Points of order, points of law

[Shmuel Gerber]

5 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Rules of parliamentary procedure imposed upon an organization by applicable law are not rules of parliamentary law.

But they are, of course, "applicable procedural rules prescribed by federal, state, or local law," and so must be adhered to by the organization as a matter of the common parliamentary law (as embodied in RONR) as well.

[Guest D.Llama]

This réponse by Mr. Gerber - I would  suggest , with respect , also  identifies part of the problem ( the  obscure and inverted  )  for many users of RONR -on this subject of- "law".

RONR  ( as a work in whole or part  ) is not "law " in the context  of the positive law made by a legislative body . But it relies on  language that is confusing to many users- in this respect . Subtle language  distinctions , that for most  are not helpful over-all ,when they are  not  necessary to make RONR more  practical  and accessible . This - not in some ways  unlike  the motion for the "Previous  Question " ( rather than " Close Debate  " -  with "Close Debate Immediately"  as   a header (?) - thereby  getting better  ink  in RONRIB ( p. 35) than anywhere in  RONR  )    seems a  clinging to obsolete and impractical  language  and usage . I'm persuaded that Mr. Harper makes something of a point in his general comments and concerns respecting confusion in this area .

 The editorial team ( I do  think )  could remedy this in the next edition of RONR - but I'm not holding  my breath . However, maybe in the next edition there will be an end ( for example )  to gender specific language ( Ms.;Lady: and the like ). And of course ,it would be wrong and unfair , not to acknowledge that it must be a challenge to be on the editorial team - with "gripers" around every corner .

D.Llama

[Shmuel Gerber]

2 hours ago, Guest D.Llama said:

This réponse by Mr. Gerber - I would  suggest , with respect , also  identifies part of the problem ( the  obscure and inverted  )  for many users of RONR -on this subject of- "law".

Always glad to be of service. (Or, as they say in French, "service".)

[Richard Brown]

4 hours ago, Guest D.Llama said:

 . . . The editorial team ( I do  think )  could remedy this in the next edition of RONR - but I'm not holding  my breath . However, maybe in the next edition there will be an end ( for example )  to gender specific language ( Ms.;Lady: and the like ). . . .

D.Llama

I hope not, unless gender neutral terms for he, she, his, hers, Mr., Mrs. and Miss first are accepted into common usage in the U.S.

Not many things sound more awkward than trying to write something (especially 700 + pages) in gender neutral language.

[Dan Honemann]

16 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

But they are, of course, "applicable procedural rules prescribed by federal, state, or local law," and so must be adhered to by the organization as a matter of the common parliamentary law (as embodied in RONR) as well.

Yes, it is certainly true that applicable procedural rules prescribed by federal, state, or local law must be adhered to as a matter of common parliamentary law (as embodied in RONR), but this does not mean that these federal, state, and local laws are in any respect dependent upon parliamentary law for their authority or enforceability. Applicable procedural rules prescribed by federal, state, or local law will trump any conflicting rules which an organization may adopt for the governance of its proceedings, no matter what.

 

[Shmuel Gerber]

16 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

22 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Rules of parliamentary procedure imposed upon an organization by applicable law are not rules of parliamentary law.

But they are, of course, "applicable procedural rules prescribed by federal, state, or local law," and so must be adhered to by the organization as a matter of the common parliamentary law (as embodied in RONR) as well.

 

13 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Yes, it is certainly true that applicable procedural rules prescribed by federal, state, or local law must be adhered to as a matter of common parliamentary law (as embodied in RONR), but this does not mean that these federal, state, and local laws are in any respect dependent upon parliamentary law for their authority or enforceability. Applicable procedural rules prescribed by federal, state, or local law will trump any conflicting rules which an organization may adopt for the governance of its proceedings, no matter what.

