Succession: Standing Rule?

[ps23435]

My organization, a volunteer fire/rescue squad desires to put in place am order of succession in the event the Squad Commander and Deputy are unable to perform duties.  The bylaws only provide for the deputy to stand in when the commander is absent.  Can a standing rule be used to meet this need and designate an order of succession among the other officers?  Is there a more appropriate vehicle?  Thanks.

[Gödel Fan]

What sorts of duties are we talking about here?  If we're not talking about parliamentary duties, such as chairing a meeting, RONR does not have much guidance to offer (for instance, if we're talking about fire scene command).  For operational command, I think a standing rule is entirely appropriate - and I tend towards the view that operations should be kept out of the bylaws.  The bylaws do need to establish the existence of all the officer positions, though.  

However, under NIMS, incident command should not be tied to "everyday" titles, although this seems to be a dead letter.

This is my area of interest, since I am parliamentarian of a fire company and have worked as an emergency manager.  Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss the relations between RONR, operations, and NIMS in more detail.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

54 minutes ago, ps23435 said:

My organization, a volunteer fire/rescue squad desires to put in place an order of succession in the event the Squad Commander and Deputy are unable to perform duties.  The bylaws only provide for the deputy to stand in when the commander is absent.  

Can a standing rule be used to meet this need and designate an order of succession among the other officers?

No. -- Where a vacancy occurs in a bylaws-defined office, you cannot fill the office except by (a.) giving previous notice; (b.) conducting an election.

You cannot create a standing rule (i.e., an independent rule of a lower level than constitution or bylaws) to take away the right to vote from the whole membership (here, to fill a vacancy) for the officers of an organization. Voting is precious. No standing rule will be of high-enough level of rule to yank away a right of membership.

As always, if you amend your bylaws to say that you can fill vacancies that way, then whatever the bylaws say you can do, you can do.

***

If you merely have a "duty swap", where the duty itself if re-delegated, without the title of "officer" being transferred, then that is a different question. You are free to reassign duties rather freely, where a duty has fallen derelict.

For example, if bill-payment is delegated to the treasurer, the organization is not bound to go into bankruptcy just because the treasurer refuses to pay the bills. -- You may not jostle the title 'treasurer' around to the pinch-hitting volunteer(s), but the pinch-hitting volunteer does not need bylaws-level permission to fulfill derelict functions of the organization. -- Examples: Without a secretary, you can assign a secretary pro tem to take minutes. Without a chair, you can appoint a chairman pro tem to conduct a meeting.

No "pro tem" appointee/volunteer is an "officer". They are just fulfilling the duty without a title, without the perqs, without the glory.

 

 

[ps23435]

Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could be,   This would not be to fill a vacancy in a defined office (the bylaws address that contingency).  It would simply be a "chain of command" designation.  That is, should the commander and the specified deputy commander be away (for example, on vacation, or out of town), it would specify who among the other officers would be next in line to assume temporary command.

[Gary Novosielski]

If the bylaws specify who presides and who presides in their absence, then i believe that's where you need to put any additional presiding duties.  

[Kim Goldsworthy]

25 minutes ago, ps23435 said:

That is, should the commander and the specified deputy commander be away

(for example, on vacation, or out of town),

it would specify who among the other officers would be next in line to assume temporary command.

This is significant new information.

So, the application is OUTSIDE of a meeting context? -- And, there is no TITLE or OFFICE? -- It is pure "duty" and "tasks"? -- And the bylaws are silent on an existing chain of command?

If that is the scenario, then an ordinary main motion (as you say, a standing rule) would be sufficient.

It is like a "commander pro tem". -- Like a military rank of private or corporal who is in charge when the sergeant or lieutenant is not present.

I cannot think of a Robert's Rules principle which would prevent this "chain of command" arrangement to be anything else but "an ordinary act of the society", and amendable as often, as as flexible, as any other kind of policy.

[ps23435]

Thanks.  The last sounds closest to what we need to do.  This would be outside a meeting context and at it's most basic, does in fact deal with "duties" and "tasks". Your military analogy is very appropriate!

[Gary Novosielski]

I would agree, if the bylaws were silent, that a standing rule would be sufficient.  But if the bylaws contain some rules regarding how duties devolve, and the desire is to extend that chain beyond what is specified in the bylaws, I believe a bylaws amendment would be required.  The assumption is that if a certain class of what would otherwise be standing rules is placed in the bylaws, they are protected from change by an ordinary act of the society.  Indeed that may have been the motivation for placing them there.

