There is no doubt that a rule requiring a 2/3 vote is a rule in the nature of a rule of order.

[ptc122]

"There is no doubt that a rule requiring a 2/3 vote is a rule in the nature of a rule of order".   Which pages in RONR or RONRIB would confirm this? I cannot find any.

Specifically: RONR p. 588 suggests the wording in a bylaw lines 10 - 16. If an organization adopts same wording and places them in its bylaws, what causes it to be interpreted as a rule of order? 

Isn't a rule of order contained in the bylaws supposed to be identified? And have requirements for its own suspension? 

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, ptc122 said:

"There is no doubt that a rule requiring a 2/3 vote is a rule in the nature of a rule of order".   Which pages in RONR or RONRIB would confirm this? I cannot find any.

“Such rules relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in that connection.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 15) A rule requiring a 2/3 vote relates to the orderly transaction of business in meetings.

1 hour ago, ptc122 said:

Specifically: RONR p. 588 suggests the wording in a bylaw lines 10 - 16. If an organization adopts same wording and places them in its bylaws, what causes it to be interpreted as a rule of order?

As noted above, a rule which relates to the orderly transaction of business in meetings or to the duties of officers on that connection is in the nature a rule of order.

A good rule of thumb is that if a similar rule is found in RONR (with certain exceptions, such as rules found only in the sample bylaws), it’s probably a rule of order, since the primary purpose of a parliamentary authority is to provide a set of rules of order for the society’s use. “The usual and preferable method by which an ordinary society now provides itself with suitable rules of order is therefore to place in its bylaws a provision prescribing that the current edition of a specified and generally accepted manual of parliamentary law shall be the organization's parliamentary authority, and then to adopt only such special rules of order as it finds needed to supplement or modify rules contained in that manual.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 15)

Since RONR includes rules which require a 2/3 vote for certain motions, and RONR is primarily a book of rules of order, it seems reasonable to conclude that, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, that such a rule is in the nature of a rule of order.

1 hour ago, ptc122 said:

Isn't a rule of order contained in the bylaws supposed to be identified?

No, there is no requirement that a rule in the bylaws which is in the nature of a rule of order be identified as such, and the presence or lack of such an identification has nothing to do with whether the rule is in the nature of a rule of order.

1 hour ago, ptc122 said:

And have requirements for its own suspension? 

No, a rule in the bylaws which is not in the nature of a rule of order may not be suspended unless the bylaws so provide. No such provision is required for rules which are in the nature of a rule of order.

I suppose the confusion arises from a misreading of this passage:

”Rules clearly identifiable as in the nature of rules of order that are placed within the bylaws can (with the same exceptions) also be suspended by a two-thirds vote; but, except for such rules and for clauses that provide for their own suspension, as stated above, rules in the bylaws cannot be suspended.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 17)

”Clearly identifiable” does not mean that the bylaws must specifically state “By the way, this is in the nature of a rule of order.” It means that if there is ambiguity in a particular case, this ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the interpretation that it is not a rule of order. But rules requiring a particular voting threshold (and a 2/3 vote in particular) have been a key component of the common parliamentary law for centuries, and clearly relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings, so I am not persuaded that there is any ambiguity over whether such rules are in the nature of rules of order.

As for the latter question, rules in the bylaws which are in the nature of rules of order may be suspended, and rules in the bylaws which provide for their own suspension may be suspended. A rule only needs to meet one of these criteria (not both) in order for suspension to be permissible.

For additional background on this question, members may wish to read this topic, as I assume this is an attempt to resurrect that issue.

Edited October 24, 2019 at 05:17 PM by Josh Martin

[Richard Brown]

40 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

For additional background on this question, members may wish to read this topic, as I assume this is an attempt to resurrect that issue.

Thanks for the heads up on that, Josh.  btw, I concur fully with your response above to pfc122.

[ptc122]

On 10/24/2019 at 1:55 PM, Richard Brown said:

Thanks for the heads up on that, Josh.  btw, I concur fully with your response above to pfc122.

 

On 10/24/2019 at 1:55 PM, Richard Brown said:

Thanks for the heads up on that, Josh.  btw, I concur fully with your response above to pfc122.

Then you can tell me where in RONR it is stated that the requirement in a bylaw of a 2/3 vote is rule of order. 

 

On 10/24/2019 at 1:13 PM, Josh Martin said:

“Such rules relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in that connection.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 15) A rule requiring a 2/3 vote relates to the orderly transaction of business in meetings.

