Can this particular rule be suspended?

[Carolyn]

I'm looking for help understanding whether a bylaw rule can be suspended where the chair claims that it is a 'rule of order.'

The rule in question keeps a staff member from speaking unless the deliberative assembly moves to hear from that person.

It is intended to keep a very firm distinction between the administrative aspects of the organization and the governance/political side.

The rule has now been suspended more than once at meetings of our Council with the Speaker claiming that it can be suspended as it is a 'rule of order.'

He claims it can be suspended meeting after meeting until the bylaws are changed. 

My view is that no bylaw rule can be suspended. We have a membership of over 4,000 members. The deliberative assembly in question has about 50 elected members. In my view, those 50 members need to adhere to the rules approved by the 4,000. 

Help, please! Can this particular rule be suspended or not?

 

[Joshua Katz]

9 minutes ago, Carolyn said:

I'm looking for help understanding whether a bylaw rule can be suspended where the chair claims that it is a 'rule of order.'

 

A bylaw that is clearly in the nature of a rule of order may be suspended. As a result, it is logical that the chair would rule that a bylaw may be suspended if he's also ruling that it's a rule of order.

10 minutes ago, Carolyn said:

 The rule in question keeps a staff member from speaking unless the deliberative assembly moves to hear from that person.

 

I'm not sure why you have this rule, since non-members have no right to speak anyway. I'm also not clear what suspension would mean. If you suspend the rule (by a higher margin than an ordinary motion) then...the staff member can speak. But you could have achieved the same end, at least from what I've seen so far, simply by moving to hear from the staff member. In any case, it appears to be clearly in the nature of a rule of order, and hence suspendable. 

 

12 minutes ago, Carolyn said:

My view is that no bylaw rule can be suspended.

This is incorrect. There are two types of bylaws which may be suspended - those clearly in the nature of a rule of order, and those which provide for their own suspension. The rule in question appears to be a rule of order, and also (pending precise language) appears to allow for its own suspension via a main motion.

So, two questions: first, please give us the exact language of the rule. Second - what exactly happens, at past meetings, when you suspend this rule, that wouldn't have happened by simply moving to allow the staff member to speak?

[Drake Savory]

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

I'm not sure why you have this rule, since non-members have no right to speak anyway. I'm also not clear what suspension would mean. If you suspend the rule (by a higher margin than an ordinary motion) then...the staff member can speak.

I'm not sure about if the rule is suspended then it defaults to RONR which is ... a staff member cannot speak unless the deliberative assembly moves to hear from that person.

 

So suspending the rule has no effect.

[Richard Brown]

13 minutes ago, Drake Savory said:

I'm not sure about if the rule is suspended then it defaults to RONR which is ... a staff member cannot speak unless the deliberative assembly moves to hear from that person.

 

So suspending the rule has no effect.

I disagree.  The special rule of order supersedes the provision in RONR.  If the special rule of order prohibiting staff members from speaking without being asked to speak by the assembly is suspended, then the staff member is thereby permitted to speak upon being recognized by the chair.... but not to participate in debate (unless the assembly interprets this rule as applying not just to speaking but to debate).  Speaking at a meeting and speaking in debate are two different things and subject to different rules in RONR.  A majority vote can permit a non-member to speak, but it requires a two thirds vote and suspension of the rules to permit a non member to speak in debate.  It's not clear to me what the intent of this rule is, but I'm inclined to interpret it to mean speaking in the way of providing information or asking questions, but not speaking in debate.  It's ultimately up to the assembly to interpret it.

In this case, this  is a special rule of order and I think it would require a two thirds vote to suspend it whether it is to permit the non member to just speak  or to speak in debate.  If a member.... or the chair... desires to suspend the rule, it should be made clear whether the rule is being suspended  to permit the staff member to speak in debate or just to "speak" without having to be asked to speak.

[Joshua Katz]

2 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

A majority vote can permit a non-member to speak, but it requires a two thirds vote and suspension of the rules to permit a non member to speak in debate.  It's not clear to me what the intent of this rule is, but I'm inclined to interpret it to mean speaking in the way of providing information or asking questions, but not speaking in debate.  It's ultimately up to the assembly to interpret it.

Interesting, I hadn't thought of that. I think your interpretation has the benefit that it doesn't make the rule run contrary to its clear intent: i.e. not making it easier to speak when the rule is clearly meant to make it harder. 

