Which bylaws would be considered "a rule of order"?

[Jason H]

Hello,

 

I've seen various posts on the forum from those asking if a society's bylaws can be suspended. Generally, the answer is no, with the exceptions being:

1. Unless the bylaw contains a means for its own suspension

2. Unless the rules in the bylaws are clearly in the nature of a rule of order

 

How does one know whether a rule in a bylaw is clearly in the nature of a rule of order. Aren't all the bylaws rules of order?

 

And if not, how would a society resolve a disagreement regarding which bylaws ARE rules of order and which bylaws are not?

 

More specifically, our society's bylaws have an explicit process for adopting proposed bylaw amendments. This process involves the reading and debate of the proposal at a general membership meeting, and then a subsequent reading and vote on that proposed bylaw amendment at the following general membership meeting.

 

Could these rules be suspended?

 

Thanks!
JH

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Ultimately, it will be up to your organization to interpret your bylaws. Rules protecting absentees, such as giving notice of a bylaws amendment, cannot be suspended (see RONR 11th ed., pp. 263-264).

[Weldon Merritt]

"The term rules of order refers to written rules of parliamentary procedure formally adopted by an assembly or an organization. Such rules relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in that connection. The object of rules of order is to facilitate the smooth functioning of the assembly and to provide a firm basis for resolving questions of procedure that may arise." RONR, p. 15, ll. 7-13.

[Josh Martin]

How does one know whether a rule in a bylaw is clearly in the nature of a rule of order. Aren't all the bylaws rules of order?

 

No. In fact, generally speaking, most of the rules in the bylaws should not be rules of order. Those should generally be adopted as special rules of order.

 

Another important caveat is that not all rules of order can be suspended either. Rules protecting the rights of individual members, or absentees, or fundamental principles of parliamentary law, or a rule in the bylaws requiring a ballot vote, cannot be suspended.

 

And if not, how would a society resolve a disagreement regarding which bylaws ARE rules of order and which bylaws are not?

 

The chair rules on a Point of Order, subject to Appeal. Majority rules. As a rule of thumb, though, I would generally assume that the rules cannot be suspended.

 

More specifically, our society's bylaws have an explicit process for adopting proposed bylaw amendments. This process involves the reading and debate of the proposal at a general membership meeting, and then a subsequent reading and vote on that proposed bylaw amendment at the following general membership meeting.

 

Could these rules be suspended?

 

So is the goal to suspend the rules so that the bylaw amendment can be adopted at the same meeting where it is introduced? In my opinion, that is not in order. This is effectively a previous notice requirement. Such a rule is in the nature of a rule of order, but it protects the rights of absentees, and it therefore cannot be suspended.

[Jason H]

So is the goal to suspend the rules so that the bylaw amendment can be adopted at the same meeting where it is introduced? In my opinion, that is not in order. This is effectively a previous notice requirement. Such a rule is in the nature of a rule of order, but it protects the rights of absentees, and it therefore cannot be suspended.

 

It is my understanding that the goal is to refrain from executing the required reading and vote of the proposed bylaw amendment at the next scheduled membership meeting. The proposal has already been through the first half of the process that is specified in the bylaws. The membership attending the next meeting are expecting the bylaw proposal to be voted upon.

 

Thanks for your detailed reply!

[Gödel Fan]

This will depend on whether you give notice at one meeting and move the amendment at the next (in which whoever is going to move it could fail to do so, or no one could second), or move it at one meeting and then postpone to a definite time, in which case it will come up as a general order.  

 

If the membership doesn't want to vote on it, can't they just vote no and move on with their lives?

[Josh Martin]

It is my understanding that the goal is to refrain from executing the required reading and vote of the proposed bylaw amendment at the next scheduled membership meeting. The proposal has already been through the first half of the process that is specified in the bylaws. The membership attending the next meeting are expecting the bylaw proposal to be voted on.

Thank you for your detailed reply!

Since my assumption was wrong, don't thank me yet.

Now I don't really understand what the goal is. You say it is to "refrain from executing the required reading and vote of the proposed bylaw amendment at the next meeting." What exactly does this mean? Do they want to postpone the motion? Defeat it without a direct vote? Something else?

