"Fundamental Principles"

[Mrs. Comfort]

I have several questions regarding the definition and nature of “fundamental principles” of parliamentary law.  Please consider the following background information to my question:

 

In the index of Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR, 11^th ed), on page 688, the authors provide a list of pages that mention or discuss the topic of “fundamental principles”. One of the pages referenced in the index under “fundamental principles” is page 216 (labeled “two-thirds vote needed to supress debate”). On page 216 (ll. 3-10) the text reads, in part, “…the second is in violation of a basic principle of general parliamentary law that only a two-thirds vote can rightfully supress a main question without allowing free debate.”

 

Three questions arise from my reading of RONR, 11^th ed. described above:

1. Is the principle that “only a two-thirds vote can rightfully supress a main question without allowing free debate” a fundamental principle of parliamentary law?

2. If it is not a fundamental principle, why does it appear in the index on page 688 under “fundamental principles”? In the alternative, if is a fundamental principle, why is it called a “basic principle” on page 216?

 3. Finally, can anyone distinguish “fundamental principles” from “basic principles” of parliamentary law by providing a definition of both?

 

Thank you in advance for your insights.

 

[jstackpo]

In (a late night, hence succinct) answer:

1)  Yes.

2)  & 3)   The authors or RONR will have respond to those two (or more) questions.

[Shmuel Gerber]

3 hours ago, Mrs. Comfort said:

1. Is the principle that “only a two-thirds vote can rightfully supress a main question without allowing free debate” a fundamental principle of parliamentary law?

2. If it is not a fundamental principle, why does it appear in the index on page 688 under “fundamental principles”? In the alternative, if is a fundamental principle, why is it called a “basic principle” on page 216?

 3. Finally, can anyone distinguish “fundamental principles” from “basic principles” of parliamentary law by providing a definition of both?

My answers are

1. No (or at least RONR doesn't say so).

2. Because someone looking in the index for "fundamental principles" might have been seeking "basic principles" as well.

3. As far as the rules in RONR are concerned, any "rule that embodies a fundamental principle of parliamentary law" cannot be suspended (cf. p. 263), and it is never too late to raise a point of order regarding any "action taken in violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law", since such action is null and void (cf. p. 251). There is no need to be over-concerned with exactly what a "basic principle" is, since there is no practical difference whether something is or is not a basic principle.

[D.Llama]

In respone to jstackpo:

1) - same question - why, if 2/3 is  a fundamental  principle - is it called a basic principle at p.216 , lines 6-8  RONR . "Fundamental principles" appear to be specifically  identified on p. 263- lines 15 to 28 . And it seems to make a significant difference as to classification if a principle -  is basic or fundamental -  RONR line 18-19 . Perhaps jstacko could advise why the response to 1) is 'Yes ".  

 And some clarification re the index,  and the  answer to question  3  (above ) ,would likewise   be helpful 

Thank-you 

[D.Llama]

In réponse to Mr Gerber-  of the esteemed editorial team :

The reply provided does not seem to answer at all the question(s)  posed  re 2) and 3) above . And what do the  answers  mean ? The response provided for Mr. Gerber , for 2) , that   there are both "basic principles" and "fundamental principles"  seems to be  that they are different things/designations (?)  - but that the Index to RONR does not seek to accommodate both "fundamental principles " , and "  basic principles " as  separate , for indexing purposes   . Instead  both are placed under the one heading of-  "fundamental principles ".

If that is so it seems confusing . If  the two are distinct ( and that seems the response from Mr Gerber - those "seeking" one or the other ) then why not have the index reflect that ,and have two different index headings - "fundamental principles" and " basic principles " - otherwise surely this confuses the reader . But to have both in the index ,of course , would oblige a bit of  additional growth in  RONR  ! But perhaps very helpful growth !

 

And the response  that there is no need to be "over- concerned " as to what a " basic principle " is - seems to possibly  miss the point - entirely . If a point of order is raised and  a "fundamental principle" is in play then a continuing breach  is said to  arise and there are  consequences applicable (  possible - point  of order well taken) RONR p. 263 . But if its but a mere "basic principle" that would not apply - apparently on the plain and literal  reading . So these words  and terms used in RONR are apparently quite important . If "basic principles" are the same as " fundamental principles " may we be advised as much-  specifically by Mr. Gerber . if not then perhaps RONR should alter the index so as to make the differentiation clear .

