legislative compared to ordinary society

[ptc122]

RONR indicates that laws replace some rules within a parliamentary authority. The terms legislative and ordinary define two different bodies. Does legislative have to conform to Laws and ordinary not? What would be examples of rules in RONR that could not be used by Legislative assemblies.
some of my confusion comes from wording on pages 3 and 4 lines 30 thru 2. We are a deliberative assembly of elected officials that use RONR as our authority and for procedures. Paul

[Hieu H. Huynh]

The assembly is subject to "applicable procedural rules" in the law, whether the assembly is legislative or not. Generally, RONR is a book of meeting procedures. These procedures govern unless they are in conflict with applicable procedural rules in the law (or the other rules of the assembly).

[Richard Brown]

I'm not sure what your question is.  Mr. Huynh answered your question as to effect of laws with which RONR might be in conflict.

I believe RONR is pretty suitable as is for use by a state legislature, but, as a practical matter, it was written with the intent that it be used as a parliamentary procedure manual by lay societies rather than by state legislatures.  Most state legislatures use Mason's Manual.  Many local "legislative bodies", however, such as city councils and school boards, do use RONR as their parliamentary authority.  I imagine most such local governing bodies do.

Perhaps we can help you more if you can be a bit more precise as to your question.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 2/13/2016 at 1:35 PM, ptc122 said:

RONR indicates that laws replace some rules within a parliamentary authority. The terms legislative and ordinary define two different bodies. Does legislative have to conform to Laws and ordinary not? What would be examples of rules in RONR that could not be used by Legislative assemblies.
some of my confusion comes from wording on pages 3 and 4 lines 30 thru 2. We are a deliberative assembly of elected officials that use RONR as our authority and for procedures. Paul

In a legislative assembly, RONR provides no rule as to the length of speeches, whereas in nonlegislative assemblies that have no rule of their own, the limit is ten minutes.

Also, the standard order of business provided by RONR is the usual one in ordinary societies and is not really designed for legislative assemblies (although technically it could apply under the appropriate conditions), and the following rule (page 241) would not apply:

When it appears that there is no further business in a meeting of an ordinary local society that normally goes through a complete order of business at each regular meeting, the chair, instead of waiting or calling for a motion to adjourn, can ask, "Is there any further business?" If there is no response, the chair can then say, "Since there is no further business, the meeting is adjourned." 

See also page xxxviii of the Introduction regarding some of the differences between the rules generally needed in a legislative assembly and those in an ordinary society.

[D.Llama]

 As a collateral comment , indirectly related , RONR is not in any way manner "positive" law . It has no place in the positive law whatsoever unless the positive law adopts it . That is - a legislative   body may  see  fit to take from  Robert's  what   it pleases but nothing in Roberts's binds a legislative body . Each legislative body makes its own rules of procedure   ( as noted above )  . It was General  Robert who looked to the  rules of the English  Parliament ,and the US Congress in the 1860's, and not the other way around . Indeed the claim on p. xxix  Line 1-2  ( Introduction )  of Robert's  that : 

"This book embodies a codification of present day - general parliamentary law" 

  is a remarkable  claim . It does no such thing . No "parliament " in the English speaking  world has adopted RONR as its parliamentary  procedure  ( as far as this writer knows ) and even on the occasion of   the first edition of Robert's Rules  in 1876 ( nor anytime in between then and now )  would such a claim  stand scrutiny . 

The result of this is confusion ( p. xxix - line 1-2 ) for  the novice  reader taking up a study of Robert's , as many a reader  will consider that Robert's is what it says it is- in its very first line  of Introduction . And that is an  unfortunate  starting point for a work so valuable as RONR  . Perhaps that can see correction in an edition  to follow the 11th. Here consideration for that is sought - regardless  that this is not on the same point raised by " ptc 122" above . 

Thank-you :

Pat Knoll

[Guest ptc122]

The result of this is confusion.. is getting close to what my concerns are. How does a society know whether it is subject to some laws that would override RONR or any manual the organization adopts. RONR talks a great deal about Parliamentary Law and rights. But some procedures would not conform to Federal, State, Municipal Statutes. How to know the difference? Elected Officials may use a manual such as RONR as their parliamentary authority and for procedures without realizing that some things within the manual and the procedures may not conform to local laws. 

