Fundamental principles

[Guest Saman G]

Hello,

I am from Iran, and i have read RONR 10th and 11th editions. The book has not been published in Persian yet, but many attempts have been made to introduce it as a parliamentary governer of assemblies (There is not any book like it here). I have some questions that i would appreciate if you respond.

1. What are the differences between fundamental principles of parliamentary law and principles underlying parliamentary law?

2. What are basic principles and what are they diffrences with the previous ones?

3. What is the impact of principles underlying parliamentary on rules?

[Setemu]

I have had a similar question brewing in the back of my mind. For example, how might I know when a special rule moved for adoption by an assembly violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law? 

[J. J.]

This is from National Parliamentarian, Second Quarter 2013.  It is one view.

It does have implications for different cultures, especially in Iranian culture and politics. 

Fundamental Problems.pdf

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

My impression is that the "fundamental principles" are elucidated in Robert's later works and represent a bit of professional mystique.

[George Mervosh]

3 hours ago, Setemu said:

I have had a similar question brewing in the back of my mind. For example, how might I know when a special rule moved for adoption by an assembly violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law? 

If you just look at the ones on p. 263, my understanding of it is that a bylaw level rule is needed rather than a special rule of order, though I'm not quite certain about considering two main motions at once.  I don't know any assembly dumb enough to want a rule to supersede that fundamental principle..  

Edited February 23, 2018 at 06:05 PM by George Mervosh

[Setemu]

So, it sounds like there is a bit of professional judgement and interpretation required by a parliamentarian in a given case. While the list on p. 263 provides some fundamental principles (thanks for pointing me to that page, Mr. Mervosh), it does not include what I would guess is another fundamental principle--the right of a minority to block, for example, taking up an item of business out of order--and that right is expressed in the 2/3-vote threshold for certain rules.

[Josh Martin]

7 hours ago, Guest Saman G said:

1. What are the differences between fundamental principles of parliamentary law and principles underlying parliamentary law?

1. A “fundamental principle of parliamentary law” is one which is considered to be so central that the rules cannot be suspended so as to violate it. “Principle underlying parliamentary law” is a more general term and refers to some of the basic tenets of parliamentary law. The fact that something is or is not a “principle underlying parliamentary law” is not generally of any significance in applying particular rules.

7 hours ago, Guest Saman G said:

2. What are basic principles and what are they diffrences with the previous ones?

“Basic principles” sounds quite similar to “principles underlying parliamentary law.”

7 hours ago, Guest Saman G said:

3. What is the impact of principles underlying parliamentary on rules

The fact that something is, or is not, a principle underlying parliamentary law has no particular impact on applying the rules. The principles underlying parliamentary law are, however, the foundation for many of the other rules.

4 hours ago, Setemu said:

I have had a similar question brewing in the back of my mind. For example, how might I know when a special rule moved for adoption by an assembly violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law? 

Does it matter? So far as I know, the book only prevents suspending the rules to break an FPPL. The book does not say that a society cannot adopt a special rule of order that violates an FPPL (although it so happens that the book has specific rules providing that many of the FPPLs can only be superseded by a rule in the bylaws).

As for the issue with suspending the rules, I would just look at the examples the book provides.

1 hour ago, George Mervosh said:

If you just look at the ones on p. 263, my understanding of it is that a bylaw level rule is needed rather than a special rule of order, though I'm not quite certain about considering two main motions at once.  I don't know any assembly dumb enough to want a rule to supersede that fundamental principle..  

The text does not actually say that a special rule of order cannot violate an FPPL, just that the rules cannot be suspended to violate an FPPL. Although it certainly is the case that the text specifically provides for almost all of the FPPLs (except the one you mention) that they can only be superseded by a provision in the bylaws.

26 minutes ago, Setemu said:

While the list on p. 263 provides some fundamental principles (thanks for pointing me to that page, Mr. Mervosh), it does not include what I would guess is another fundamental principle--the right of a minority to block, for example, taking up an item of business out of order--and that right is expressed in the 2/3-vote threshold for certain rules.

