Suspend RONR

[Dan Honemann]

Dan, i would be thinking of this motion:

 

"I move to suspend the rules to prohibit points of order from being raised during this session."

 

I would rule that motion out of order. 

 

So would I.

[J. J.]

Okay, suppose that the motion, with nothing else pending, was:

 

"I move that the following special rule be adopted:

 

Resolved, that no point of order shall be entertained."

 

Assume that a majority of the entire membership is present. 

[SaintCad]

I would consider anything besides the very narrow and specific purpose called for in Suspend the Rules to be a special rule(s) of order.  Looking at p 15-17 the question is: is the parliamentary authority in the bylaws or a supplement thereof?  If so then the bylaws need to be amended.  So assuming they are not in the bylaws:

1)  Special rules of order including absolute power of the chair, anarchy or rulings issued by the Flying Spaghetti Monster are in order - just not recommended. p 17 l 4-10.

2) It is implied by p 16 l 18-20 that adopting these special rules of order for a regular meeting is a main motion with no special requirements.

 

ETA:  @J.J. Is parliamentary authority specified in the bylaws and if so, do the bylaws require prior notice to amend?

[Josh Martin]

Okay, suppose that the motion, with nothing else pending, was:

"I move that the following special rule be adopted:

Resolved, that no point of order shall be entertained."

Assume that a majority of the entire membership is present.

In my opinion, such a motion is in order, although extremely ill-advised. I would state the question on the motion and then promptly relinquish the chair to someone else so that I could speak against the proposed rule in debate.

I suppose the other question you have is whether this could instead be adopted as a rule of order for the duration of the current session, and if so, what vote would be required. I believe that it could be, and it would require only a 2/3 vote for adoption without notice, as usual.

ETA: @J.J. Is parliamentary authority specified in the bylaws and if so, do the bylaws require prior notice to amend?

RONR permits an assembly to adopt special rules of order which take precedence over the rules in RONR, even if RONR is specified as the parliamentary authority in the bylaws. There are only a few instances in which RONR requires that a rule be placed in the bylaws - for example, rules authorizing absentee participation. So in my opinion, the answer to J. J.'s question is the same regardless of how (or if) the assembly has adopted RONR as its parliamentary authority.

[Dan Honemann]

Okay, suppose that the motion, with nothing else pending, was:

 

"I move that the following special rule be adopted:

 

Resolved, that no point of order shall be entertained."

 

Assume that a majority of the entire membership is present. 

 

In my opinion, such a motion is in order, although extremely ill-advised. I would state the question on the motion and then promptly relinquish the chair to someone else so that I could speak against the proposed rule in debate.

I suppose the other question you have is whether this could instead be adopted as a rule of order for the duration of the current session, and if so, what vote would be required. I believe that it could be, and it would require only a 2/3 vote for adoption without notice, as usual.

 

You think that such a motion is in order? 

 

What do you think it means, and what will be its effect if it is adopted?

[Shmuel Gerber]

You think that such a motion is in order? 

 

What do you think it means, and what will be its effect if it is adopted?

 

Member A: . . . And that's why I say that painting the clubhouse at this time is a terrible idea ----

Member B: Point of order!

Chair: The member will state his point.

Member B: The member's remarks are not germane to the immediately pending question, which is the amendment.

Member A: Mr. President!

Chair: For what purpose does the member address the chair?

Member A: According to our rules, no point of order shall be entertained.

Chair: In accordance with the rules, the chair does not entertain Member A's point of order that no point of order shall be entertained. Now, before this point of order was raised, the chair was preparing to issue a ruling. The chair rules that, indeed, Member A's remarks are not germane to the immediately pending question. The member is reminded to keep his remarks germane to the amendment, which is ...

[Dan Honemann]

Thank you. That explains it.

[J. J.]

Member A: . . . And that's why I say that painting the clubhouse at this time is a terrible idea ----

Member B: Point of order!

Chair: The member will state his point.

Member B: The member's remarks are not germane to the immediately pending question, which is the amendment.

Member A: Mr. President!

Chair: For what purpose does the member address the chair?

Member A: According to our rules, no point of order shall be entertained.

Chair: In accordance with the rules, the chair does not entertain Member A's point of order that no point of order shall be entertained. Now, before this point of order was raised, the chair was preparing to issue a ruling. The chair rules that, indeed, Member A's remarks are not germane to the immediately pending question. The member is reminded to keep his remarks germane to the amendment, which is ...

 

 

I agree that this would be the the proper interpretation of the rule.  I also agree that such a rule is exceptionally ill advised, but is in order.  I would however feel it would take a two-thirds vote with notice or a majority of the entire membership. 

