RONR Governs Procedure- and Special Rules

[Guest D. Llama]

The specific  bylaw states :

 

•   Section 12. All matters of procedure shall be governed by RONR -the  most recent edition .
•  
• There is no reference whatsoever to any "special rules " in this section 12-  which would trump RONR if there were an inconsistency ( RONR p. 588, line 6-8). Special rules have been issued, regardless, prior to the meeting . Some reflect RONR exactly  -others do not .  One of those , for example, provides for no more than  a 3 minute allowance to  debate a motion. What is the effect of this special rule (  3 minutes -  if any )  - is it void even if carried by a 2/3 vote at the commencement of the meeting to approve  the issued "special rules ".?
•  
• Since "special rules " are not identified in the bylaws - are such rules, if carried at the commencement of the meeting ,  meaningless - unless they are exact repeats  of rules in RONR    ? And if at the meeting there is a proposal to suspend these carried  "special rules" , and that relates to one of the rules taken directly from RONR ( members may speak on two occasions only - in debate )  can that be done by a 2/3 vote ?. RONR  p. 16-17, or otherwise , not clear on this from my read . Thank-you .
•  
• D. Llama    

 

 

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Ultimately it is up to the organization to interpret its bylaws. Perhaps they could be amended to use the recommended language.

[Gary Novosielski]

Although it is best to use the proper language for adoption of the parliamentary authority, The rank order of bylaws, special rules of order, and parliamentary authority still hold true because that hierarchy is spelled out in RONR itself.  RONR explicitly yields to SROs as well as bylaws.

[Guest]

Thank-you Mr. Huynh - and going forward that may well be a sound approach ( to amend and clarify ).

 However ,the current circumstances are pending and answers are needed for these specific questions . Although it is correct that an organization must interpret its own bylaws - they often look to experts in RONR to help with that task .  Regardless -obliged for your interest .

 

D.Llama

[Guest]

Thank-you, as well,  Mr. Novosielski - but this does not address these questions in terms of any practical response .Is there anyone who can offer a very specific response to the situation that now exists (?)  - the meeting is pending in three weeks . This is not a hypothetical situation - matters are as stated above- and  a best approach is needed to prepare for any related challenges that might arise . Thank-you .

 

D. Llama  

[Gary Novosielski]

The answer is that you can pass whatever special rules of order you like and they will supersede the rules in RONR, as I said.

The poor wording of the adoption article does not invalidate the use of special rules of order.    I don't know how better to address the questions.

Special rules, however can't be "issued" prior to the meeting.  They must be moved by and approved by the assembly.  And such motions are debatable and amendable.  

There is no point in adopting special rules that exactly duplicate those in RONR.  But doing so doesn't change the suspendible nature of the rules.  Rules of order, whether in the bylaws, the special rules, or the parliamentary authority can all, with few exceptions, be suspended by a 2/3 vote.

[D.Llama]

Thank-you for this further elaboration Mr.  Novosielski:

Let me address the last point you make- first . "There is no point in adopting special rules that exactly duplicate those in RONR ".This  very true ( in actual application ) -  indeed, and beyond question but numerous organizations seem to do just that-  from time to time . They repeat a particular  rule  from RONR in their special rules -so as  to give that  rule profile and  ink- so that members reading the special rules will see those  and hopefully  be  better informed  and  will abide .  . They know many /most do not know RONR and never will . Pointless - not at all -  not necessarily so .But of no actual effect, of course,  different than the  import/application  of the  bylaw provision - section 12 . Special rules often go out to members, by  email copy,  before the meeting as part of the distribution of pre -meeting materials . As you know there a million different ways organizations go about this and rarely  does one see  perfect conformity to  RONR . In this sense specials  are" issued" in the sense  only of a mail out ( sorry for any confusion in this usage )  - and are  not at all  adopted -by this process .

However, it  is your first response that I find puzzling given these  actual circumstances : 

"The answer is that you can pass whatever special rules of order you like and they will supersede the rules in RONR - as I said " .

But is that so (?)  in the circunstsnces as described above. It certainly would be were section 12 (above ) written as is  sample bylaw -Article VIII in RONR ( p. 586- line 6-8). That would certainly apply  because in that  sample bylaw-  the "special rules" (if carried )  are made/allowed by bylaw - to supersede the general rules of RONR  . But in this section 12 there is no mention of "special rules " whatsoever . If what you are suggesting is correct the  words in Article VIII of the sample bylaws in RONR would apparently  have no actual impact or meaning . It would seem the better answer (???)  that if "special rules " are not mentioned/authorized  in a bylaw , such as this one , they may be meaningless - because of the omission of the words  respecting specials - proposed in Article  VIII (? ) .  Is it not that wording ( Article VIII)  ,and that wording alone,  that allows that special rules ( established by motion ) can trump RONR  rules- enacted by bylaw  ? 