As noted above, a rule which relates to the orderly transaction of business in meetings or to the duties of officers on that connection is in the nature a rule of order.

A good rule of thumb is that if a similar rule is found in RONR (with certain exceptions, such as rules found only in the sample bylaws), it’s probably a rule of order, since the primary purpose of a parliamentary authority is to provide a set of rules of order for the society’s use. “The usual and preferable method by which an ordinary society now provides itself with suitable rules of order is therefore to place in its bylaws a provision prescribing that the current edition of a specified and generally accepted manual of parliamentary law shall be the organization's parliamentary authority, and then to adopt only such special rules of order as it finds needed to supplement or modify rules contained in that manual.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 15)

Since RONR includes rules which require a 2/3 vote for certain motions, and RONR is primarily a book of rules of order, it seems reasonable to conclude that, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, that such a rule is in the nature of a rule of order.

No, there is no requirement that a rule in the bylaws which is in the nature of a rule of order be identified as such, and the presence or lack of such an identification has nothing to do with whether the rule is in the nature of a rule of order.

No, a rule in the bylaws which is not in the nature of a rule of order may not be suspended unless the bylaws so provide. No such provision is required for rules which are in the nature of a rule of order.

I suppose the confusion arises from a misreading of this passage:

”Rules clearly identifiable as in the nature of rules of order that are placed within the bylaws can (with the same exceptions) also be suspended by a two-thirds vote; but, except for such rules and for clauses that provide for their own suspension, as stated above, rules in the bylaws cannot be suspended.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 17)

”Clearly identifiable” does not mean that the bylaws must specifically state “By the way, this is in the nature of a rule of order.” It means that if there is ambiguity in a particular case, this ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the interpretation that it is not a rule of order. But rules requiring a particular voting threshold (and a 2/3 vote in particular) have been a key component of the common parliamentary law for centuries, and clearly relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings, so I am not persuaded that there is any ambiguity over whether such rules are in the nature of rules of order.

As for the latter question, rules in the bylaws which are in the nature of rules of order may be suspended, and rules in the bylaws which provide for their own suspension may be suspended. A rule only needs to meet one of these criteria (not both) in order for suspension to be permissible.

For additional background on this question, members may wish to read this topic, as I assume this is an attempt to resurrect that issue.

Not an attempt to resurrect, just to obtain some clarity as to why a requirement in a bylaw, on amending bylaws, is interpreted as a rule of order?Pages 15 and 17 are about rules of order but do not state that a 2/3 vote is one. Or if a 2/3 remains a rule of order when placed within a bylaw.

The page references do not clarify that a requirement of a 2/3 vote for amending bylaws is a rule of order. What pages do?

What if an organization has a separate list of rules of order, and the 2/3 requirement to amend bylaws is not listed? 

I appreciate how much work goes into deliberating this subject, and  the feedback. Paul

[Weldon Merritt]

1 hour ago, ptc122 said:

What if an organization has a separate list of rules of order, and the 2/3 requirement to amend bylaws is not listed? 

It's still a rule of order. It is the function of a rule, not where it is placed, that determines whether it is a rule of order. 

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, ptc122 said:

Then you can tell me where in RONR it is stated that the requirement in a bylaw of a 2/3 vote is rule of order. 

RONR does not explicitly state such a thing, but I feel the explanation noted above is sufficient to conclude that such a rule is in the nature of a rule of order.

It is important to note that whether a rule is in the bylaws does not change whether it is in the nature of a rule of order.

1 hour ago, ptc122 said:

Not an attempt to resurrect, just to obtain some clarity as to why a requirement in a bylaw, on amending bylaws, is interpreted as a rule of order?Pages 15 and 17 are about rules of order but do not state that a 2/3 vote is one. Or if a 2/3 remains a rule of order when placed within a bylaw.

The page references do not clarify that a requirement of a 2/3 vote for amending bylaws is a rule of order. What pages do?

No page explicitly states such a thing. The entire book is made up of rules of order, because that is what a parliamentary authority is. It would not be prudent to provide an exhaustive list of rules of order.

1 hour ago, ptc122 said:

What if an organization has a separate list of rules of order, and the 2/3 requirement to amend bylaws is not listed?

That changes nothing.

Edited October 26, 2019 at 06:12 PM by Josh Martin