Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums
Guest Juanita

Deleting Parliamentary Procedure from by-laws

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

If this municipality has a code authorizing tickets for failing to follow your established practice, unless you have formally renounced that practice, should I get a ticket the day the sign comes down if I don't stop?

Yes, if they could prove it.  :)

Now, what if has been my custom not to stop at that stop sing and the stop sign is removed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, J. J. said:

Yes, if they could prove it.  :)

Now, what if has been my custom not to stop at that stop sing and the stop sign is removed?

Well, I disagree, but don't have much of an argument other than thinking my answer is obvious.

If your custom has been not to stop, and the stop sign is removed, then you should get a ticket if you stop, under either theory, unless you formally announce a policy of stopping.  The only reason I can think of to adopt such a policy would be that you enjoy stopping there, but enjoy breaking laws even more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

 

 

Actually, in pursuing this I have been trying to convince Mr. Martin that he ought not agree that it is correct to say that adherence to the rules in an adopted parliamentary authority will establish a "custom", as that term in used in RONR, but perhaps to no avail.   

I fully understand that I will not persuade J.J. that this is the case.  :)

First question, if the assembly does not refer to the manual it has been referring to for procedural questions, what does it use prior to reaching a decision on what manual it should use?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Well, I disagree, but don't have much of an argument other than thinking my answer is obvious.

If your custom has been not to stop, and the stop sign is removed, then you should get a ticket if you stop, under either theory, unless you formally announce a policy of stopping.  The only reason I can think of to adopt such a policy would be that you enjoy stopping there, but enjoy breaking laws even more.

Assume that there is no code requires me to announce.

If for 20 years, I have not stopped at that stop sign.  What is my customary practice?  (The question is not if I could get a ticket.)

The stop sign is taken down.  What is my customary practice?

Edited by J. J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, J. J. said:

If for 20 years, I have not stopped at that stop sign.  What is my customary practice?  (The question is not if I could get a ticket.)

 

Your customary practice is obviously not to stop at the stop sign.  It doesn't follow that, if you did stop, then stopping is your customary practice.

11 minutes ago, J. J. said:

The stop sign is taken down.  What is my customary practice?

If your practice was not to stop, and the sign is taken down, your practice is still not to stop.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If

20 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Your customary practice is obviously not to stop at the stop sign.  It doesn't follow that, if you did stop, then stopping is your customary practice.

 

If I were to start doing that, on a regular basis, it would become customary practice.   I'm talking about repeated action; this one time, it does not create a customary practice.   It would violate my customary practice, however.

 

21 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

If your practice was not to stop, and the sign is taken down, your practice is still not to stop.  

Would you agree that, if I did stop at the stop sign all the time for a while, it would be my customary practice to stop there?

If the answer is yes, would you agree that, if I did stop at the intersection after the sign was taken down, it would still be my customary practice to stop there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Actually, in pursuing this I have been trying to convince Mr. Martin that he ought not agree that it is correct to say that adherence to the rules in an adopted parliamentary authority will establish a "custom", as that term in used in RONR, but perhaps to no avail.   

I did find your argument persuasive, so your time spent typing has not been entirely wasted. :)

1 hour ago, J. J. said:

First question, if the assembly does not refer to the manual it has been referring to for procedural questions, what does it use prior to reaching a decision on what manual it should use?

Doesn’t RONR answer this question?

“A deliberative assembly that has not adopted any rules is commonly understood to hold itself bound by the rules and customs of the general parliamentary law—or common parliamentary law (as discussed in the Introduction)—to the extent that there is agreement in the meeting body as to what these rules and practices are.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 3)

Edited by Josh Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

I did find your argument persuasive, so your time spent typing has not been entirely wasted. :)

Doesn’t RONR answer this question?

“A deliberative assembly that has not adopted any rules is commonly understood to hold itself bound by the rules and customs of the general parliamentary law—or common parliamentary law (as discussed in the Introduction)—to the extent that there is agreement in the meeting body as to what these rules and practices are.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 3)

What is that common or general parliamentary law, and can repeated practice modify (or supersede) whatever general parliamentary law is?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, J. J. said:

If I were to start doing that, on a regular basis, it would become customary practice.   I'm talking about repeated action; this one time, it does not create a customary practice.   It would violate my customary practice, however.

 

Let's back up.  You asked about a situation where there's a stop sign, and, for 20 years, you have not stopped at it.  I think it's fair to say that your customary practice is failing to stop at that stop sign.  (That is, "to not stop.")  If the stop sign is removed, I don't think your customary practice goes away - if, the next day, you don't stop, I think you have continued your practice.