Depending on what exactly they're trying to do, there may be a way to do it (or something close) and they may not even need to Suspend the Rules. Whatever they want to do, however, will require at least a majority vote, and maybe a 2/3 vote, so if the assembly wants to approve this amendment, it can certainly do so.

[Guest Nancy N.]

Jason, does the group simply want to not bother ("dispense with," as the English language would have it) reading the proposed amendment at the second meeting, since it was already read at the first meeting (and, quite possibly, here in the late 20th Century, at the forefront of technology with digital watches and disco is so passe' and some home computers you can fit on only half of a medium-size office desk, members have been provided with their own copies to peruse, either on paper or pixel)?  I'm not sure, but it might be acceptable.

 

(Maybe it would be allowed only if no one wanted it to be read at that second meeting.  THere might be more than one principle, not only the rights of absentees, involved.)

[Josh Martin]

Jason, does the group simply want to not bother ("dispense with," as the English language would have it) reading the proposed amendment at the second meeting, since it was already read at the first meeting (and, quite possibly, here in the late 20th Century, at the forefront of technology with digital watches and disco is so passe' and some home computers you can fit on only half of a medium-size office desk, members have been provided with their own copies to peruse, either on paper or pixel)?  I'm not sure, but it might be acceptable.

 

(Maybe it would be allowed only if no one wanted it to be read at that second meeting.  THere might be more than one principle, not only the rights of absentees, involved.)

If the desired goal is to suspend only the reading of the proposed amendment, this may be done, but only by unanimous consent, since a motion to Suspend the Rules may not be adopted in the face of a minority at least as large as that the rule is intended to protect, and a rule requiring that a motion be read protects the rights of an individual member.

[Jason H]

If the desired goal is to suspend only the reading of the proposed amendment, this may be done, but only by unanimous consent, since a motion to Suspend the Rules may not be adopted in the face of a minority at least as large as that the rule is intended to protect, and a rule requiring that a motion be read protects the rights of an individual member.

The goal is to postpone the vote on the proposed bylaw amendment. (I see your point with respect to the reading of the bylaw proposal. I believe suspending the (part of the) bylaw that specifies that proposed amendments must be voted upon at the next meeting is a more serious matter.)

 

Upon further consideration, I believe a motion to suspend the rules in order to disobey our current bylaw (that states the next meeting must be used for a reading and VOTE of the proposal) would (at the very least) violate absent members' rights. 

 

There are members who had an interest in this bylaw being voted upon at the next meeting, but they will not be able to attend the next meeting. Should they not have the right to weigh in on whether the vote on this bylaw is postponed? These members are under the impression (as per our current bylaws) that this bylaw proposal will be voted upon at the next meeting. They haven't received any notice that they would have to attend the meeting to vote to affirm that this bylaw proposal will actually be voted upon, as specified in the bylaws.

Thoughts?

 

(Sorry my original thoughts did not consider that there might be a difference between suspending the rules that require the proposal to be READ vs. suspending the rules that require the proposal to be VOTED UPON.)

[Dan Honemann]

The goal is to postpone the vote on the proposed bylaw amendment. (I see your point with respect to the reading of the bylaw proposal. I believe suspending the (part of the) bylaw that specifies that proposed amendments must be voted upon at the next meeting is a more serious matter.)

 

Upon further consideration, I believe a motion to suspend the rules in order to disobey our current bylaw (that states the next meeting must be used for a reading and VOTE of the proposal) would (at the very least) violate absent members' rights. 

 

There are members who had an interest in this bylaw being voted upon at the next meeting, but they will not be able to attend the next meeting. Should they not have the right to weigh in on whether the vote on this bylaw is postponed? These members are under the impression (as per our current bylaws) that this bylaw proposal will be voted upon at the next meeting. They haven't received any notice that they would have to attend the meeting to vote to affirm that this bylaw proposal will actually be voted upon, as specified in the bylaws.

Thoughts?