Thank-you 

D.Llama

 

  

 

 

 

[Richard Brown]

I'm not sure what you are asking by your last question.  Your society may adopt special rules of order regardless of whether the right to do so is mentioned in your bylaws.  RONR gives you that right if it is your parliamentary authority, unless your bylaws specifically prohibit the adoption of special rules of order.

Here is the appropriate language of the various types of rules that any deliberative assembly can adopt from page 10 of RONR:  "The various kinds of rules which a society may formally adopt include the following: Corporate Charter, Constitution and/or Bylaws, Rules of Order (which include a standard work on parliamentary law adopted as the society's Parliamentary Authority, and any Special Rules of Order), and [page 11] Standing Rules."

There is more on special rules of order on pages 15-17.

[D.Llama]

Thank -you Mr . Brown :

I will try to be more specific . Please review p. 588  -line 6-8  of RONR . This is the apparent method of establishing  "special rules " to trump RONR when RONR is set out in the bylaws to govern procedurally  . As you know RONR may, or may not, be specifically adopted in bylaws - many organizations  do not specify anything by way of a  general set of rules . Othewrwise it would not be so specifically stated as part of that  sample bylaw -in RONR  . This allows ( Article VIII -  p. 588 )  that RONR governs in all circumststnces save where special rules are created . But to give special rules that status it must be specifically prescribed in the bylaw provision - or special rules made otherwise do not achieve  the  necessary potential  level of  authority (?) .

In the result if special rules are not specifically permitted and allowed for in the bylaws - as they are in the sample p. 588- and RONR is specifically stipulated in the bylaws - special rules carried at a meeting are not properly constituted -they are invalid if they conflict with RONR(?). To make special  rules viable, over RONR , if RONR is specifically stipulated  in a bylaw - special rules  must also be stated in the bylaw provision as they are in Artilce VIII. 

 

In the actual example provided above - section 12 of the bylaws provides that RONR governs procedurally- but this  section 12  does not provide at all for special rules . The organization has then drafted and sent out a set of specials which  they intend  to adopt  after the Agenda is adopted . Some of those  specials mirror exactly  several  rules in RONR ,however,  some do not . The ones that mirror RONR are not an issue because section 12 allows for ALL of RONR and indeed obliges ALL of RONR . But for those  special rules that do not mirror RONR a question has arisen -  will they be in order or not ? Some members  hold the view that they are fine even if not consistent  with RONR ( e.g.  3 minutes for debate )   -other members  disagree and offer that even a 2/3 vote will not suffice  to allow for a rule that violates  RONR as RONR are at a bylaw level and section 12 does not allow for special rules as does for example -section VIII of the sample in RONR (p. 588 - line 6-8). This is at the core of the soon to be joined challenge at this meeting . 

Any other thoughts or views very welcome on this subject !

Thank-you :

D. Llama

[Kim Goldsworthy]

1 hour ago, D.Llama said:

S1.) [...] that RONR governs in all circumstances save where special rules are created .

S2.) But to give special rules that status it must be specifically prescribed in the bylaw provision -- or special rules made otherwise do not achieve  the  necessary potential  level of  authority.

S3.) To make special  rules viable, over RONR , if RONR is specifically stipulated  in a bylaw -- special rules  must also be stated in the bylaw provision as they are in Article VIII.

S4.) But for those  special rules that do not mirror RONR a question has arisen --  will they be in order or not? Some members  hold the view that they are fine even if not consistent  with RONR ( e.g.  3 minutes for debate ) -- other members  disagree and offer that even a 2/3 vote will not suffice  to allow for a rule that violates  RONR as RONR are at a bylaw level and section 12 does not allow for special rules as does for example -section VIII of the sample in RONR (p. 588 - line 6-8).

 

S1 is TRUE.

S2 is FALSE.

S3 is FALSE.

S4. "They" (viz., the customized set of special rules of order which are to be submitted for adoption) are in-order.

***

The argument -- that the bylaws must 'expressly' allow for 'special rules of order' -- is wrong.

An organization is free to adopt special rules of order, and thus customize their parliamentary procedure, where there is no prohibition otherwise, because Robert's Rules of Order (already adopted as the parliamentary authority) already says so.

You don't need permission from the bylaws to create special rules of order.

• If your bylaws had never mentioned Robert's Rules of Order, you would be forced to adopt 100% of your parliamentary rules as 'special rules of order', since there would be zero default rules in your (non-existent) parliamentary authority. Indeed, prior to 1876 (prior the First Edition), all nonprofit organizations had to "roll their own" because there wasn't any parliamentary authority ready for adoption.

• If your bylaws specify Robert's Rules as controlling, then you are free to adopt 'special rules of order' because Robert's Rules of Order itself allows for itself to be overridden by superior rules -- and one kind of "superior" rule which will override Robert's Rules of Order is a 'special rules of order'.

***

How can anyone argue otherwise? -- The Book clearly specifies, "'X' overrides me."

So Robert's Rules does not prohibit 'X'; but says that it happily yields to 'X'.