Do you think suspending it has any effect that wouldn't have happened had the assembly simply used the rule itself to give permission to speak?

[Drake Savory]

33 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

I disagree.  The special rule of order supersedes the provision in RONR.  If the special rule of order prohibiting staff members from speaking without being asked to speak by the assembly is suspended, then the staff member is thereby permitted to speak upon being recognized by the chair.

You are right.  I claim 

1)  Lack of coffee

2)  I was talking to someone about a separate vote on a convention standing rule and what happens when it is not adopted when looking at this question.

[Dan Honemann]

Be nice if you all stopped referring to it as a special rule of order.  🙂

[Benjamin Geiger]

Isn't SOP normally to specify the desired result when suspending the rules, not to specify the rule itself?

In other words, "I move to suspend the rules to allow Leeroy Jenkins to speak in debate" should solve the problem, no?

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Carolyn said:

The rule in question keeps a staff member from speaking unless the deliberative assembly moves to hear from that person.

It is intended to keep a very firm distinction between the administrative aspects of the organization and the governance/political side.

The rule has now been suspended more than once at meetings of our Council with the Speaker claiming that it can be suspended as it is a 'rule of order.'

 He claims it can be suspended meeting after meeting until the bylaws are changed. 

I believe the chairman is correct that this rule may be suspended, although since the rule already permits the assembly to let staff members speak, and it would require a 2/3 vote by the assembly to suspend the rule, I don’t know what the point of this would be.

Am I missing something?

2 hours ago, Carolyn said:

My view is that no bylaw rule can be suspended.

This view is incorrect. A rule in the bylaws may be suspended if the rule in question is in the nature of a rule of order or if the rule specifically provides for its own suspension. I concur with Mr. Katz that this rule appears to be both.

2 hours ago, Carolyn said:

We have a membership of over 4,000 members. The deliberative assembly in question has about 50 elected members. In my view, those 50 members need to adhere to the rules approved by the 4,000. 

This is a reasonable argument, but it is not at all clear to me that the rule in question is intended to prevent the assembly from suspending it, especially since the rule specifically permits the assembly to invite staff members to speak.

1 hour ago, Drake Savory said:

I'm not sure about if the rule is suspended then it defaults to RONR which is ... a staff member cannot speak unless the deliberative assembly moves to hear from that person.

No, that is not how the motion to Suspend the Rules works (except when suspending convention standing rules by a majority vote, but that’s not what we’re dealing with). A motion to Suspend the Rules does not specify the rule(s) to be suspended, but instead specifies what it is the member wishes to accomplish.

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

If the special rule of order prohibiting staff members from speaking without being asked to speak by the assembly is suspended, then the staff member is thereby permitted to speak upon being recognized by the chair.... but not to participate in debate (unless the assembly interprets this rule as applying not just to speaking but to debate). 

Well, the effect of suspending the rule will be determined by the exact wording of the motion to Suspend the Rules.

“In making the incidental motion to Suspend the Rules, the particular rule or rules to be suspended are not mentioned; but the motion must state its specific purpose, and its adoption permits nothing else to be done under the suspension. Such a motion, for instance, may be "to suspend the rules and take up the report of the Building Committee," or "to suspend the rules and agree to [that is, to adopt without debate or amendment] the resolution ..."” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 262)

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

Do you think suspending it has any effect that wouldn't have happened had the assembly simply used the rule itself to give permission to speak?

I suspect that the rule as it has traditionally been applied is that it is necessary to make a motion to permit a staff member to speak every time it is desired to let a staff member speak, and the desire of some members is to adopt a motion which (for example) permits all staff members (or certain staff members) to speak whenever they are properly recognized by the chairman, for the duration of the meeting.

5 minutes ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

Isn't SOP normally to specify the desired result when suspending the rules, not to specify the rule itself?

Yes.

5 minutes ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

In other words, "I move to suspend the rules to allow Leeroy Jenkins to speak in debate" should solve the problem, no?

Yes.

Edited April 16, 2019 at 04:51 PM by Josh Martin

[Guest Zev]

Here is what I think happened. The assembly at one time did not have this bylaw rule. The staff member attempted to speak and confusion broke out whether they could proceed after being recognized or whether a motion was necessary permitting them to speak. The assembly very possibly did not understand that the default rule in RONR required a motion in order to do so. As a result, they adopted a bylaw rule that stated what the book says and now the question is what to do. I wouldn't sweat the small stuff.