Over to you Mr. Gerber and  thank you for any additional response you might provide .    

[Dan Honemann]

The principle that “only a two-thirds vote can rightfully suppress a main question without allowing free debate” is not a "fundamental principle of parliamentary law" within the meaning of that term as used in RONR, and I would agree that the reference to page 216 in the index under "fundamental principles of parliamentary law" should be deleted.

 

 

[D.Llama]

kudos to Mrs . Comfort for raising this important  topic and the response of Mr. Honemann . Perhaps the next edition of RONR will allow for such a change . 

[jstackpo]

O.K., I stand corrected. 

Now we need an index entry for "Basic Principles of general parliamentary law" --  are there any identified in the book in addition to  p. 216?  (I did a text search on "Basic Principle")  Answer:  Yes, three places: p. 4, p. 216, p. 336, and in the index p. 692.  (The index reference points only to p. 4 and p. 400.  P. 400 shows "Basic Requirement", but not "Basic Principle". P. 400 is the only place where "Basic Requirement" shows up. Go figure! The word "Basic" by itself shows up in gazillions of places. So does "principle")

There is an index entry for "Basic Rights of individuals" pointing to pp 251 & 264  (but not to p. 216).  

It appears, from pp. 251 & 263-264, that the consequences of taking action in violation of "Fundamental Principles" or "Basic Rights..." is the same: it creates a continuing breach of order that can be declared null and void.    

No such continuing breach occurs, however, if a "Basic Principle" is breached.  So what is a "Basic Principle" for? What makes it special? Or "basic", as contrasted with a plane vanilla principle or rule of order?

[Dan Honemann]

29 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

It appears, from pp. 251 & 263-264, that the consequences of taking action in violation of "Fundamental Principles" or "Basic Rights..." is the same: it creates a continuing breach of order that can be declared null and void.    

No such continuing breach occurs, however, if a "Basic Principle" is breached.  So what is a "Basic Principle" for? What makes it special? Or "basic", as contrasted with a plane vanilla principle or rule of order?

Well, violation of a rule protecting a "basic right of an individual member" may give rise to a continuing breach. Those last few words are important.

I agree with Mr. Gerber that there is no need to be overly concerned with exactly what a "basic principle" is. On the two pages immediately following the Introduction is a brief statement of "Principles Underlying Parliamentary Law", which may be regarded as a summary of basic principles, although I don't think it is intended to be anything more than that.  

[jstackpo]

OK, perhaps this can be tidied up in RONR/12  --  not Dan's problem any more, however - gone fishin'

[Dan Honemann]

As previously noted, perhaps the Index might be tidied up a bit, but I don't see any need for changes in the text itself with respect to any of this.

[Guest]

My thanks to Mrs. Comfort for bringing this subject up because I debated bringing it up myself. I find it unfortunate that RONR-11 does not have a paragraph that specifically delineates these items. The list on page 688 is sadly inadequate. The same can be said for the list on xxxiii and li. Please allow me to propose the following list that I found on Wikipedia. And please, I don't need a lecture on the authority or accuracy of Wikipedia. I wish only to discuss the merits of the list.

1. Majority rule

2. Minority rights

3. Member rights

4. Absentee rights

5. One question at a time

6. One person, one vote

7. Only members present can vote

8. Changing action previously decided on

9. Following own specific rules

 

1. Majority rule - The basic principle of decision is majority vote.

2. Minority rights - The minority have certain rights that only a supermajority, such as a two-thirds vote, can rule over. Such rights include introducing new business and speaking in debate.

3. Member rights - Members have the right to attend meetings, speak in debate, and vote. Members have the right to know what they are deciding on. All members are treated equally.

4. Absentee rights - Certain actions require previous notice, which protects the rights of absentees. This includes notice of the meetings. There also needs to be a quorum, or the minimum number of members to be present at a meeting.