 

(Sorry my original thoughts did not consider that there might be a difference between suspending the rules that require the proposal to be READ vs. suspending the rules that require the proposal to be VOTED UPON.)

 

Failure to vote on the proposed amendment at the next meeting will not violate the rights of absentees.

[Jason H]

Failure to vote on the proposed amendment at the next meeting will not violate the rights of absentees.

Would a motion to suspend the bylaws/rules in order to refrain from voting on the proposed bylaw amendment be in order?

From Mr. Martin's post, it sounded like even if one member at the meeting wished for the bylaw to be read (as specified in our bylaws) then the bylaw must be read.

Would this logic hold true with respect to the vote as well? The vote on the proposed bylaw amendment could only be postponed by unanimous consent?

Sorry for my confusion here...

[Dan Honemann]

Would a motion to suspend the bylaws/rules in order to refrain from voting on the proposed bylaw amendment be in order?

From Mr. Martin's post, it sounded like even if one member at the meeting wished for the bylaw to be read (as specified in our bylaws) then the bylaw must be read.

Would this logic hold true with respect to the vote as well? The vote on the proposed bylaw amendment could only be postponed by unanimous consent?

Sorry for my confusion here...

 

The proposed amendment, after it has been taken up, can be postponed to an adjourned meeting, or to your next regular meeting if that meeting is to be held within a quarterly time interval, by a majority vote. It can also be referred to a committee by a majority vote.

 

Edited to add: I'm assuming quite a bit here, since I haven't read your bylaws. Here's what RONR says on page 185:

 

"A matter that the bylaws require to be attended to at a specified session, such as the election of officers, cannot, in advance and through a main motion, be postponed to another session. It can be taken up at any time when it is in order during the specified session (that is, either as originally convened or at any adjournment of it); and it can be postponed to an adjourned meeting in the manner explained above, after first adopting, if necessary, a motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn. The adjourned meeting, as already stated, is a continuation of the same session. The procedure of postponing such a matter to an adjourned meeting is sometimes advisable, as in an annual meeting for the election of officers on a stormy night when, although a quorum is present, the attendance is abnormally small. If the matter has actually been taken up during the specified session as required, it also may be postponed beyond that session in accordance with the regular rules for the motion to Postpone. It is usually unwise to do so, however, unless completing it during the session proves impossible or impractical." 

[Jason H]

The proposed amendment, after it has been taken up, can be postponed to an adjourned meeting, or to your next regular meeting if that meeting is to be held within a quarterly time interval, by a majority vote. It can also be referred to a committee by a majority vote.

 

Wow, so a majority of the members at the meeting can decide that we will not follow our bylaws that specify the required steps for the bylaw amendment procedure? Could a majority also decide that we won't follow the specified steps for our elections? Can we postpone our elections with a majority vote of members?

 

I'm utterly confused by this. I would've expected that if the rules could be suspended, we'd be looking at a 2/3 vote for sure (and I wasn't even sure that this particular rule could be suspended.)

 

How do we, as a society, know (according to RONR) which of our bylaws we can suspend through a majority vote, a 2/3 vote and/or not at all?

 

I feel like I'm missing some major concepts here so again, I apologize for my misunderstanding of these principles. I thought our bylaws were pretty tough to suspend...

 

Thank you.

[Dan Honemann]

Wow, so a majority of the members at the meeting can decide that we will not follow our bylaws that specify the required steps for the bylaw amendment procedure? Could a majority also decide that we won't follow the specified steps for our elections? Can we postpone our elections with a majority vote of members?

 

I'm utterly confused by this. I would've expected that if the rules could be suspended, we'd be looking at a 2/3 vote for sure (and I wasn't even sure that this particular rule could be suspended.)

 

How do we, as a society, know (according to RONR) which of our bylaws we can suspend through a majority vote, a 2/3 vote and/or not at all?

 

I feel like I'm missing some major concepts here so again, I apologize for my misunderstanding of these principles. I thought our bylaws were pretty tough to suspend...

 

Thank you.

 

Please look at my response in post # 13 as amended.   

[Jason H]

Excellent. Thank you for the elaboration.