Ponder this: Q. How can a lowly parliamentary authority out-law a rule superior to itself?

(That is like a county board of supervisors telling the U.S. Congress, "Tut-tut-tut, you cannot override our county ordinances, Mr. Federal Government!")

 

 

[Dan Honemann]

2 hours ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

Ponder this: Q. How can a lowly parliamentary authority out-law a rule superior to itself?

(That is like a county board of supervisors telling the U.S. Congress, "Tut-tut-tut, you cannot override our county ordinances, Mr. Federal Government!")

I wish you had picked a better example. The county board of supervisors may well be right.

[D.Llama]

Thank you Mr Honemann :
 

 On balance I consider that  the county Board of supervisors  would indeed be correct if any meaning is to be given to the inclusion of the words  "special rules ", in  Sample bylaw VIII- p.588. Much Obliged to all. 

 

D.Llama

 

 

[Dan Honemann]

Please don't misunderstand me. As far as RONR is concerned, special rules of order properly adopted by any organization take precedence over any rule in RONR with which they conflict, subject only to the exception mentioned in the footnote on page 16, which reads as follows:

"However, when the parliamentary authority is prescribed in the bylaws, and that authority states that a certain rule can be altered only by a provision in the bylaws, no special rule of order can supersede that rule."

 

[D.Llama]

Thank you  Mr. Honemann:

Your earlier post was misunderstood . You side it seems (and maybe -apparently )  with Mr. Goldsworthy . The collective view seems to be that  a section 12 - as noted above - does not at all prevent ,or limit , enactment of a set off "special rules" , or even a suspension of the rules where a section 12 has been enacted , regardless that "special rules" are not at all  mentioned in the bylaw provision- similar to  sample  RONR bylaw, Article VIII. It does beg the question -what then is the value or purpose of having in draft  Article VIII - the words "special rules "? These   words might better be deleted from the Article VIII in RONR as otherwise they create potential confusion . Thank-you  to all .

 

D.Llama

[Dan Honemann]

8 minutes ago, D.Llama said:

Thank you  Mr. Honemann:

Your earlier post was misunderstood . You side it seems (and maybe -apparently )  with Mr. Goldsworthy . The collective view seems to be that  a section 12 - as noted above - does not at all prevent ,or limit , enactment of a set off "special rules" , or even a suspension of the rules where a section 12 has been enacted , regardless that "special rules" are not at all  mentioned in the bylaw provision- similar to  sample  RONR bylaw, Article VIII. It does beg the question -what then is the value or purpose of having in draft  Article VIII - the words "special rules "? These   words might better be deleted from the Article VIII in RONR as otherwise they create potential confusion . Thank-you  to all .

 

D.Llama

I don't agree that the words used in Article VIII create potential confusion. They mean what they say.

[Richard Brown]

D.Lama, what we are ALL saying, I believe, is that unless specifically prohibited by your bylaws or higher law, your organization and every organization is inherently free to adopt special rules of order regardless of whether RONR or any other parliamentary has been officially named as the parliamentary authority in the organization's bylaws.   I guess it is possible that there is a supposed "parliamentary authority" out there somewhere written by somebody that might prohibit you from doing so, but I seriously doubt it and have certainly never heard of one.  But, that is a moot point since your bylaws do not specify any such parliamentary authority as YOUR parliamentary authority.

Please accept the fact that your organization can adopt special rules of order that will trump the rules in RONR, with the few exceptions already noted.

As Mr. Goldsworthy noted, prior to the publication of Robert's Rules of Order in 1876, virtually all organizations had no choice but go either go without rules or to adopt their own.

[Guest]

Mr Brown :

I certainly am grateful - to ALL . Nevertheless the inclusion of the words "special  rules "  in the sample Article - VII seem  unnecessary and pointless. Apparently even when these words are not present  - as in a section 12, above - special rules can nevertheless be made and adopted at the meeting concerned .

BUT  I hereby  surrender on all  fronts.  .

Obliged to ALL.  . 

 

D.Llama 

[Gary Novosielski]

The sample bylaws are a sample of what the bylaws of a fictitious organization might look like..  They are not representative of any real organization, and are not general rules of the parliamentary authority.  

On 4/12/2016 at 2:31 AM, D.Llama said:

To make special  rules viable, over RONR , if RONR is specifically stipulated  in a bylaw - special rules  must also be stated in the bylaw provision as they are in Artilce VIII. 

No, that is a false statement.  

At this point, I suggest that an equine necropsy would reveal signs of unwarranted trauma.

[J. J.]

On 4/12/2016 at 8:40 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Please don't misunderstand me. As far as RONR is concerned, special rules of order properly adopted by any organization take precedence over any rule in RONR with which they conflict, subject only to the exception mentioned in the footnote on page 16, which reads as follows:

"However, when the parliamentary authority is prescribed in the bylaws, and that authority states that a certain rule can be altered only by a provision in the bylaws, no special rule of order can supersede that rule."

 

I missed that footnote, but I am glad you gents didn't.