5. One question at a time

6. One person, one vote

7. Only members present can vote

8. Changing action previously decided on - the requirements for changing a previous action are greater than those for taking the action in the first place.

9. Following own specific rules - The group must have the authority to take the actions it purports to take.

 

Another source I found added another, which I am not sure should be considered a fundamental principle – The impartiality of the Chair.

 

What do the rest of y'all think?

[Joshua Katz]

I find 2 a little troubling.  The way I see it, minorities have some crucial rights which can never be taken away, and others that can be taken away by a sufficiently large majority.  The way you have it written seems to imply that all rights can be taken away by a sufficiently large majority.  I'd also include in 1 the right of the majority - the right to engage in business unimpeded, subject to the limitation that this right is maximized only so long as it does not intrude on 2.

I take it this list isn't supposed to be sequenced?  I'm not sure how such a sequence would look, but certainly 9 would be in the "strongest" position.  

[Dan Honemann]

What is this supposed to be a list of?

 It certainly is not a correct list of "fundamental principles of parliamentary law" within the meaning of that term as used in RONR.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

We are back to the Boolean "exclusive 'OR'".

I would suggest that the reader discover in RONR all instances which RONR confirms to be "continuing breaches".

A continuing breach will very likely be (but not necessarily guaranteed to be) "breaches that are of a continuing nature" [page 251] involving a fundamental principle.

***

And breaches which are not of the continuing variety are guaranteed to be something else (perhaps a mere "basic principle").

Plus, whatever can be legitimately targeted by a "Suspension of the Rules" will most definitely be, likewise, something else.

 

[J. J.]

8 hours ago, Guest said:

My thanks to Mrs. Comfort for bringing this subject up because I debated bringing it up myself. I find it unfortunate that RONR-11 does not have a paragraph that specifically delineates these items. The list on page 688 is sadly inadequate. The same can be said for the list on xxxiii and li. Please allow me to propose the following list that I found on Wikipedia. And please, I don't need a lecture on the authority or accuracy of Wikipedia. I wish only to discuss the merits of the list.

1. Majority rule

2. Minority rights

3. Member rights

4. Absentee rights

5. One question at a time

6. One person, one vote

7. Only members present can vote

8. Changing action previously decided on

9. Following own specific rules

 

1. Majority rule - The basic principle of decision is majority vote.

2. Minority rights - The minority have certain rights that only a supermajority, such as a two-thirds vote, can rule over. Such rights include introducing new business and speaking in debate.

3. Member rights - Members have the right to attend meetings, speak in debate, and vote. Members have the right to know what they are deciding on. All members are treated equally.

4. Absentee rights - Certain actions require previous notice, which protects the rights of absentees. This includes notice of the meetings. There also needs to be a quorum, or the minimum number of members to be present at a meeting.

5. One question at a time

6. One person, one vote

7. Only members present can vote

8. Changing action previously decided on - the requirements for changing a previous action are greater than those for taking the action in the first place.

9. Following own specific rules - The group must have the authority to take the actions it purports to take.

 

Another source I found added another, which I am not sure should be considered a fundamental principle – The impartiality of the Chair.

 

What do the rest of y'all think?

I think that only numbers 5, 6, and 7 are fundamental principles of parliamentary law.  That does not mean that some of those others can be suspended.  

One person noted, "Basically, a fundamental principle of parliamentary is whatever the author or authors of a particular parliamentary authority identify as one."

 

[The Other David]

Okay, I hope people don't get mad at me if it seems like I'm beating a sick horse, but I compiled a list of my own. Tell me what you think.

1. The majority rules.

2. All opposing views must be treated equally.

3. Only one question may be considered at a time.

4. Only members present can vote.

5. Each member present is allowed one, and only one, vote.

6. Absentees are protected by rules regarding proper notice of a meeting.

7. Absentees are further protected by rules regarding an established quorum.

8. Decorum must be observed and personalities avoided at all times.

9. Any action taken by the Assembly may be reconsidered.

10. The Chair should maintain impartiality whenever possible.

[D.Llama]

 It seems that these detailed lists ( above )   are interesting, but have very little  relationship to what are ,or are not considered   " fundamental principles" re RONR. These lists of 9 or more items seem more closely associated with what one finds in the Standard Code . And even in that connection  - they are  not quite the same .   