What would be an example of a rule within Roberts that would be accepted by an ordinary society that could not be accepted by an elected body governed by an Act and subject to Laws? 

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Follow the law.

[Dan Honemann]

10 hours ago, Pat Knoll said:

 As a collateral comment , indirectly related , RONR is not in any way manner "positive" law . It has no place in the positive law whatsoever unless the positive law adopts it . That is - a legislative   body may  see  fit to take from  Robert's  what   it pleases but nothing in Roberts's binds a legislative body . Each legislative body makes its own rules of procedure   ( as noted above )  . It was General  Robert who looked to the  rules of the English  Parliament ,and the US Congress in the 1860's, and not the other way around . Indeed the claim on p. xxix  Line 1-2  ( Introduction )  of Robert's  that : 

"This book embodies a codification of present day - general parliamentary law" 

  is a remarkable  claim . It does no such thing . No "parliament " in the English speaking  world has adopted RONR as its parliamentary  procedure  ( as far as this writer knows ) and even on the occasion of   the first edition of Robert's Rules  in 1876 ( nor anytime in between then and now )  would such a claim  stand scrutiny . 

The result of this is confusion ( p. xxix - line 1-2 ) for  the novice  reader taking up a study of Robert's , as many a reader  will consider that Robert's is what it says it is- in its very first line  of Introduction . And that is an  unfortunate  starting point for a work so valuable as RONR  . Perhaps that can see correction in an edition  to follow the 11th. Here consideration for that is sought - regardless  that this is not on the same point raised by " ptc 122" above . 

Thank-you :

Pat Knoll

 

I think if you read further into the Introduction to RONR you will get a much better understanding of what is meant when it is said that RONR “embodies a codification of the present-day general parliamentary law (omitting provisions having no application outside legislative bodies).”

General Robert originally provided us with a codification of the rules and practices of the House of Representatives, adapted for use by ordinary societies. The terms “parliamentary law”, “common parliamentary law”, and “general parliamentary law”, properly understood, all refer to the rules and precedents adopted or created by deliberative assemblies for the governance of their proceedings. These rules and precedents have continued to evolve over the years, and hence the reference to “present-day general parliamentary law.”

There is no assertion anywhere in RONR that the rules contained in it are binding upon any organization (much less any legislative body) that does not care to adopt it as its parliamentary authority, and even if it is adopted, RONR makes it plain that the organization adopting it may also adopt special rules of order which will supersede any rules in RONR with which they may conflict.

[Guest ptc122]

On 2/13/2016 at 1:52 PM, Hieu H. Huynh said:

The assembly is subject to "applicable procedural rules" in the law, whether the assembly is legislative or not. Generally, RONR is a book of meeting procedures. These procedures govern unless they are in conflict with applicable procedural rules in the law (or the other rules of the assembly).

I see RONR as much more than a procedures manual. It deals with parliamentary law and rights although it does have disclaimers that laws trump their rules. Groups recognizing the differences is the problem. If I was to take RONR as a procedures guide only, which steps in the chart would I have to change to conform to Laws?  

[Dan Honemann]

15 minutes ago, Guest ptc122 said:

The result of this is confusion.. is getting close to what my concerns are. How does a society know whether it is subject to some laws that would override RONR or any manual the organization adopts.

Any organization will need to consult a lawyer to determine what, if any, statutes are applicable to its proceedings.  If there are any, such laws will take precedence over any rules in RONR with which they may conflict.

[D.Llama]

Mr. Honemann :

With respect - it is difficult to readily accept the proposition that "one should read further into the  Introdcution  to  RONR" to get a much better understanding   of what is meant in line 1-2 on p. xxix of RONR . 

