Majority or 2/3rds? Confusing verbiage in By-Law.

[Dr. John]

I'm having a tough time deciphering the language in this... while I consider myself a  "Parliamentarian in traning", I defer to learned wisdom in trying to figure this one out...

A society's rules have a catch-all that defers to RR...

"All matters, points of order or questions of procedure arising that are unprovided for in the rules herein contained shall be decided by the concurring votes of a majority of the members present in accordance with Robert's Rules of Order."

Now, the quandary I have is what happens when a Previous Question motion (or any 2/3's rule which is not listed in the society's By-Law) is brought up... since the motion is not specifically listed, we go to RR which requires 2/3 to pass.  But the verbiage of the By-Law gives me the impression that the 2/3rd's requirement of Previous Question would then only requires majority.

Am I interpreting this correctly (majority) or is the 2/3 requirement "in accordance" with RR the actual bar to be surpassed?

[Joshua Katz]

First, only your organization can interpret your bylaws. That said, I'm not seeing the issue here. The provision looks to me like it's slightly modifying the rules for appeals (in a manner that sometimes leads to no resolution at all, which is less than ideal), and doing so in a very confusing and weird manner, not telling you how to adopt the previous question. 

[Dr. John]

Yes, they are definitely interpreting the by-laws... in an ad-hoc and inconsistent manner.

For example,  in one meeting someone called the question at two different points in the meeting, once debate was ended as everyone had spoken at least once (no vote)  and another time it was simply ended without a vote of the assembly (neither of which are provided for in the bylaws).

 

[Joshua Katz]

13 minutes ago, Dr. John said:

For example,  in one meeting someone called the question at two different points in the meeting, once debate was ended as everyone had spoken at least once (no vote)  and another time it was simply ended without a vote of the assembly (neither of which are provided for in the bylaws).

 

Well, this is obviously not how the motion for the previous question works, but I'm struggling to see what it has to do with the bylaw provision you posted.

To put it another way: why do you think that the bylaw provision, which deals with points of order, applies to the previous question? I'm not asking to be snarky, I'm trying to understand your thought process.

Also, it occurs to me that the bylaw provision means that the chair does not rule on points of order, and every point of order is decided by the assembly. Again, I can't interpret your bylaws, but to me personally that's what it seems to be saying.

[Atul Kapur]

27 minutes ago, Dr. John said:

Yes, they are definitely interpreting the by-laws... in an ad-hoc and inconsistent manner.

Well, a solution to that is to have the interpretation recorded in the minutes so that it can be cited as a precedent the next time it happens. That way, if they want to interpret it a different way the next time, then it will at least be a purposeful decision.

The way this gets recorded in the minutes is to raise a Point of Order. The chair's ruling should be recorded (RONR 11th ed., p. 470, lines 15-18).

[Josh Martin]

10 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

First, only your organization can interpret your bylaws. That said, I'm not seeing the issue here. The provision looks to me like it's slightly modifying the rules for appeals (in a manner that sometimes leads to no resolution at all, which is less than ideal), and doing so in a very confusing and weird manner, not telling you how to adopt the previous question. 

I am not so certain it does not apply to the Previous Question. The rule says that it applies to “All matters, points of order or questions of procedure arising that are unprovided for in the rules herein contained.” I agree that the Previous Question is not a Point of Order or question of procedure, but “All matters” is more vague and perhaps more broad.

In the long run, I advise the assembly simply remove this rule. If the intent was to adopt RONR as parliamentary authority, there is other language recommended for that.

Edited May 4, 2020 at 01:44 PM by Josh Martin

[Joshua Katz]

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

I am not so certain it does not apply to the Previous Question. The rule says that it applies to “All matters, points of order or questions of procedure arising that are unprovided for in the rules herein contained.” I agree that the Previous Question is not a Point of Order or question of procedure, but “All matters” is more vague and perhaps more broad.

 

I should have mentioned I was implicitly using noscitor a sociis. It's a list of three things, so I'm interpreting "matters" to fit with the rest, not to mean "everything," which would make the rest irrelevant.

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

In the long run, I advise the assembly simply remove this rule. If the intent was to adopt RONR as parliamentary authority, there is other language recommended for that.

I agree.

[Josh Martin]

11 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

I should have mentioned I was implicitly using noscitor a sociis. It's a list of three things, so I'm interpreting "matters" to fit with the rest, not to mean "everything," which would make the rest irrelevant.

That is indeed a reasonable interpretation, and I would probably lean toward it as this interpretation makes the rule merely problematic, rather than nonsensical.

I would suggest, however, that there is enough ambiguity in the rule as written that "matters" could be interpreted as having a broader meaning.

Edited May 4, 2020 at 01:42 PM by Josh Martin

[Dr. John]

11 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

Well, this is obviously not how the motion for the previous question works, but I'm struggling to see what it has to do with the bylaw provision you posted.

To put it another way: why do you think that the bylaw provision, which deals with points of order, applies to the previous question? I'm not asking to be snarky, I'm trying to understand your thought process.

Also, it occurs to me that the bylaw provision means that the chair does not rule on points of order, and every point of order is decided by the assembly. Again, I can't interpret your bylaws, but to me personally that's what it seems to be saying.