This is analogous to naming standing committees.  If the bylaws do not name them, the society may create or dissolve them without a bylaws amendment, but if some standing committees are named, then they are the only ones that exist, unless the bylaws are changed. 

[Gödel Fan]

I might disagree with Jeepien above.  Parliamentary procedure is about deliberative assemblies.  Incident command is an entirely different beast.  Imagine that, instead of running an entire fire department, we were looking at the bylaws for a board of fire commissioners, none of whom have operational roles.  Suppose those bylaws established as officers:  Chair, Secretary, and Treasurer.  Now, this board is in charge of hiring firefighters to protect their municipality.  Would we forbid them from hiring a Fire Chief, Captains, and Lts, since these are officers and aren't specified in the bylaws?  Of course not - we understand full well that these are staff functions, not part of the deliberations of the board.  The same logic applies here.  

In fact, it is my opinion, as I said before, that the bylaws should say something about scene command - for many reasons, but one of them being that assuming command at a fire scene is nothing like presiding at a meeting.  Anything operational that is established as a rule by the department membership - as opposed to orders given by the Chief in his statutory capacity, policies established by government, by the fire commissioners, etc. - should be a standing rule.  SOPs are generally adopted pursuant to a separate statutory provision, but if not, they should be in the nature of standing rules.  (SOGs shouldn't be rules at all, since making them standing rules would be problematic - they would have their application outside the meeting setting, and hence would not be suspendable.)

Also, as I mentioned above, NIMS says that nothing should say who is in command.

[Richard Brown]

9 minutes ago, Gödel Fan said:

I might disagree with Jeepien above. . . . 

Joshua, it might help if you would use the quote feature when referring to someone's post above, especially when that person has made more than one post.  In this case, Jeepien has made two somewhat contradictory posts in this thread, one where he says he thinks such a provision should be in the bylaws and a second post, after potzbie commented, in which he changed his position based on potzbie's post and said the rule could indeed be a standing rule.  Quoting from the post you are referring to removes any doubt about exactly what it is that you are commenting on or disagreeing with.  It's also easier on the readers than having to constantly scroll up. 

[Gödel Fan]

45 minutes ago, Jeepien said:

I would agree, if the bylaws were silent, that a standing rule would be sufficient.  But if the bylaws contain some rules regarding how duties devolve, and the desire is to extend that chain beyond what is specified in the bylaws, I believe a bylaws amendment would be required.  The assumption is that if a certain class of what would otherwise be standing rules is placed in the bylaws, they are protected from change by an ordinary act of the society.  Indeed that may have been the motivation for placing them there.

This is analogous to naming standing committees.  If the bylaws do not name them, the society may create or dissolve them without a bylaws amendment, but if some standing committees are named, then they are the only ones that exist, unless the bylaws are changed. 

 

2 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Joshua, it might help if you would use the quote feature when referring to someone's post above, especially when that person has made more than one post.  In this case, Jeepien has made two somewhat contradictory posts in this thread, one where he says he thinks such a provision should be in the bylaws and a second post, after potzbie commented, in which he changed his position based on potzbie's post and said the rule could indeed be a standing rule.  Quoting from the post you are referring to removes any doubt about exactly what it is that you are commenting on or disagreeing with.

I was responding to the statement quoted above.

[Gary Novosielski]

If I contradicted myself, I did not intend to.  My opinion was (and as of this writing, still is)  that if the bylaws were silent, a motion to add standing rules would be in order.  But if rules of this nature were previously placed in the bylaws, amendment or expansion of those rules would require a bylaws change. 

If that's not what I said, that's what I meant to say.

I'm not sure we know for certain where the original set of rules, if any, to which the OP proposes to add, were located.  I think it matters.

[Josh Martin]

On 12/12/2015 at 8:32 PM, Gödel Fan said:

I might disagree with Jeepien above.  Parliamentary procedure is about deliberative assemblies.  Incident command is an entirely different beast.  Imagine that, instead of running an entire fire department, we were looking at the bylaws for a board of fire commissioners, none of whom have operational roles.  Suppose those bylaws established as officers:  Chair, Secretary, and Treasurer.  Now, this board is in charge of hiring firefighters to protect their municipality.  Would we forbid them from hiring a Fire Chief, Captains, and Lts, since these are officers and aren't specified in the bylaws?  Of course not - we understand full well that these are staff functions, not part of the deliberations of the board.  The same logic applies here.  