 

A reason that I mentioned this (if there was one, other than apparently to annoy Guest D. Llama) is that even when procedural rules come from a "higher source" and must be adhered to because the "law law" says so, the chair enforces them -- and the assembly may appeal from the chair's ruling on them -- in the same way as other procedural rules. (Unlike, say, the laws about bank-robbing, which as we all know by now the chair of a deliberative assembly has no authority to make a decision on. )

Also, I ought to point out that the Introduction to RONR does state [p. xxx]* that "from this country's beginning, it has been an underlying assumption of our culture that what has been authoritatively established as parliamentary law ... [is] binding within all assemblies except as they may adopt special rules varying from the general parliamentary law."

It is unfortunate that this type of cultural expectation sometimes gets mixed up in considerations of statutory legal requirements and the workings of our court system, but the fact is that the subject of parliamentary law is a whole lot more than just something that some old general (or some nearly middle-aged major) decided to write in a book, and it is indeed "in the nature of a body of law" (ibid.).

(*That's page XXX for you Romans.)

[Guest D.Llama]

This use by Mr. Gerber of  " law  law"  is but again an example of  label and language- that is problematic . If there is "law law " it suggests there is also " un-law law "  and that RONR is in that category. For me - borders on the comical . The labeling, and nuance of language around what RONR is ( see line 1 of the Introduction to RONR- and the full page of that  ) is  so difficult  for most users- as to be practically useless .

It may be that the problem ultimately lies in what is first defined . If that is the positive law ( common law, or Legislation, or regulatory to primary legislation ) then RONR is not "law " . But if some prefer to have the definition of "law " inclusive of  various  non-law ( using the definition of positive law- above )  works and texts - then that will be that. But it has been said  on occasion- that one cannot make a silk purse out of a sows ear - even if the sows ear is a "gold standard " one- and of unquestionable great  value .

And , of course ,  this is very  confusing for many users of RONR struggling to make their way in this tangle and dark wood . It does not need to be this way and  offering that's it all so very clear -when one studies it exhaustively - is no service to the public .

But I'm in no way  annoyed by the communication of Mr. Gerber . It's  always useful to have his views and  often be  educated by  those  - and this  for sure !

Over  and out . Happy Holidays to all ! .

 

D.Llama

 

 

[Joshua Katz]

Speaking of which, what about those crazy physicists getting everyone call confused with their "law of gravity?"  And economists with their "law of supply and demand?"  How can we expect anyone to sort this all out?

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/18/2016 at 3:13 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

But they are, of course, "applicable procedural rules prescribed by federal, state, or local law," and so must be adhered to by the organization as a matter of the common parliamentary law (as embodied in RONR) as well.

So common parliamentary law sometimes compels organizations to follow additional rules that are not common parliamentary law.

Okay.

[Dan Honemann]

1 hour ago, Godelfan said:

Speaking of which, what about those crazy physicists getting everyone call confused with their "law of gravity?"  And economists with their "law of supply and demand?"  How can we expect anyone to sort this all out?

Yeah, guys like Ohm and Newton did cause lots of confusion, and all this talk about natural law, and the law of averages and probability and stuff like that just makes my head swim. 

[Shmuel Gerber]

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Yeah, guys like Ohm and Newton did cause lots of confusion, and all this talk about natural law, and the law of averages and probability and stuff like that just makes my head swim. 

And don't forget about the law of diminishing returns, which this topic keeps getting better at exemplifying.

[Guest Harper]

JJ: I have to disagree with harper.  I think this is something understood by even someone with a "lay knowledge" of both procedure and of the law. About 25 years ago, such a person actually wrote an article on the subject.  The individual, at the time, had no certification as a parliamentarian, was not a member of any bar anyplace on the planet, nor had he ever attended law school. >>

Gentlemen and Lady (or Ladies),

I hadn't realized that the thread had continued. I will only say that, in response to JJ and am not disputing Mr. Honemann, that were we dealing with common sense there would be far fewer problems. But as someone who has actually read the laws of my jurisdiction as well as my organization's bylaws that RONR is often misused. And one reason is that people in governing positions do not read the Page 16 reference.

To wit, I wish you all the best for a healthy, wealthy and wise 2017; circa 1735, Philadelphia PA.

 

Harper