But, suppose that, for 20 years, you did stop.  I do not think you have established a customary practice of stopping there.  If the sign is removed, and the next day you do not stop, I don't think you've violated your custom.  If, the next day, you continue to stop, and you keep doing that, day after day, then I think you will then be establishing a custom.

4 hours ago, J. J. said:

Would you agree that, if I did stop at the stop sign all the time for a while, it would be my customary practice to stop there?

 

No.  I would say your are following the law, and less than voluntary actions do not form a custom.

 

4 hours ago, J. J. said:

If the answer is yes, would you agree that, if I did stop at the intersection after the sign was taken down, it would still be my customary practice to stop there?

As I said, I think you can, once the sign is removed, begin to establish such a custom.  However, to deal with your hypothetical, if the answer above were yes, then it would follow that continuing to stop after the sign comes down is continuing a custom, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

.

But, suppose that, for 20 years, you did stop.  I do not think you have established a customary practice of stopping there.  If the sign is removed, and the next day you do not stop, I don't think you've violated your custom.  If, the next day, you continue to stop, and you keep doing that, day after day, then I think you will then be establishing a custom.

 

Here is where I disagree. 

The rule is "stop at the stop sign."  Assume that I stop at the intersection because there is a stop sign.  Does that change what my customary practice is?  My customary practice is to stop at that intersection; it makes no difference why that has becomes customary practice.    My customary practice happens to correspond to the rule . 

I can develop a customary practice that does not conform to the rules; I can, repeatedly, over time, not stop at the intersection with a stop sign.  That customary practice would "fall to the ground," when challenged.  That does not change the fact that it is a customary practice.

The creation of a customary practice is dependent on my actions, not my motivations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think that makes perfect sense when your actions are in violation of the rules, but not when they appear compelled by the rules.  Like I said, i don't have much of an argument for that point, it just seems obvious to me, so I conclude we're at an impasse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

Well, I think that makes perfect sense when your actions are in violation of the rules, but not when they appear compelled by the rules.  Like I said, i don't have much of an argument for that point, it just seems obvious to me, so I conclude we're at an impasse.

To determine if something is a customary practice, why do need to know whether or not that practice violates a rule?  I'm not suggesting that if a customary practice is superseded by something else or not.  I am suggesting that, if the assembly has a particular practice that it has followed for a long time, whatever else it is, it is a customary practice.

To go back to the stop sign example let's assume that there are two intersection.  For the last ten years, I have stopped at the first intersection, and not stopped at the second.  To determine what my customary practice is, do you need to know if there is a stop sign on either or both of those intersections?

My answer is no; you don't need to even know if there is a stop sign involved to determine what my customary practice is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically if the relevant phrase is removed from the bylaws, people will drive through intersections and get hit a lot, regardless of if the now missing stop sign was a custome or a rule. Perhaps removing the stop sign (and by extension the wording in the original question) falls into the category of just because we can do something does not mean we should do something. 

Although I suppose this could be a case of the stop sign being removed because we installed a traffic light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2018 at 12:07 PM, Guest Juanita said:

It has been stated that it is no longer necessary for by-laws to state that, "The most recent edition of Robert's Rules of Order shall be the parliamentary authority for all matters of procedure not specifically addressed herein," which is stated in our current by-laws.

What we have not dealt with, I think, is: who is stating this, and why?  Perhaps we've ignored that because of the passive voice.  Do we know anything about what they, whoever they are, hope to gain from removing this phrase?  There's some clue in the fact that they once thought it was necessary, but no longer, but I'm not sure where that clue takes us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/28/2018 at 8:56 AM, AFS1970 said:

So basically if the relevant phrase is removed from the bylaws, people will drive through intersections and get hit a lot, regardless of if the now missing stop sign was a custome or a rule. Perhaps removing the stop sign (and by extension the wording in the original question) falls into the category of just because we can do something does not mean we should do something. 

Although I suppose this could be a case of the stop sign being removed because we installed a traffic light.

Well, I’m a bit lost on the stop sign analogy, so let’s return to the original subject. :)

If the relevant phrase in the bylaws is removed, then it seems to me that all agree that the rules in RONR will not be binding upon the society in the same way that they are now, although whether/to what extent they will be binding at all is a subject of some disagreement. This will inevitably lead to arguments about what the rules are in a particular situation. As a result, I do not think it would be advisable to remove the rule in question from the bylaws. The society does, however, have a right to do so.