[Kim Goldsworthy]

5 hours ago, The Other David said:

Tell me what you think.

1. The majority rules.

8. Decorum must be observed and personalities avoided at all times.

9. Any action taken by the Assembly may be reconsidered.

10. The Chair should maintain impartiality whenever possible.

#1 is not fundamental. -- You can suspend the rules (dynamically, in-meeting) to have the vote be some other threshold.

#8 is not fundamental. -- Its violation does not invalidate the adoption/rejection of a main motion.

#9 is not fundamental. -- It is an Americanism.

#10 is not fundamental. -- The chair can "violate" this rule in a committee meeting, constantly, and still obey the "small boards and committees" rules of RONR.

***

You have a list of nifty tips. But not a list of fundamental principles of parliamentary law.

[The Other David]

Thank you, everyone.

[Josh Martin]

20 hours ago, The Other David said:

Okay, I hope people don't get mad at me if it seems like I'm beating a sick horse, but I compiled a list of my own. Tell me what you think.

1. The majority rules.

2. All opposing views must be treated equally.

3. Only one question may be considered at a time.

4. Only members present can vote.

5. Each member present is allowed one, and only one, vote.

6. Absentees are protected by rules regarding proper notice of a meeting.

7. Absentees are further protected by rules regarding an established quorum.

8. Decorum must be observed and personalities avoided at all times.

9. Any action taken by the Assembly may be reconsidered.

10. The Chair should maintain impartiality whenever possible.

Only items 3, 4, and 5 on this list are fundamental principles of parliamentary law.

Item 9 is either misleading or inaccurate. Not all motions may be reconsidered, if you are referring to the specific parliamentary motion Reconsider.

[Lee Lance]

So, what are the fundamental principles of parliamentary law, that General Robert discerned and was guided by?

In RONR 11th Edition, on page 59, lines 18 through 25, we find: Only one question can be considered at a time; once a motion is before the assembly, it must be adopted or rejected by a vote, or the assembly must take action disposing of the question in some other way, before any other business (except certain matters called privileged questions) can be introduced. 

In RONR 11th Edition, on page 75, lines 7 through 18, we find:

a) During the meeting or series of connected meetings (called a "session," 8) in which the assembly has decided a question, the same or substantially the same question cannot be brought up again, except through special procedures.

b. While a question is temporarily disposed of (by any of several methods described in this and later chapters) but is not finally settled, no similar or conflicting motion whose adoption would restrict the assembly in acting on the first motion can be introduced.

c) To change what the assembly has adopted requires something more (in the way of a vote or previous notice to the members) than was necessary to adopt it in the first place.

These look a lot like quotations from somewhere.  From where? 

It seems to me that the first thing in learning parliamentary procedure should the fundamental principles that guide it.  Does the Roberts Rules organization have a list?

[Dan Honemann]

9 hours ago, Lee Lance said:

So, what are the fundamental principles of parliamentary law, that General Robert discerned and was guided by?

You will find a number of them listed in RONR (11th ed.) on page 263, lines 15-28.

Earlier on in this thread I said that "[t]he principle that 'only a two-thirds vote can rightfully suppress a main question without allowing free debate' is not a 'fundamental principle of parliamentary law' within the meaning of that term as used in RONR", and that I would agree that the reference to page 216 in the index under "fundamental principles of parliamentary law" should be deleted. 

Since then, I've had second thoughts about this, but I don't suppose we need to get involved in this particular question again. 

 

[Transpower]

I like the Other David's list, but I would replace #9 with "The unexecuted part of an order adopted by the Assembly may be amended or rescinded."

[Dan Honemann]

12 minutes ago, Transpower said:

I like the Other David's list, but I would replace #9 with "The unexecuted part of an order adopted by the Assembly may be amended or rescinded."

And after you make this substitution, the fact remains that only items 3, 4, and 5 on the list are fundamental principles of parliamentary law, as Josh Martin has already noted.