This is not a fundamental principle, since the rule can be suspended by a 2/3 vote. This is instead a “principle underlying parliamentary law.”

[George Mervosh]

1 minute ago, Josh Martin said:

Although it certainly is the case that the text specifically provides for almost all of the FPPLs (except the one you mention) that they can only be superseded by a provision in the bylaws.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. 

[J. J.]

2 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

If you just look at the ones on p. 263, my understanding of it is that a bylaw level rule is needed rather than a special rule of order, though I'm not quite certain about considering two main motions at once.  I don't know any assembly dumb enough to want a rule to supersede that fundamental principle..  

1 hour ago, George Mervosh said:

 

Does requiring some rule to be in the bylaws to be effective make it a fundamental principle?

 

[George Mervosh]

3 minutes ago, J. J. said:

Does requiring some rule to be in the bylaws to be effective make it a fundamental principle?

I didn't say that.

[J. J.]

1 minute ago, George Mervosh said:

I didn't say that.

I know.  That is why I was asking a question. 

[George Mervosh]

2 minutes ago, J. J. said:

I know.  That is why I was asking a question. 

Ok then.  I think the answer is, no.  

[J. J.]

Just now, George Mervosh said:

Ok then.  I think the answer is, no.  

I agree. 

[Setemu]

On 2/23/2018 at 2:16 PM, Josh Martin said:

The text does not actually say that a special rule of order cannot violate an FPPL, just that the rules cannot be suspended to violate an FPPL. Although it certainly is the case that the text specifically provides for almost all of the FPPLs (except the one you mention) that they can only be superseded by a provision in the bylaws.

So am I correct to understand that any FPPL can be superseded by a provision in the bylaws?

 

On 2/23/2018 at 2:16 PM, Josh Martin said:

This is not a fundamental principle, since the rule can be suspended by a 2/3 vote. This is instead a “principle underlying parliamentary law.”

This is my question, though: can one eliminate the 2/3-vote rule (and any other one relevant for the purpose) such that the minority has no rights whatsoever. Can we eliminate all rules that allow a single member to make a demand or raise a point of order? RNOR states its purpose it to protect and balance the rights of the majority, the minority, the individual, and absentees. As such, all rules in RONR, in principle and in concert, aim for this (p. li), and there is "an underlying assumption of a right that exists" (ibid., emphasis original). As such, would not suspending a rule or series of rules such that any of these rights are eliminated be, by necessity, a violation of the most fundamental principles of all?

Edited February 27, 2018 at 04:12 PM by Setemu
made minor grammatical edits for clarity

[Richard Brown]

9 minutes ago, Setemu said:

So am I correct to understand that any FPPL can be superseded by a provision in the bylaws?

Yes.

9 minutes ago, Setemu said:

This is my question, though: can one eliminate the 2/3-vote rule (and any other one relevant for the purpose) such that the minority has no rights whatsoever. Can we eliminate all rules that allow a single member to make a demand or raise a point of order?

Yes, unless prohibited by law, but you might want to think  long and hard before doing so.  Who would want to belong to an organization where the minority has no rights whatsoever?  And why would you want to propose such a thing? 

Edited February 27, 2018 at 04:22 PM by Richard Brown

[J. J.]

1 hour ago, Setemu said:

So am I correct to understand that any FPPL can be superseded by a provision in the bylaws?

 

This is my question, though: can one eliminate the 2/3-vote rule (and any other one relevant for the purpose) such that the minority has no rights whatsoever. Can we eliminate all rules that allow a single member to make a demand or raise a point of order? RNOR states its purpose it to protect and balance the rights of the majority, the minority, the individual, and absentees. As such, all rules in RONR, in principle and in concert, aim for this (p. li), and there is "an underlying assumption of a right that exists" (ibid., emphasis original). As such, would not suspending a rule or series of rules such that any of these rights are eliminated be, by necessity, a violation of the most fundamental principles of all?

A bylaw can overrule anything else that the assembly can adopt.  This includes any FPPL.