Edited by Josh Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

Well, I’m a bit lost on the stop sign analogy, so let’s return to the original subject. :)

If the relevant phrase in the bylaws is removed, then it seems to me that all agree that the rules in RONR will not be binding upon the society in the same way that they are now, although whether/to what extent they will be binding at all is a subject of some disagreement. This will inevitably lead to arguments about what the rules are in a particular situation. As a result, I do not think it would be advisable to remove the rule in question from the bylaws. The society does, however, have a right to do so.

Not in the same way is correct, IMO.  In this case that type of rule RONR would be would change; it is no longer the adopted parliamentary authority..

There is another problem.  It is very difficult to determine if some practice has become customary. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2018 at 1:27 PM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Actually, in pursuing this I have been trying to convince Mr. Martin that he ought not agree that it is correct to say that adherence to the rules in an adopted parliamentary authority will establish a "custom", as that term in used in RONR, but perhaps to no avail.

Wouldn't it at least establish the custom of adhering to the rules in the adopted parliamentary authority? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

Wouldn't it at least establish the custom of adhering to the rules in the adopted parliamentary authority? :)

I don't know that I've ever seen an organization with this custom, at least consistently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

Wouldn't it at least establish the custom of adhering to the rules in the adopted parliamentary authority? :)

No, because adherence to rules prescribed by an applicable written rule is not at all the same thing as adhering to rules as if they were prescribed by a rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

No, because adherence to rules prescribed by an applicable written rule is not at all the same thing as adhering to rules as if they were prescribed by a rule.

I couldn't have said it better mys....    Wait, what?

:)

I am reminded of a line in some old IBM mainframe system documentation:

Typing TIME causes the typing of the time since the last time the time was typed.

But in all seriousness, I agree with your interpretation.  Obeying a written rule is not the same as observing a custom, because customs explicitly exist in the absence of a rule.

Edited by Gary Novosielski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

No, because adherence to rules prescribed by an applicable written rule is not at all the same thing as adhering to rules as if they were prescribed by a rule.

Why do you thing it is important to know why a particular rule is adhered to?

The only thing I can see in that regard is to know if the particular rule has a higher "source" than some other rule.  In other words, the statement , "We follow Rule 1 because it is our custom," would only be importance if we are trying to change Rule 1, or if we are looking at Rule 1 to compare it to another rule.   I am not talking about either of those thing.  

Edited by J. J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, J. J. said:

Why do you thing it is important to know why a particular rule is adhered to?

The only thing I can see in that regard is to know if the particular rule has a higher "source" than some other rule.  In other words, the statement , "We follow Rule 1 because it is our custom," would only be importance if we are trying to change Rule 1, or if we are looking at Rule 1 to compare it to another rule.   I am not talking about either of those thing.  

Ah, but the statement would not make sense.  We never follow "Rule 1" because it is our custom.  We follow it because it is a rule.  If there is no rule requiring the wearing of funny hats on May Day, but we do it anyway, we might say that we do this because it is our custom.   We can't claim it's a custom when it is in fact a rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Ah, but the statement would not make sense.  We never follow "Rule 1" because it is our custom.  We follow it because it is a rule.  If there is no rule requiring the wearing of funny hats on May Day, but we do it anyway, we might say that we do this because it is our custom.   We can't claim it's a custom when it is in fact a rule.

Because the society has followed that rule, what the do is a customary practice.  I'm positing that why an assembly follows a certain practice has no relationship to what the assembly's practice is

I positing that even though the society follows a certain practice because it is mandated by some written rule, it is still created a customary practice.  Normally, that makes no difference, because the written rule mandates the same thing as a customary practice.  The question is, what happens when that written rule goes away and is not replaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, J. J. said:

I positing that even though the society follows a certain practice because it is mandated by some written rule, it is still created a customary practice.  

Well, consistently following a certain practice because it is mandated by a written rule may be referred to as a customary practice in a certain sense, but it will not create a "custom", within the meaning of that term as defined on page 19. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, J. J. said:

Because the society has followed that rule, what the do is a customary practice.  I'm positing that why an assembly follows a certain practice has no relationship to what the assembly's practice is

I positing that even though the society follows a certain practice because it is mandated by some written rule, it is still created a customary practice.  Normally, that makes no difference, because the written rule mandates the same thing as a customary practice.  The question is, what happens when that written rule goes away and is not replaced.

It would seem to me that the society intends for the practice to end.

Suppose that a society has a rule that requires a certain event to be held each spring. The society has followed this practice for many years. At some point, the rule is repealed. My assertion would be that when this occurs, the event will not be held in the future unless the society adopts a motion to do so. You appear to be suggesting that there is still a residual custom, and therefore the event must still be held unless the assembly adopts a motion not to. So in order to stop the event, the society would need to rescind the rule and then adopt another motion to not hold the event. This makes no sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×