 The further read, from  beginning to end of the Introduction ,provides historical context from Sparta to Athens, and onward to the  historical developments in England and the United States . But  the claim on page xxix is never modified  or specifically/suitably  explained in context . And although some may conclude by  the end of that  read that " Oh, I now understand -  this text   is not the "positive"  law anywhere - no Legislature   or Government   has ever enacted  RONR ( or earlier editions ) as   their " parliamentary  law "-  confusion for some ( or even many ) is  generated  by the very first line of this remarkably helpful work .

 RONR is not "a codification of present day parliamentary law" as those very plain and  unambiguous  words are literally  presented  to the reader  . Present  day parliamentary  law might arise as  an actual  work of  codification  were a study undertaken and completed  by a qualified expert concerning the "parliamentary  law "of the United States and  countries belonging to the British Commonwealth  of Nations .This would be a compilation of regulations and statutory  orders that  these bodies have actually put in place as procedures for  the enactment of laws in their respective jurisdictions .  Reference to the second paragraph on p . xxix does not remedy this  overly broad and sweeping claim made ( line 1-2 p. xxix ) by RONR , in the view of this respectful writer . 

Thank-you :

Pat Knoll

[Dan Honemann]

Mr. Knoll, you have on more than one occasion now referred to what you call "positive" law, putting the word "positive" in quotes just as I have. Perhaps it would help if you explained what you mean by this, and why the quotes. I honestly have no idea. 

[D.Llama]

3 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Mr. Knoll, you have on more than one occasion now referred to what you call "positive" law, putting the word "positive" in quotes just as I have. Perhaps it would help if you explained what you mean by this, and why the quotes. I honestly have no idea. 

 

[Dan Honemann]

Yep, I agree that's what I said. 

[D.Llama]

Sir :

Certainly and apologies for the lack of clarity . The "positive " law is said to be  that  law which is   actually enacted by a legislative body with constitutional  authority to do as much . That is- in comparison with, "natural law" sources ( Bible ; Koran ; other religious works  )  that do not arise from constitutionally grounded  legislative competence .

Various legislative bodies  in the United States and British Commonwealth  have enacted as "positive"  law ( Orders and Rules , or other forms ) for the procedural allowance of Statutes  and Acts  that  are produced and become  "law " for their  respective  jurisdictions . 

 However, RONR is not a codification of  internal legislative procedures of  any State or  National  legislative body (  known to this author ) . It is not "positive" law enacted by any Legislature or Parliament . Yet it claims  to be a current day  "codification" of  parliamentary law . RONR can indeed  make many claims as to its scope and  great value - no doubt  whatsoever - and I am a great fan and supporter of such a "gold standard" proposition. But to start RONR  ,with the very first line of the Introduction in  distortion or confusion  , in my humble view, is a dis-sevice to this most excellent resource . 

Thank- you :

Pat Knoll 

[Dan Honemann]

1 hour ago, Pat Knoll said:

Sir :

Certainly and apologies for the lack of clarity . The "positive " law is said to be  that  law which is   actually enacted by a legislative body with constitutional  authority to do as much . That is- in comparison with, "natural law" sources ( Bible ; Koran ; other religious works  )  that do not arise from constitutionally grounded  legislative competence .

Various legislative bodies  in the United States and British Commonwealth  have enacted as "positive"  law ( Orders and Rules , or other forms ) for the procedural allowance of Statutes  and Acts  that  are produced and become  "law " for their  respective  jurisdictions . 

 

Yes, legislative bodies have adopted (I would not say enacted) rules for the governance of their proceedings, and as a consequence of many rulings by the chair and decisions made on appeals from those rulings have established a number of precedents by which their proceedings are governed. These rules and precedents are binding upon them unless and until they rescind or reverse them, but they are not binding upon, nor are they intended to be binding upon, anyone else.

As I said previously, General Robert originally provided us, beginning in 1876, with a codification of the rules and practices of the U.S. House of Representatives, adapted for use by ordinary societies.

1 hour ago, Pat Knoll said:

However, RONR is not a codification of  internal legislative procedures of  any State or  National  legislative body (  known to this author ) . It is not "positive" law enacted by any Legislature or Parliament . Yet it claims  to be a current day  "codification" of  parliamentary law . RONR can indeed  make many claims as to its scope and  great value - no doubt  whatsoever - and I am a great fan and supporter of such a "gold standard" proposition. But to start RONR  ,with the very first line of the Introduction in  distortion or confusion  , in my humble view, is a dis-sevice to this most excellent resource . 