In fact, it is my opinion, as I said before, that the bylaws should say something about scene command - for many reasons, but one of them being that assuming command at a fire scene is nothing like presiding at a meeting.  Anything operational that is established as a rule by the department membership - as opposed to orders given by the Chief in his statutory capacity, policies established by government, by the fire commissioners, etc. - should be a standing rule.  SOPs are generally adopted pursuant to a separate statutory provision, but if not, they should be in the nature of standing rules.  (SOGs shouldn't be rules at all, since making them standing rules would be problematic - they would have their application outside the meeting setting, and hence would not be suspendable.)

Also, as I mentioned above, NIMS says that nothing should say who is in command.

It is certainly correct that if the bylaws provide for certain officers in a parliamentary sense, this does not prevent the board from creating positions which are officers in a different sense. It is also correct that if the bylaws provide who shall preside in the event of the chair's absence, or who shall fill the chair's position in the event of a vacancy, this does not prevent the board from creating a rule of succession in a standing rule for unrelated purposes.

It is also certainly correct that administrative rules should not be placed in the bylaws. If the society nonetheless places an administrative rule in its bylaws, however, no lower-level rule can conflict with it. We are told that "The bylaws only provide for the deputy to stand in when the commander is absent." I don't know what situations this rule applies to, but no standing rule applying to the same situations is in order.

[Gödel Fan]

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

It is certainly correct that if the bylaws provide for certain officers in a parliamentary sense, this does not prevent the board from creating positions which are officers in a different sense. It is also correct that if the bylaws provide who shall preside in the event of the chair's absence, or who shall fill the chair's position in the event of a vacancy, this does not prevent the board from creating a rule of succession in a standing rule for unrelated purposes.

It is also certainly correct that administrative rules should not be placed in the bylaws. If the society nonetheless places an administrative rule in its bylaws, however, no lower-level rule can conflict with it. We are told that "The bylaws only provide for the deputy to stand in when the commander is absent." I don't know what situations this rule applies to, but no standing rule applying to the same situations is in order.

If the bylaws say that the Vice-President shall preside in the absence of the President, does it follow that, if both are absent, a meeting cannot be held?  RONR is, after all, a lower-order rule than the bylaws, and the bylaws describe a situation (the President being absent) which such a circumstance fits - yet we have no concern at all with RONR establishing that, in said situation, the body elects a chair pro-tem.  If the bylaws say that the deputy shall have operational command when the commander is absent (I'm not sure they do - although we have only a summary, it's more likely that they're talking about non-operational duties), then the absence of both is similarly unanswered, and I see no reason a lower-ranking rule cannot be used.  I also strongly suspect that there are applicable laws preventing bylaws from creating a power vacuum in a first-responder agency.  

[Josh Martin]

21 hours ago, Gödel Fan said:

If the bylaws say that the Vice-President shall preside in the absence of the President, does it follow that, if both are absent, a meeting cannot be held?  RONR is, after all, a lower-order rule than the bylaws, and the bylaws describe a situation (the President being absent) which such a circumstance fits - yet we have no concern at all with RONR establishing that, in said situation, the body elects a chair pro-tem.  If the bylaws say that the deputy shall have operational command when the commander is absent (I'm not sure they do - although we have only a summary, it's more likely that they're talking about non-operational duties), then the absence of both is similarly unanswered, and I see no reason a lower-ranking rule cannot be used.  I also strongly suspect that there are applicable laws preventing bylaws from creating a power vacuum in a first-responder agency.  

RONR is an unusual case because it is generally incorporated into the bylaws as the parliamentary authority, and thus, on some subjects it would seem to be a reasonable interpretation of the bylaws to read them in conjunction with RONR. Even if this is not the case, rules of order may be suspended, so it is in order to elect a Chairman Pro Tempore if the President and Vice President are absent (and even if they are present, although this will require a suspension of the rules if they are unwilling to step aside), even if the bylaws provide that the President or Vice President shall preside. It would not, however, be in order for the society to adopt a rule providing that the Secretary (for example) shall preside in the absence of the President and Vice President.

It likewise seems to me that if the bylaws provide that the deputy shall have operational command when the commander is absent, that it is not in order to adopt a lower-level rule on this subject, especially because rules in the bylaws which are not in the nature of rules of order may not be suspended unless the bylaws so provide. If the rule in the bylaws has nothing to do with operational command, then I agree that the society is free to adopt lower-level rules on this subject.

