Metric to judge

[Guest Curious]

I was arguing with someone about a metric for deciding whether or not RONR was being used in a valid way, in alignment with its function and purpose.

My argument: if RONR is being used in such a way that members rights are not protected, and can be violated at will, by the Chair or anyone, it ceases to qualify as valid use of RONR.

[Gary Novosielski]

Thank you for sharing.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

How's it being used?

[Gary Novosielski]

8 minutes ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

How's it being used?

Perhaps as a projectile.

[Guest Curious]

I guess I’m trying to get a standard in which to judge a situation.

My argument is that if member rights are not being protected, and can freely be violated, a group is not using RONR, even though they might be using elements of it.

Does anyone think that’s a fair statement?

 

[jstackpo]

Yeah, but in practical terms, the way "the metric" is calibrated and applied in a particular situation is by a member raising a point of order if he/she detects a violation of some rule.

[Guest Curious]

58 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

Yeah, but in practical terms, the way "the metric" is calibrated and applied in a particular situation is by a member raising a point of order if he/she detects a violation of some rule.

And if both the chair and the body ignore rhe point of order, do not respond if it gets to the point of Appeal, or if they personally attack the member for raising it?

[Chris Harrison]

If the Bylaws or an adopted Special Rule of Order names RONR as the parliamentary authority then RONR is the parliamentary authority.  If the assembly chooses not to follow it (for whatever reason) the fault lies with the assembly (and in particular the Chair for not enforcing the rules) not RONR.

[Guest Curious]

9 minutes ago, Chris Harrison said:

If the Bylaws or an adopted Special Rule of Order names RONR as the parliamentary authority then RONR is the parliamentary authority.  If the assembly chooses not to follow it (for whatever reason) the fault lies with the assembly (and in particular the Chair for not enforcing the rules) not RONR.

Would you consider such actions equal to a failure  to uphold a bylaw, if RONR is the officially adopted Parliamentary Authority?

[Guest Zev]

1 hour ago, Guest Curious said:

Would you consider such actions equal to a failure  to uphold a bylaw, if RONR is the officially adopted Parliamentary Authority?

Yes, of course it is a violation of the bylaws. But your job is not to get the presiding officer and the other members of the assembly to fess up and admit to their faults but rather to get them to want to follow the parliamentary rules because it is to their advantage to do so. There are many strategies for accomplishing that goal, and giving up is not one of them.

[Joshua Katz]

3 hours ago, Guest Curious said:

And if both the chair and the body ignore rhe point of order, do not respond if it gets to the point of Appeal, or if they personally attack the member for raising it?

Well, although Guest Zev is correct that giving up is not a strategy for getting people to follow parliamentary rules, it is sometimes a valid strategy for not driving yourself crazy. If the assembly does not wish to use parliamentary procedure, then it will not. 

I'm inclined to agree with your initial point, though - the "dividing line" between using RONR with mistakes, and not using RONR despite using some of its forms, is respect for the fundamental rights of members.

[Josh Martin]

13 hours ago, Guest Curious said:

I was arguing with someone about a metric for deciding whether or not RONR was being used in a valid way, in alignment with its function and purpose.

My argument: if RONR is being used in such a way that members rights are not protected, and can be violated at will, by the Chair or anyone, it ceases to qualify as valid use of RONR.

Would you consider such actions equal to a failure  to uphold a bylaw, if RONR is the officially adopted Parliamentary Authority?

I think it is correct that, if “members rights are not protected, and can be violated at will, by the Chair or anyone,” this certainly suggests that RONR is being used very poorly.

I also think there are other situations which would not meet this criterion in which RONR is being used very poorly.

If the bylaws adopt RONR as the parliamentary authority, then I suppose this is also a violation of the bylaws.

This all assumes, of course, that the actions in question are not supported by properly adopted rules of the assembly.

But I am always nervous about philosophical questions like this because I suspect they are really getting at another, more specific question which isn’t being asked.

11 hours ago, Guest Curious said:

And if both the chair and the body ignore rhe point of order, do not respond if it gets to the point of Appeal, or if they personally attack the member for raising it?

If it’s just the chair (or perhaps the chair and a handful of members) that’s the problem, see RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 650-653. 

If the entire assembly (or at least a majority of it) is the problem, and it is a subordinate assembly such as a board or committee, these matters could be reported to the parent assembly. For removing officers (which includes board members), see your bylaws, or Section 62 of RONR if your bylaws are silent.

If the entire society (or at least a majority of it) is the problem, then there is no parliamentary solution. Depending on the circumstances if the situation and your resources, you may wish to consult a lawyer to see what legal remedies are available, or perhaps it is time to seek out other organizations which are more deserving of your talents.

Edited September 30, 2019 at 02:04 PM by Josh Martin

[George Mervosh]

12 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Thank you for sharing.

Nosey's group has major issues, it seems.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 9/30/2019 at 10:06 AM, George Mervosh said:

Nosey's group has major issues, it seems.

Yes it does, and I'm getting annoyed at the repeated name changes.