 

However, I believe that this rule would have the same effect as the proposed motion to suspend the rules during this session.

 

I think this rule would tantamount in effect to the proposed suspension:

 

"I move that the following special rule be adopted:

 

Resolved, that no point of order or appeal of the chair shall be entertained.  This rule will cease to be effective at the final adjournment of this session."

[Dan Honemann]

Leo asks: “Is it in order to suspend RONR?”

 

The initial responses (all saying “no”) are correct, some of them (as in #9) noting that, aside from the fact that a motion to Suspend the Rules is used for a specific purpose and not to suspend rules in bulk, some rules in RONR cannot be suspended.

 

Shmuel then suggests to us that the following motion would be in order:

 

"I move that the rules be suspended for the purpose of authorizing the chairman, for the duration of this meeting, to rule according to his own notions of parliamentary procedure and the customary practices of this organization, regardless of what Robert's Rules of Order prescribes in relation to those rules contained therein that can be suspended."

 

In phrasing the motion in this fashion, Shmuel seems to be saying that the only reason why rules can’t be suspended in bulk is because some of them can’t be suspended. If so, I disagree.

 

As previously indicated, RONR makes it quite clear that a convention standing rule prescribing a parliamentary authority cannot be suspended, noting in the footnote on page 624 that:

 

“A rule on ‘Parliamentary Authority’ is included in the standing rules of a convention only if the bylaws of the organization do not prescribe the authority. If this rule is included, it cannot be suspended as such, although a particular rule stated in the parliamentary authority can be suspended by a two-thirds vote.”

 

What should be clearly understood is that, if the bylaws do prescribe the parliamentary authority, that prescription cannot be suspended as such either, although particular rules in it can be suspended by a two-thirds vote. This is the case whether or not the meeting is a convention of delegates or a regular meeting of an ordinary society. Furthermore, I’m quite sure it’s wrong to think that the only reason why it is said that the rule prescribing a parliamentary authority cannot be suspended is due solely to the fact that the parliamentary authority says that some of the rules in it cannot be suspended.

 

I think Shmuel's motion, and J.J.'s suggested motions, are all out of order.

[J. J.]

Why would the proposed rules be out of order?  I can come up with a reason why it could not be suspended.

[Dan Honemann]

Why would the proposed rules be out of order?  I can come up with a reason why it could not be suspended.

 

They are out of order because, even when not framed as a motion to suspend the rules, they effectively suspend virtually all of the rules in the parliamentary authority. 

[J. J.]

They are out of order because, even when not framed as a motion to suspend the rules, they effectively suspend virtually all of the rules in the parliamentary authority. 

 

 

The second rule does not.  It supersedes the rules in the parliamentary authority, which a special rule of order may properly do (with a very few exceptions).   It would require the vote needed to adopt a special rule. 

 

Would you think that it would make a difference if there was not a termination time in the second motion, i.e. it would apply to future sessions.

[Dan Honemann]

The second rule does not.  It supersedes the rules in the parliamentary authority, which a special rule of order may properly do (with a very few exceptions).   It would require the vote needed to adopt a special rule. 

 

Would you think that it would make a difference if there was not a termination time in the second motion, i.e. it would apply to future sessions.

 

My last response posted yesterday was unwarranted. I apologize for having posted it, and I have deleted it.

 

I agree that special rules of order may be adopted, which, if adopted, will supersede any rule of order in the parliamentary authority with which they conflict. I do not agree, however, that it is in order to move the adoption of a special rule of order, such as the one proposed in post #33, which effectively negates virtually all of the rules in the parliamentary authority. In my opinion, to do this requires the adoption of a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted. 

[J. J.]

My last response posted yesterday was unwarranted. I apologize for having posted it, and I have deleted it.

 

I agree that special rules of order may be adopted, which, if adopted, will supersede any rule of order in the parliamentary authority with which they conflict. I do not agree, however, that it is in order to move the adoption of a special rule of order, such as the one proposed in post #33, which effectively negates virtually all of the rules in the parliamentary authority. In my opinion, to do this requires the adoption of a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted. 

 

 

On some parts, we do agree.  First, I do not believe the rule could be suspended.  At least one ground for ruling such a suspension out of order is that RONR notes that "It is the right of every member who notices a breach of the rules to insist on their enforcement (p. 249, ll. 32-4)."  I will happily concede that there may be additional reasons, but this one will suffice. 