At least in the case of the "one motion immediately pending at a time," FPPL, it would be possible, though usually not advisable, to supersede that with a special rule of order.  A consent calendar sort of does that, where a number of motions are adopted simultaneously.   

I have read that the US Senate has a rule that permits more than one main motion to be pending at the same time, but I am not certain that the motions are actually pending in the sense that RONR uses the term pending.

A special rule of order could be adopted to require a certain number of members to support a point of order in order for it to be raised.  With the possible exception of very large assemblies, I would not recommend its adoption. 

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Setemu said:

So am I correct to understand that any FPPL can be superseded by a provision in the bylaws?

Any rule in RONR at all can be superseded by a provision in the bylaws.

2 hours ago, Setemu said:

This is my question, though: can one eliminate the 2/3-vote rule (and any other one relevant for the purpose) such that the minority has no rights whatsoever. Can we eliminate all rules that allow a single member to make a demand or raise a point of order?

By adopting appropriate special rules of order or rules in the bylaws, yes to both questions.

The rules could be suspended for the purpose of, for instance, providing that a majority vote would suffice to end debate for up to the duration of the session. The rules could not be suspended to eliminate the right of a single member to make a demand or raise a Point of Order (or depending on the circumstances, they could only be suspended by a unanimous vote, which largely amounts to the same thing).

2 hours ago, Setemu said:

RNOR states its purpose it to protect and balance the rights of the majority, the minority, the individual, and absentees. As such, all rules in RONR, in principle and in concert, aim for this (p. li), and there is "an underlying assumption of a right that exists" (ibid., emphasis original). As such, would not suspending a rule or series of rules such that any of these rights are eliminated be, by necessity, a violation of the most fundamental principles of all?

Well, if you refer to RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 263-265, you will see that FPPLs are not the only type of rule that may not be suspended. The rules also provide that “Rules protecting a basic right of the individual member cannot be suspended.” and that “In any case, no rule protecting a minority of a particular size can be suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as the minority protected by the rule.” These rules prevent suspending the rules to deprive an individual member of his rights. Depriving the minority of its rights to prolong debate is fine, because the vote required to suspend the rules is the same as that to end debate.

Adopting rules is a different matter from suspending rules. The society may adopt rules in its special rules of order which supersede even some of the most important rules in RONR, and which may infringe on the rights of the minority or of individual members. A society could, for instance, adopt a special rule of order providing that debate may be ended by a majority vote. There are protections inherent in this process, as adopting special rules of order requires a 2/3 vote and previous notice, or a vote of a majority of the entire membership without notice. In the bylaws, the society can go further still, even altering such fundamental rights as the right to vote, but keep in mind that amending the bylaws must follow the procedures in the bylaws. Generally this requires, at a minimum, a 2/3 vote with notice. If the bylaws are silent, it requires the same vote as for special rules of order.

“Within this framework under the general parliamentary law, an assembly or society is free to adopt any rules it may wish (even rules deviating from parliamentary law) provided that, in the procedure of adopting them, it conforms to parliamentary law or its own existing rules. The only limitations upon the rules that such a body can thus adopt might arise from the rules of a parent body (as those of a national society restricting its state or local branches), or from national, state, or local law affecting the particular type of organization.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 10)

Edited February 27, 2018 at 06:49 PM by Josh Martin

[J. J.]

On 2/23/2018 at 1:01 PM, George Mervosh said:

If you just look at the ones on p. 263, my understanding of it is that a bylaw level rule is needed rather than a special rule of order, though I'm not quite certain about considering two main motions at once.  I don't know any assembly dumb enough to want a rule to supersede that fundamental principle..  

If you would consider preferential voting to be a violation of the "One Person, One Vote" FPPL on p. 407, ll. 1-4, that might be another exception, in some cases.

At least implicitly, preferential voting can be used to elect non-officers, e.g. delegates, by a special rule of order (p. 426, ll. 7-11).

I think someone could make the argument preferential voting doesn't violate an "One Person, One Vote" FPPL and/or that a bylaw is needed to authorize it.