RONR suspended

[Guest D. Llama]

The below  partly hypothetical -Bylaw section 12 provided that :

 

 12 . Roberts Rules of Order ,11th edition, will govern all matters of procedure at an annual meeting . 

Special rules  were adopted at the commencement of the two day meeting including that a motion to suspend the rules was in order-  by a 2/3 vote .

At the beginning of the  second  day of the meeting a motion was made to  :"suspend  the special rules to the extent that RONR would not apply and that the Standard Code of Parliamentary  Procedure  would apply for matters of procedure for the second day " .

A point of order was then raised  -and stated -that the  motion was out of order as  the bylaws  governed and to allow the motion would be a violation of bylaw - section 12 .  Would the point of order be well taken ? 

[Richard Brown]

I think the point of order would be well taken.  The rules adopted at a convention cannot conflict with the bylaws of the society.  Since the bylaws provide that RONR is the parliamentary authority, I believe the motion to have  The Standard Code apply for the second day of the convention is out of order.

From page 618 of RONR re the Committee on Standing Rules:

"The Committee on Standing Rules drafts and submits for consideration a group of rules known as "The Standing Rules of the Convention," which, as adopted, will apply to that one convention only. These rules must in no way conflict with the bylaws of the society, but (in contrast to ordinary standing rules in a local society) they can involve modifications of rules contained in the parliamentary authority prescribed by the bylaws."

Edited to add:  Although this is technically an annual meeting and not a convention of delegates, I believe the same  principles would apply and that the rules in The Standard Code cannot be substituted for RONR.

It's a good question.  I'm anxious to see what others think.

[Weldon Merritt]

I agree with Richard that the rules connot be suspended to substitute a diffferent parliamentary authority, in toto. IMO, however, the rules could be suspended to specify that a particular rule in another parliamentary authority would be used for a specified procedure. An example from personal experience is that the American Institute of Parliamentarians, when its bylaws still specified RONR for its parliamentary authority, usually wiould suspend the ruiles and use the TSC procedure for filling blanks in lieu of the RONR procedure. 

[Sean Hunt]

Yes, I agree. There are two reasons.

First is that there are rules that cannot be suspended. Asking to suspend the parliamentary authority in its entirety includes a request to suspend these rules, and this makes it prima facie out of order. One could argue that, with a careful analysis of both parliamentary authorities to determine if anything in the Standard Code conflicts with an unsuspendable rule in Robert's Rules, it could be determined that no such rule would actually be suspended, I would nonetheless argue that the interpretation of the Standard Code may be different or otherwise qualified and that I wouldn't have the confidence necessary to rule that motion in order.

Second is that the rule that any motion to suspend the rules must be a motion to suspend the rules for a specific purpose. You can suspend the rules to change the rules of debate or to allow non-members to speak, but you cannot simply suspend the rules for no purpose. There are provisions in Robert's Rules which provide for cases that are unprovided for in the Standard Code, and so it is not clear why these provisions would be suspended. What alternate rule is being substituted?

I agree with Weldon Merritt's suggestion that the rules could be suspended to allow one piece of procedure from the other parliamentary authority to be used.

[Shmuel Gerber]

3 hours ago, Guest D. Llama said:

Special rules  were adopted at the commencement of the two day meeting including that a motion to suspend the rules was in order-  by a 2/3 vote .

At the beginning of the  second  day of the meeting a motion was made to  :"suspend  the special rules to the extent that RONR would not apply and that the Standard Code of Parliamentary  Procedure  would apply for matters of procedure for the second day " .

I don't understand what "special rules" are being suspended. Obviously they were not trying to suspend the rule that allowed for suspending the rules. :-)

[Guest]

 

Thank-you all- for the (three)  answers ( above )  provided . The event was an annual meeting Mr. Brown and not a Convention but that seems of  little consequence .And, Mr. Hunt ,the specific purpose was that the Standard Code would apply.

May I asks all three of you- if your response would be different  if section 12 read as follows :

12 . Roberts's Rules of Order , 11th edition , will govern all matters of procedure  at an annual meeting , in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order adopted . 

Much Obliged  .

 

 

 

 

[Richard Brown]

5 minutes ago, Guest said:

May I asks all three of you- if your response would be different  if section 12 read as follows :

12 . Roberts's Rules of Order , 11th edition , will govern all matters of procedure  at an annual meeting , in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order adopted . 

Much Obliged  .

No, my answer would  be no different.  The situation is the same with both versions.  Didn't we go through this a few months ago?  (or a few weeks ago?)

[Guest]

Mr Gerber :

I think your  point well made and  I would clarify that by stating it this way - please assume the motion was :

" suspend the rules to the extent that RONR would not apply and that the Standard Code etc etc. ( as above )  " 

 

 

 

[Guest]

Indeed we did Mr. Brown - ( sort of )  but in this instance the addition of the "special rules" in section  12   ,  would arguably  allow that the "special rules " would govern  and so as to permit  that the motion is not out of order . But I gather you would not at all agree ! 

Obliged for your resposes  - as usual ! 

[Weldon Merritt]

46 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

No, my answer would  be no different.  The situation is the same with both versions.  Didn't we go through this a few months ago?  (or a few weeks ago?)

My answer also would be no different..

[Gary Novosielski]

And my answer would be no different.  Well, actually it couldn't be, because I didn't give an earlier answer. But if I had, it would be no different.

The second SDC  for Suspend the Rules says:

2.  Can be applied to any rule of the assembly except bylaws* (or rules contained in a constitution or corporate charter). No subsidiary motion can be applied to Suspend the Rules.

__________
*Regarding the suspendibility of rules in the nature of rules of order when placed within the bylaws, see page 17, lines 22–25.