 

 

Second, I believe that such a rule would require the vote necessary to adopt a special rule, i.e. a vote of  2/3 w/notice  or a of a MEM.  That would be the same vote required to R/ASPA a special rule.

 

Where I do disagree is the effect of the proposed rule.  It does not "effectively negates virtually all of the rules in the parliamentary authority."  It does, however, remove the right of the individual member to insist of the enforcement, and of the assembly to appeal the chair's ruling.  It would not:

 

A.  Prevent the rule from being suspended to permit any member to raise a point of order;

 

B.  Prevent the society from disciplining or censuring the chair for failure to follow the rules.

 

It removes that right, which granted by the adoption of RONR, to insist that the rule be enforced by a single member.

 

(As an aside, I could see a special rule that said that a point of order or appeal could only be raise if supported by a small minority, but more than one, of the members in a large assembly.)

[smb]

Sounds like Leo has found help and we are now talking to ourselves.  I'll bite.  The question was asked, but I don't think it was answered:  Do the Bylaws require use of RONR?  If they do, then the answer is clearly 'no' you can't suspend RONR in toto --  not because of what RONR has to say about suspending rules, but because of what the bylaws say.  Suspending RONR in toto would be a violation of the bylaws requirement that meeting procedures be governed by a designated parliamentary authority.  Choosing to violate bylaws is not something you get to do.  Not simply because RONR prohibits it, but also because parliamentary common law and most state corporate codes require you to follow your bylaws.  If RONR isn't prescribed by your bylaws, then the next question is whether it is prescribed by your standing rules or policies or simply used by custom and practice without any official imprimatur?  If in your standing rules, how are those amended?  If they can be amended on the fly without notice, it would be a simple matter to delete the requirement.  (I said 'simple', not 'desirable').  But note that you would not be suspending RONR; you would be getting rid of it altogether (which appears to be your intent.) If you have never formally adopted RONR as a parliamentary authority, just use it by custom and practice, then you are pretty much free to alter your custom and practice.  But either of these alternatives begs several questions -- if you suspend (or eliminate) RONR are you then no longer going to have motions? Not going to vote? Not going to debate motions? Will the majority still decide or will you be moving to consensus?  What happens if you don't have a quorum? Unless you are going to turn every thing over to the presiding officer to decide or move to a completely consensus based procedure or to mob rule (any of which of course are a possibility) you are inevitably going to follow generally accepted principles of parliamentary common law anyway -- which are reasonably consistent with what RONR says but just not in as excruciating detail.  So the issue isn't really whether you want to suspend RONR, the issue is what rules in RONR are you having problems with or failing to understand? As has been said several times already, once you identify those you can suspend the troublesome ones when you need to or adopt special rules of your own to supersede them or go to another parliamentary authority that doesn't have them. 

[Dan Honemann]

Where I do disagree is the effect of the proposed rule.  It does not "effectively negates virtually all of the rules in the parliamentary authority."  It does, however, remove the right of the individual member to insist of the enforcement, and of the assembly to appeal the chair's ruling.  It would not:

 

A.  Prevent the rule from being suspended to permit any member to raise a point of order;

 

B.  Prevent the society from disciplining or censuring the chair for failure to follow the rules.

 

 

Well, I have been reluctant to use the word “frivolous” again (see post #16), but I’m afraid that it precisely describes the motion proposed in post #33 (as well as previous proposals), so that it must be used in explaining why these motions are not in order. These motions do not proposed to rescind whatever it was (bylaw, special rule of order, or convention standing rule) that adopted the parliamentary authority. Instead, they propose to leave the parliamentary authority in place, gutted of virtually any meaning whatsoever, and rendered useless. In my opinion, this is the height of frivolity.

 

You say (in A) that the proposed rule, if adopted, can be suspended to permit any member to raise a point of order. I disagree. Nothing prevents the chair from ruling that this motion to suspend the rules is not in order. He may or may not actually believe that he is right, but it doesn’t matter. No appeal can be taken from his ruling. Or he may put the motion to suspend the rules to a vote and then declare that it failed. He may be right or he may be wrong about the vote required for adoption, but it doesn’t matter. No points of order can be raised, and no appeals can be taken from the chair’s rulings.

 

You say (in B ) that the proposed rule, if adopted, will not prevent the society from disciplining or censuring the chair for failure to follow the rules. This is ironic, to say the least. You now suggest that the society's assembly may want to discipline or censure the chair for his failure to follow rules which it thought so little of that it adopted a rule preventing itself from enforcing them. But never mind, it won’t be able to do it anyway. To discipline or censure the chair requires the adoption of a motion of some sort to initiate disciplinary proceedings, or adoption of a motion to censure, and there is nothing the assembly can do to prevent these motions from being ruled out of order, or declared lost when permitted to be voted on.  