If there are applicable laws on this subject, then those rules will take precedence over the bylaws and RONR.

[Gödel Fan]

I fail to see what the incorporation of RONR into the bylaws as the parliamentary authority has to do with the matter, and I'm not sure what it means to read them in conjunction.  RONR itself provides that the rules of order are lower-order rules than the bylaws, and the text for adoption generally says except when in conflict with the bylaws and special rules of order.  

If the bylaws say "The President shall preside at all meetings, except that, if the President is absent, the Vice-President shall preside" then, when the President and Vice-President are both absent, we could easily look in the bylaws, find the relevant rule, and say:

"Is the President absent?"  "Yes"  "Okay, then the Vice-President shall preside."  "But he's absent too."  "Oh well - RONR says something about this situation, but so do the bylaws, and the adoption of RONR as our parliamentary authority specifically says that it applies only when not in conflict with the bylaws."

But we don't do that - it seems to me, unless I'm missing something, that we don't do that because we don't see the bylaws as being in conflict with RONR here.  (If someone wants to say, perhaps following the logic above, that the incorporation of RONR into the bylaws as the parliamentary authority raises it to the level of the bylaws - I would disagree - but regardless, the bylaw provision here would be more specific anyway.)  Why don't we see it as being in conflict?  It must be because we interpret the bylaws as being silent about what to do if both are absent, must it not?  In other words, we implicitly see the provision as saying "If the President is absent, the Vice-President will preside, if not also absent."  I can't think of any other reason such a bylaw would allow the Secretary to call the meeting to order and preside over the election of a chair pro tem.

Now, of course, the rules of order can be suspended, but I don't think it's right to say that the election of a chair pro tem is done under a suspension of the rules.  How did the rules get suspended to permit the Secretary to call the meeting to order in the first place?  Why can the chair pro tem be elected with a simple majority?  Why is there no motion to suspend the rules for this purpose?  It's done, seemingly, as a matter of course, not under any suspension of the rules.  It seems difficult to me to say the rules have been suspended for this purpose when the members were never given a choice and have no mechanism to call for the enforcement of the rules.  Suppose you were elected chair pro tem under these circumstances, and I rose to a point of order that the rules of order had been suspended without a motion and a vote, and that it should require a 2/3 vote to permit the election of a chair pro tem.  How would you rule?

 

[Josh Martin]

16 hours ago, Gödel Fan said:

If the bylaws say "The President shall preside at all meetings, except that, if the President is absent, the Vice-President shall you were elected chair pro tem under these circumstances, and I rose to a point of order that the rules of order had been suspended without a motion and a vote, and that it should require a 2/3 vote to permit the election of a chair pro tem.  How would you rule?

I'd certainly rule this point not well taken.

I think you sidestepped one of my central points, however, so let me rephrase it as a question. Suppose that the bylaws provide that "The President shall preside at all meetings, except that, if the President is absent, the Vice-President shall preside." May the society adopt a special rule of order that "In the absence of the President and the Vice President, the Secretary shall preside." Why or why not?

[Gödel Fan]

A good question which, I must admit, gets to the heart of the matter (if we grant that a bylaw purporting to dictate what is done operational is valid at all - see below).  It seems to me that the answer is yes.  Let's start from agreement - certainly, we agree that, in the absence of the President and Vice President, the assembly could, by a majority vote, elect the Secretary chair pro tem, so certainly nothing prohibits the Secretary from presiding in that situation.  The only objection to such a rule is the "locking in" effect - but, as I argued previously, I would read the original bylaw as being silent in the matter of what happens when both are absent - it implicitly says "in the absence of the President and the presence of the VP..."  In such a case, I can see no objection to adopting a special rule of order to dictate what happens then.  I take it you disagree - but I don't know how you can square your disagreement with your claim that my point of order is not well taken.  (Of course, I think it's not well taken, what I want to know is why you think so.  In particular, I'm unclear why, if no rule needs to be suspended to permit such an election, it would be out of order to make a rule to deal with said situation.)

