Can a Special Rule of Order Suspend the Parliamentary Authority

[MicahR]

I'm looking at an issue with a Special Rule of Order to outline a disciplinary process which omits much of the protections and rights granted to the accused, no right of the accused to have any access or visibility into the evidence or testimony, no trial is required... it's a mess. I'll probably have more questions, but first, the bylaws don't use the recommended language for the parliamentary authority (don't specify the special rules of order supercede RONR) and don't seem to be vague. Can the special rule of order neuter the rights of the accused by stating that RONR is optional given the bylaws language? 

Per the Bylaws:
Robert's Rules.
In all matters not covered expressly by these Bylaws, Robert’s Rules of Order, newly revised, shall prevail.  

Per the Special Rule of Order:
Robert’s Rules
In matters not expressly addressed in these Rules, Robert’s Rules may be consulted for guidance but need not be followed if, in the opinion of the Executive Committee, it would be more appropriate in the specific circumstances to follow an alternative course. 
 

[George Mervosh]

No, the bylaws would need to be amended to substitute that language for the current language.  A special rule of order won't cut it.

[Rob Elsman]

The main motion that adopted the special rule of order appears to be an improper main motion. It's adoption seems to me to have given rise to a "continuing breach", about which a Point of Order can still be raised in the adopting body.

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, MicahR said:

I'm looking at an issue with a Special Rule of Order to outline a disciplinary process which omits much of the protections and rights granted to the accused, no right of the accused to have any access or visibility into the evidence or testimony, no trial is required... it's a mess. I'll probably have more questions, but first, the bylaws don't use the recommended language for the parliamentary authority (don't specify the special rules of order supercede RONR) and don't seem to be vague. Can the special rule of order neuter the rights of the accused by stating that RONR is optional given the bylaws language? 

Per the Bylaws:
Robert's Rules.
In all matters not covered expressly by these Bylaws, Robert’s Rules of Order, newly revised, shall prevail.  

Per the Special Rule of Order:
Robert’s Rules
In matters not expressly addressed in these Rules, Robert’s Rules may be consulted for guidance but need not be followed if, in the opinion of the Executive Committee, it would be more appropriate in the specific circumstances to follow an alternative course. 
 

No, the special rule of order in question is not proper. Despite the inadvisable wording for the parliamentary authority in the bylaws, the assembly still has the ability to adopt special rules of order to supersede RONR in a particular case (because RONR says so), but a rule of order which permits the Executive Committee to override RONR in any circumstance it deems appropriate is not in order. Such a sweeping rule could only be adopted by amending the bylaws (and I would strongly advise against adopting it).

Additionally, special rules of order which omit the basic rights of membership, such as the right of the accused to a trial, are also not in order. Such rules would need to be adopted in the bylaws.