 

Yes, the proposed rule retains the adopted parliamentary authority in place but effectively negates virtually all of the rules in it. This is frivolity.

[J. J.]

Well, I would cite "Jacobs' Rule of Dilatory Motions" as being applicable in this case.    In this case, the proposed motion, whatever our opinion of it, would be adopted by either a 2/3 vote w/notice or a vote of the majority of the entire membership.  Ironically, if the chair should rule this proposed rule out of order as being frivolous, his decision could be appealed, and overruled by less than the vote needed to adopt the motion.

 

There is also an underling assumption (and yes, I can see the danger) that the chair may violate the other rules if this rule is adopted.  That may not be the case. 

 

Nothing would prevent  the motion to suspend the rule from being put by a member from his place on the floor. 

 

In looking at this, I could see a middle ground in terms of the rule.  A large assembly may wish to inhibit a tiny minority from raising points of order, but still permit a larger minority to demand that the rules be enforced. 

[Dan Honemann]

Well, I would cite "Jacobs' Rule of Dilatory Motions" as being applicable in this case.    In this case, the proposed motion, whatever our opinion of it, would be adopted by either a 2/3 vote w/notice or a vote of the majority of the entire membership.  Ironically, if the chair should rule this proposed rule out of order as being frivolous, his decision could be appealed, and overruled by less than the vote needed to adopt the motion.

 

There is also an underling assumption (and yes, I can see the danger) that the chair may violate the other rules if this rule is adopted.  That may not be the case. 

 

Nothing would prevent  the motion to suspend the rule from being put by a member from his place on the floor. 

 

I suppose there may be something in "Jacobs' Rule of Dilatory Motions" which permits a member to put to a vote, from his place on the floor, a motion which the chair has just ruled is not in order, but there sure ain't no such thing in RONR. 

[Gary Novosielski]

A rule that suspends all points of order cannot properly be called a rule of order.  It is, in fact a rule of disorder and therefore would not be in, umm, order.

[SaintCad]

As a data point, in Boy Scouts of America the committee chair is allowed to use whatever rules of order they want* and theoretically the Chartered Organization Representative (COR) has ultimate power to do as they please.  If you have ever attended any Pack/Troop committee meeting you probably have an opinion on how (in)efficient this system is.

 

 

 

*Within any limits set by the COR.

[J. J.]

I suppose there may be something in "Jacobs' Rule of Dilatory Motions" which permits a member to put to a vote, from his place on the floor, a motion which the chair has just ruled is not in order, but there sure ain't no such thing in RONR. 

 

 

The determination on if a motion is dilatory rests ultimately with the majority.  The chair's decision is subject to appeal.  If the chair should refuse to entertain such an appeal, and I would not recommend that course of action, the motion may be put from the floor. 

[Dan Honemann]

The determination on if a motion is dilatory rests ultimately with the majority.  The chair's decision is subject to appeal.  If the chair should refuse to entertain such an appeal, and I would not recommend that course of action, the motion may be put from the floor. 

 

Yes, that is as it should be, but we were discussing the effect of adoption of a rule which removes the right to appeal from any ruling by the chair (as well as removing the right to raise points of order), as you noted in post #39.

[J. J.]

Yes, that is as it should be, but we were discussing the effect of adoption of a rule which removes the right to appeal from any ruling by the chair (as well as removing the right to raise points of order), as you noted in post #39.

 

 

Until such a rule is adopted, it could not be put into effect.

 

The sequence would be:

 

1.  The following resolution is made:  "Resolved, that no point of order or appeal of the chair shall be entertained.  This rule will cease to be effective at the final adjournment of this session."

 

2.  The chair rules the motion out of order as dilatory. 

 

3.  The chair's decision is appealed and overruled.

 

4.  Resolution is adopted.

 

Only at that point would a Point of Order or Appeal be out of order under the newly adopted rule.

[Dan Honemann]

Until such a rule is adopted, it could not be put into effect.

 

The sequence would be:

 

1.  The following resolution is made:  "Resolved, that no point of order or appeal of the chair shall be entertained.  This rule will cease to be effective at the final adjournment of this session."

 

2.  The chair rules the motion out of order as dilatory. 

 

3.  The chair's decision is appealed and overruled.

 

4.  Resolution is adopted.

 

Only at that point would a Point of Order or Appeal be out of order under the newly adopted rule.

 

Well, I certainly agree with this.