Thank- you :

Pat Knoll 

No, RONR is not , and does not claim to be, a codification of any particular legislature's rules and precedents, although it was, originally, a codification of the rules and practices of the U.S. House of Representatives, adapted for use by ordinary societies, and it certainly is not itself a "law enacted by any Legislature or Parliament", nor does it claim to be. It continues, however, to be primarily influenced by changes made from time to time in the House's rules and precedents. It is, now, a codification of the generally accepted rules of parliamentary procedure used by ordinary societies in the United States for the governance of their proceedings, and, as such, it is in fact a codification of "present-day general parliamentary law (omitting provisions having no application outside legislative bodies).” I suppose one might argue that it should say "present-day general parliamentary law in the United States", but its growing popularity and use by organizations in other countries is becoming so wide spread, this is becoming of less and less significance.

 

[D.Llama]

1 hour ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Yep, I agree that's what I said. 

 Mr. Honemann   :

 With respect - the  expanantions and answers you now provide  are not provided on p. xxix of RONR - were they ( as footnote ) - then the  concerns expressed  would not be advanced . But as it stands  at the moment - line 1-2 p.xxix of RONR -  is confusing to the novice reader  ( and perhaps post novice reader ) . It over claims in the humble opinion of this  writer and sets the stage for later and  ongoing  misunderstanding . It claims to  embody a codification of  " present - day general  parliamentary law ( with omission of provisions of non- legislative application )-  but it does not so embody  .

The  well known  English text : " Erskine May - Parliamentary  Practice ( 24th edition - 2011 - Lexis Nexus ) may make such a claim for the United Kingdom , as it codifies and annotates  the Rules and Order of procedure  of the Parliament of the UK . If RONR is  ( as you say so well - in the above note ) " a codification of the generally accepted rules of parliamentary  procedure for ordinary societies " why not have it start on p. xxix of the Introduction- with that  very line  . To say it codifies  present day general "parliamentary  law "  advances    and grounds potential confusion-   I  do here  respectfully repeat  . 

Regardless , I am sincerely   grateful for the time and effort provided in the responses that you have been patient enough to allow . it is always an education !

 Very Much Obliged

Pat Knoll 

 

[D.Llama]

Sorry- obvious error included in latest  by Knoll to - Mr . Honemann - should read " explanations" and not "expanations " .

Pat Knoll 

[Richard Brown]

4 minutes ago, Pat Knoll said:

Sorry- obvious error included in latest  by Knoll to - Mr . Honemann - should read " explanations" and not "expanations " .

Pat Knoll 

We do have an "edit" feature, you know. . . .

[Dan Honemann]

I'll take one more shot at this for sake of completeness by restating (more or less) something I posted somewhere or other some time ago, and then let it go at that.

 

RONR is a codification of present-day common parliamentary law (the terms "parliamentary law", “general parliamentary law”, and “common parliamentary law” as used in RONR are synonymous), but common parliamentary law, at least as that term is used in RONR, is certainly not case law as decided by courts or statutes enacted by legislative bodies. If it was, RONR would be full of citations to court cases and  statutes, but, of course, it is not.

 

As the Introduction to RONR goes on to explain, present-day parliamentary law has gradually evolved over many years from rules and precedents adopted by deliberative assemblies for the governance of their proceedings, and it is continuing to evolve in this fashion. This is the parliamentary law which is codified in RONR. Courts may sometimes appear to be enforcing parliamentary law because rules of parliamentary procedure are often embodied in bylaws and other governing documents (giving rise to contractual rights), or in statutes containing provisions governing the conduct of business in meetings of corporate bodies and other entities. In such cases, however, what is really being enforced by the courts is not parliamentary law but applicable contract law, corporate law, labor law, or whatever.

