #3), yes, it limits the members right to elect whom they please as often as they please which would (indirectly) limit the "person's" term.

 

But also, when the non-member is elected as chairman (say) he, the non member, picks up some rights along with that job (such as making rulings, &c).  So it is fair to say that he also inherits some intrinsically related limits, too, in particular the term limits, even as a non-member.  He is, in a temporary manner, in the clutches of the association during his chairmanship.

[Guest Nancy N.]

Ah, yes.  But I suppose I was arguing "as if" it came from some bylaws.

 

 

Arguing for this position (vice Posting #3), yes, it limits the members right to elect whom they please as often as they please which would (indirectly) limit the "person's" term.

 

But also, when the non-member is elected as chairman (say) he, the non member, picks up some rights along with that job (such as making rulings, &c).  So it is fair to say that he also inherits some intrinsically related limits, too, in particular the term limits, even as a non-member.  He is, in a temporary manner, in the clutches of the association during his chairmanship.

 

(I really thought I was gonna win this one.)