As to my parenthetical - while this line of argument is fun, it seems another exists as well.  Where such things as fire companies exist, they tend to be rather tightly hemmed in by statutes.  The usual arrangement is as follows:  The company operates as a private organization, often a corporation, which contracts (either through an actual contract, or as a consequence of statute - in Connecticut, we have a state law providing that a municipal ordinance affiliating with a fire company establishes a contractual relationship) with the municipality to be its emergency service provider.  The municipality, meanwhile, will have within its governmental structure a department called the "fire department," usually consisting of a board of commissioners, some staff, and the Fire Chief - which is a legal title with consequences in law in most states.  How does the Fire Chief get hired?  Often, the company is empowered to choose its own officers, and then one of two things happen: a) contract or statute requires the municipality to recognize the selected Chief as its Fire Chief, b ) contract or statute requires that the company's selection of a Chief be subject to the approval of the board of fire commissioners or other governmental entity, and said approval makes that person the Fire Chief.  In either case, that person operates in a role dictated by law.  Law will often give that person the power to define who is in operational command, and to dictate certain aspects of operations.  This is one reason I think that operational items put into the bylaws have a tendency to be inoperable anyway.  

[Dan Honemann]

17 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

I think you sidestepped one of my central points, however, so let me rephrase it as a question. Suppose that the bylaws provide that "The President shall preside at all meetings, except that, if the President is absent, the Vice-President shall preside." May the society adopt a special rule of order that "In the absence of the President and the Vice President, the Secretary shall preside." Why or why not?

It's probably a big mistake on my part to jump into this conversation at this point, but I also think the answer to this question is yes. I see nothing in the quoted bylaw provision or in RONR which would prevent it.

I'm curious, however, as to whether it is intended that some significance be given to the fact that it is the Secretary who is designated as the officer to preside instead of, say, the Treasurer, since the Secretary has other duties to perform during the meeting which will be difficult to perform while presiding. My assumption is that this is not the case.

[Josh Martin]

13 hours ago, Gödel Fan said:

A good question which, I must admit, gets to the heart of the matter (if we grant that a bylaw purporting to dictate what is done operational is valid at all - see below).  It seems to me that the answer is yes.  Let's start from agreement - certainly, we agree that, in the absence of the President and Vice President, the assembly could, by a majority vote, elect the Secretary chair pro tem, so certainly nothing prohibits the Secretary from presiding in that situation.  The only objection to such a rule is the "locking in" effect - but, as I argued previously, I would read the original bylaw as being silent in the matter of what happens when both are absent - it implicitly says "in the absence of the President and the presence of the VP..."  In such a case, I can see no objection to adopting a special rule of order to dictate what happens then.  I take it you disagree - but I don't know how you can square your disagreement with your claim that my point of order is not well taken.  (Of course, I think it's not well taken, what I want to know is why you think so.  In particular, I'm unclear why, if no rule needs to be suspended to permit such an election, it would be out of order to make a rule to deal with said situation.)

As to my parenthetical - while this line of argument is fun, it seems another exists as well.  Where such things as fire companies exist, they tend to be rather tightly hemmed in by statutes.  The usual arrangement is as follows:  The company operates as a private organization, often a corporation, which contracts (either through an actual contract, or as a consequence of statute - in Connecticut, we have a state law providing that a municipal ordinance affiliating with a fire company establishes a contractual relationship) with the municipality to be its emergency service provider.  The municipality, meanwhile, will have within its governmental structure a department called the "fire department," usually consisting of a board of commissioners, some staff, and the Fire Chief - which is a legal title with consequences in law in most states.  How does the Fire Chief get hired?  Often, the company is empowered to choose its own officers, and then one of two things happen: a) contract or statute requires the municipality to recognize the selected Chief as its Fire Chief, b ) contract or statute requires that the company's selection of a Chief be subject to the approval of the board of fire commissioners or other governmental entity, and said approval makes that person the Fire Chief.  In either case, that person operates in a role dictated by law.  Law will often give that person the power to define who is in operational command, and to dictate certain aspects of operations.  This is one reason I think that operational items put into the bylaws have a tendency to be inoperable anyway.  

Based upon your own well-reasoned arguments, as well as the answer from Mr. Honemann, it would appear that my understanding of this subject was incorrect. It would appear that a rule in the bylaws which provides that the President shall preside and that the Vice President shall preside in his absence does not prevent the society from adopting a rule that some other officer (such as the Secretary) shall preside in the absence of both officers.

As a result, it would likewise seem to be the case that a rule in the bylaws providing that the deputy shall have operational command when the commander is absent would not prevent the assembly from adopting a standing rule providing that some other person shall have operational command if both are absent.

As to the comments regarding statutory law on this subject, all I can say is that if a rule in the bylaws conflicts with a procedural rule in applicable law, the rule in the bylaws is null and void.

And Dan, it is correct that no significance was intended to be given to the fact that it was the Secretary that was mentioned in the rule.