 

Parliamentary law isn't taught in law schools because it isn't law. If something on it were to be offered, it would probably be along the lines of courses which are sometimes offered on subjects besides law which lawyers may find it useful to know something about, such as medicine. If a law school were to offer a course on parliamentary law as real law, the entire subject might be summed up as follows: “An association or organization, of any kind, may adopt and enforce whatever rules of procedure it wishes for the governance of its proceedings, whether it finds them in a book or simply makes them up out of whole cloth, provided that such rules do not violate the constitutional rights of any of its members or conflict with any federal, state, or local statute or ordinance applicable to it.”

 

All that having been said, Mr. Knoll, I think I understand now the concern which you have raised, and I accept the fact that it most likely has some merit and ought to be given serious consideration. Thank you.

 

 

 

[D.Llama]

I am again , very much obliged Mr. Honemann  -  especially so, in  that you are of the  RONR  illuminate ,  and most respected  lead editorial author  of that excellent text  . 

Pat Knoll

[Guest ptc122]

On 2/13/2016 at 2:16 PM, Richard Brown said:

I'm not sure what your question is.  Mr. Huynh answered your question as to effect of laws with which RONR might be in conflict.

I believe RONR is pretty suitable as is for use by a state legislature, but, as a practical matter, it was written with the intent that it be used as a parliamentary procedure manual by lay societies rather than by state legislatures.  Most state legislatures use Mason's Manual.  Many local "legislative bodies", however, such as city councils and school boards, do use RONR as their parliamentary authority.  I imagine most such local governing bodies do.

Perhaps we can help you more if you can be a bit more precise as to your question.

City Council and Boards do use RONR. But, they still must conform to Laws. The question becomes which procedures do not conform to Laws? Laws for instance have no restrictions on elected officials deliberating but RONR does. Councils or Boards write their by-laws to reflect the law and their parliamentary authority. The balance can be difficult but certainly Previous Question could not be used by an elected body. But could be used by an ordinary society. Would that be a good example?

[Gary Novosielski]

2 hours ago, Pat Knoll said:

 Mr. Honemann   :

 With respect - the  expanantions and answers you now provide  are not provided on p. xxix of RONR - were they ( as footnote ) - then the  concerns expressed  would not be advanced . But as it stands  at the moment - line 1-2 p.xxix of RONR -  is confusing to the novice reader  ( and perhaps post novice reader ) . It over claims in the humble opinion of this  writer and sets the stage for later and  ongoing  misunderstanding . It claims to  embody a codification of  " present - day general  parliamentary law ( with omission of provisions of non- legislative application )-  but it does not so embody  .

The  well known  English text : " Erskine May - Parliamentary  Practice ( 24th edition - 2011 - Lexis Nexus ) may make such a claim for the United Kingdom , as it codifies and annotates  the Rules and Order of procedure  of the Parliament of the UK . If RONR is  ( as you say so well - in the above note ) " a codification of the generally accepted rules of parliamentary  procedure for ordinary societies " why not have it start on p. xxix of the Introduction- with that  very line  . To say it codifies  present day general "parliamentary  law "  advances    and grounds potential confusion-   I  do here  respectfully repeat  . 

Regardless , I am sincerely   grateful for the time and effort provided in the responses that you have been patient enough to allow . it is always an education !

 Very Much Obliged

Pat Knoll 

 

Looking in vain for a point.

[D.Llama]

 Hardly -  just above ( GN )  a  misunderstanding of the  importance of  accuracy in the  initial and core pronouncements  of  an Introduction !

The   leading or initial   pronouncements in a text ( first line or  paragraph  )  is  ( can often be ) a  critical  statement   as to content. To  consider otherwise is to misunderstand  the importance of  initial and  clear  communication on what is  fundamental  .  The reader  relies  on the introduction  to assist  contextually respecting the  text content  that follows . If the   initial communication is flawed  so may be much of  the  understanding that  follows. 

Pat Knoll 

[Gary Novosielski]

I don't disagree with your assessment of the importance of accuracy.  I just disagree with your original assumption that the introduction to RONR is in any way flawed.

And even if it were flawed, and in exactly the way you suggest, I would not agree that understanding of any of the following chapters would be materially impeded.