Yes agreed, incorrect application of previous question.

But from my reading of "questions of procedure arising that are unprovided for in the rules" is that RR becomes the catchall, and this seems to be the precedent they are following.  The clerk will refer to RR if the By-Law doesn't address how a certain procedure is to be conducted.

Further down in the By-Law, it addresses a subset of actions/motions under RR including points of order, but is far for complete (hence the fallbck to RR).

[Dr. John]

10 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

Well, a solution to that is to have the interpretation recorded in the minutes so that it can be cited as a precedent the next time it happens. That way, if they want to interpret it a different way the next time, then it will at least be a purposeful decision.

The way this gets recorded in the minutes is to raise a Point of Order. The chair's ruling should be recorded (RONR 11th ed., p. 470, lines 15-18).

Great point, thanks, I will definitely bring that up.

[Josh Martin]

53 minutes ago, Dr. John said:

But from my reading of "questions of procedure arising that are unprovided for in the rules" is that RR becomes the catchall, and this seems to be the precedent they are following.  The clerk will refer to RR if the By-Law doesn't address how a certain procedure is to be conducted.

Further down in the By-Law, it addresses a subset of actions/motions under RR including points of order, but is far for complete (hence the fallbck to RR).

Okay, well this seems to further support Mr. Katz's interpretation - that the rule means that decisions on a Point of Order and other questions of procedure shall require a majority vote, and that these decisions are made in accordance with RONR, not that the rule means that all motions not mentioned in the rules require a majority vote. In other words, the word "matters" should be interpreted as meaning "other matters of the same kind" as Points of Order and questions of procedure. A question regarding how the Previous Question is handled is a question of procedure. The Previous Question itself is not a question of procedure.

In the long term, I still think it would be best to amend the bylaws to replace this rule in its entirety with the following language, which is much more clear than the rule in your bylaws (and I think is what the society was trying to say). RONR already has procedures for how to handle Points of Order.

It would probably also be best to remove the section of the bylaws which "addresses a subset of actions/motions under RR including points of order." To the extent that these rules simply reiterate what is in RONR (albeit in an incomplete manner), the rules should simply be removed entirely. The full rules on these subjects will be found in RONR, and placing incomplete summaries of them in the bylaws could lead to ambiguity. To the extent that these rules are intended to supersede or modify the rules in RONR pertaining to those motions, such rules should generally be adopted as special rules of order rather than in the bylaws.

"The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the Society in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the Society may adopt."

Edited May 4, 2020 at 03:30 PM by Josh Martin

[Dan Honemann]

But RONR does not, of course, require "the concurring votes of a majority of the members present ...." to arrive at decisions on points of order and other questions of procedure (or anything else, for that matter).

[Dr. John]

Thanks Josh and Daniel.... well, the good news part of this is that the By-Law is going to be totally re-written from scratch, and I will be highly recommending that RONR be the gold standard with anything unprovided for (which would be little) going to the By-Law itself.

Until a final copy if brought forth for approval, we have to live with the confusing and ill-defined By-Law.

 

[Joshua Katz]

5 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

But RONR does not, of course, require "the concurring votes of a majority of the members present ...." to arrive at decisions on points of order and other questions of procedure (or anything else, for that matter).

As I said, a modification of the rule in RONR, and one that can lead to difficulties such as leaving questions unresolved. I don't think it's a good rule, I just think it's their rule.

[Joshua Katz]

2 hours ago, Dr. John said:

Thanks Josh and Daniel.... well, the good news part of this is that the By-Law is going to be totally re-written from scratch, and I will be highly recommending that RONR be the gold standard with anything unprovided for (which would be little) going to the By-Law itself.

Typically, this is not what you'd do either. There is very little not provided for in RONR so far as rules of order are concerned, although you may wish to modify some of them in your own rules. Your bylaws should spell out the structure of your organization, which is unique to you. See the sample bylaws in RONR for, well, a sample.

 

6 hours ago, Dr. John said:

But from my reading of "questions of procedure arising that are unprovided for in the rules" is that RR becomes the catchall, and this seems to be the precedent they are following.  The clerk will refer to RR if the By-Law doesn't address how a certain procedure is to be conducted.

Further down in the By-Law, it addresses a subset of actions/motions under RR including points of order, but is far for complete (hence the fallbck to RR).

Well, it sounds like you have seriously confusing bylaws that have, in some places, imported too much of RONR rather than simply adopting it, and in other places, substituted confusing paraphrases that have different meanings. However, my reading of the phrase in question here is different than yours. Regardless, what matters is what your organization thinks it means. A point of order can be raised (which, apparently, the chair will not rule on, but instead there will be a vote and one answer will need a majority of those present), which will be the society's decision as to what it means.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/4/2020 at 11:39 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

But RONR does not, of course, require "the concurring votes of a majority of the members present ...." to arrive at decisions on points of order and other questions of procedure (or anything else, for that matter).

That was the sticking point in my mind.  Majority of members present is not "in accordance with" RONR.  So the rule appears to be nonsensical in all events.