Suspension of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law

[Alex Meed]

RONR provides that certain rules are fundamental principles of parliamentary law, which "cannot be suspended, even by a unanimous vote," RONR (11th ed.), p. 263, ll. 17–18. However, may an assembly that wishes to abrogate one of these principles, permanently or temporarily, do so by

• amending its bylaws?
• adopting a special rule of order?
• adopting, by two-thirds vote without notice, a special rule of order to apply only to the current session, in much the same way that a convention may by two-thirds vote adopt a parliamentary standing rule applicable only for the duration of the convention? (And if so, may this special rule be adopted while another question is pending, making the process similar to the motion to Suspend the Rules?)

[Rob Elsman]

Theoretically, a bylaw could be adopted that would interfere with a fundamental principle of parliamentary law. It is beyond me, however, why anyone would propose such a thing.

[Alex Meed]

5 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

It is beyond me, however, why anyone would propose such a thing.

A lot of things in my organization's bylaws are beyond me as well.

[Rob Elsman]

Thinking a little further, don't homeowners associations usually have a one unit, one vote rule instead of one man, one vote?

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Alex Meed said:

RONR provides that certain rules are fundamental principles of parliamentary law, which "cannot be suspended, even by a unanimous vote," RONR (11th ed.), p. 263, ll. 17–18. However, may an assembly that wishes to abrogate one of these principles, permanently or temporarily, do so by

• amending its bylaws?
• adopting a special rule of order?
• adopting, by two-thirds vote without notice, a special rule of order to apply only to the current session, in much the same way that a convention may by two-thirds vote adopt a parliamentary standing rule applicable only for the duration of the convention? (And if so, may this special rule be adopted while another question is pending, making the process similar to the motion to Suspend the Rules?)

A rule in the bylaws would certainly suffice. An organization can adopt whatever rules it wishes in its bylaws, so long as those rules do not conflict with an even higher-level rule.

"Within this framework under the general parliamentary law, an assembly or society is free to adopt any rules it may wish (even rules deviating from parliamentary law) provided that, in the procedure of adopting them, it conforms to parliamentary law or its own existing rules. The only limitations upon the rules that such a body can thus adopt might arise from the rules of a parent body (as those of a national society restricting its state or local branches), or from national, state, or local law affecting the particular type of organization." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 10)

"Except for the corporate charter in an incorporated society, the bylaws (as the single, combination-type instrument is called in this book) comprise the highest body of rules in societies as normally established today. Such an instrument supersedes all other rules of the society, except the corporate charter, if there is one." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 14)

Beyond that, I do not think there is a categorical rule on this matter pertaining to FPPLs, however, for particular FPPLs, the text specifically notes that a rule in the bylaws is required.

"Rules which embody fundamental principles of parliamentary law, such as the rule that allows only one question to be considered at a time (p. 59), cannot be suspended, even by a unanimous vote. Thus, since it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the right to vote is limited to the members of an organization who are actually present at the time the vote is taken in a regular or properly called meeting (p. 423), the rules cannot be suspended so as to give the right to vote to a nonmember,*(73) or to authorize absentee (pp. 423–24) voting. Likewise, since it is a fundamental principle that each member of a deliberative assembly is entitled to one—and only one—vote on a question, the rules may not be suspended so as to authorize cumulative voting (pp. 443–44)." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 263)

"It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the right to vote is limited to the members of an organization who are actually present at the time the vote is taken in a regular or properly called meeting, although it should be noted that a member need not be present when the question is put. Exceptions to this rule must be expressly stated in the bylaws." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 423)

Based on the rule on pg. 423, it would seem clear to me that only a rule in the bylaws would be sufficient to authorize absentee members or non-members to vote.

"It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that each person who is a member of a deliberative assembly is entitled to one—and only one—vote on a question. This is true even if a person is elected or appointed to more than one position, each of which would entitle the holder to a vote. For example, in a convention, a person selected as delegate by more than one constituent body may cast only one vote. An individual member's right to vote may not be transferred to another person (for example, by the use of proxies)." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 407)

"For ballot or roll-call elections of boards, committees, delegates, or other positions held by more than one individual, the bylaws may provide for cumulative voting." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 443)

Based on these rules, it would seem to me that only a rule in the bylaws would be sufficient to authorize cumulative voting or to otherwise change the "one member = one person = one vote" rule. I'd generally also be inclined to interpret the bylaws themselves as prohibiting such things unless they clearly stated otherwise.

I suppose, however, that a special rule of order or a rule of order adopted for a session would be sufficient to adopt a rule which supersedes the "one question at a time" rule, since I don't see anything in the text which provides otherwise.

Edited August 4, 2020 at 02:55 AM by Josh Martin

[Rob Elsman]

Mr. Martin's reply certainly was better than mine, and I agree with it entirely.  I just let him do all the typing. 😊

[J. J.]

On 8/3/2020 at 10:48 PM, Josh Martin said:

 

Based on these rules, it would seem to me that only a rule in the bylaws would be sufficient to authorize cumulative voting or to otherwise change the "one member = one person = one vote" rule. I'd generally also be inclined to interpret the bylaws themselves as prohibiting such things unless they clearly stated otherwise.

 

I suppose, however, that a special rule of order or a rule of order adopted for a session would be sufficient to adopt a rule which supersedes the "one question at a time" rule, since I don't see anything in the text which provides otherwise.

I think that this is exactly right, as is an example of "one question at a time."

I would refer to "Parliamentary Authorities’ Rule Shift Function," Parliamentary Journal, January 2005.  I would note that, as stated in the article, this is a function that is far from unique to RONR.