Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Not by special rule of order


Guest 2.16 note 5
Message added by Shmuel Gerber

Note: A number of posts in this topic have been moved into a separate topic:

Considering more than one question

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

I agree with this, but the question is whether the same can be demonstrated for each of the fundamental principles. 

Yes, it can, except perhaps for "one question at a time", and my views concerning what RONR says with respect to this fundamental principle can be found in the other thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, J. J. said:

You have something in text, 2:16n5, that says that some things are required to be in the bylaws.  Why is that differentiated needed if fundamental principled of parliamentary law will make something unable to be superseded by a special rule? 

Further, why would you need to specify in text that something identified as a fundamental principle of parliamentary law could only be superseded by a a bylaw?  You note that 46:43 says says that cumulative voting must be placed in the bylaws to be effective.  You have also noted that cumulative voting violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law.  (I have no disagreement with either point.) If all fundamental principle of parliamentary law cannot be superseded, except by a bylaw, why mention it there; why not in regard to other fundamental principles of parliamentary law.  Why is there no general statement that fundamental principles of parliamentary law can only be superseded by a bylaw?

 

 

You seem to be overlooking the fact that there are quite a number of rules that RONR says must be included in the bylaws other than just the rules which embody fundamental principles of parliamentary law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

You seem to be overlooking the fact that there are quite a number of rules that RONR says must be included in the bylaws other than just the rules which embody fundamental principles of parliamentary law.

I am not overlooking it.  I am wondering why there would be a need to specify fundamental principles of parliamentary law as one of those rules in some cases, but not in others.

There are a set of rules in RONR that are effective only if included in the bylaws.  There are a set of rules called fundamental principles of parliamentary law.  At least until your "except perhaps" qualification, you have maintained the set of rules called fundamental principles of parliamentary law is completely included (a subset) of the rules that are effective only if included in the bylaws.

I, and I think a few others, am stating that, while there is overlap, a fundamental principle of parliamentary law may exist outside of the set of rules that are only effective if in the bylaws.

If I have mischaracterize your position, please correct me. 

Edited by J. J.
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, J. J. said:

I am not overlooking it.  I am wondering why there would be a need to specify fundamental principles of parliamentary law as one of those rules in some cases, but not in others.

There are a set of rules in RONR that are effective only if included in the bylaws.  There are a set of rules called fundamental principles of parliamentary law.  At least until your "except perhaps" qualification, you have maintained the set of rules called fundamental principles of parliamentary law is completely included (a subset) of the rules that are effective only if included in the bylaws.

I, and I think a few others, am stating that, while there is overlap, a fundamental principle of parliamentary law may exist outside of the set of rules that are only effective if in the bylaws.

If I have mischaracterize your position, please correct me. 

I'll ask Shmuel to interpret this for me, since he says he agrees with you.  🙂

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it helps the discussion any, I get the sense that the issue at hand is not precisely defined, and it is likely that each of you is responding to different things.  It would help, I think, if you all would spend a little effort "joining the controversy", as they say in legal processes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

With respect to the fundamental principle that each member is entitled to one - and only one - vote on a question, we are referred by 25:9 to 46:43, which informs us that the bylaws may provide for cumulative voting, but that doing so should be viewed with reservation because it violates the fundamental principle that each member can have only one vote on a question. I think this is clearly telling us that a rule authorizing cumulative voting must be in the bylaws because it violates this fundamental principle. The necessary implication, at least to me, is that any rule violating this fundamental principle must be in the bylaws.

 

5 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

I agree with this, but the question is whether the same can be demonstrated for each of the fundamental principles. 

I may have been too careless in simply saying that I agree with this. I agree that the implied reason that RONR itself prohibits cumulative voting in an election is that it (sort of, kind of) violates the fundamental principle of parliamentary law that each member can have only one vote on a question. But the prohibition itself is explicit in 56:26: "If it is desired to elect by mail, by plurality vote, by preferential voting, or by cumulative voting, this must be expressly stated, and necessary details of the procedure should be prescribed (see 45)."

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/3/2020 at 2:17 PM, J. J. said:

We are talking about what level rule can supersede the FPPL.

Another example is the newly identified FPPL that "only a two-thirds vote can rightfully suppress a main question without allowing free debate (17:15)."  The society could have a rule stating that Lay on the Table can be used to suppress a question without debate.  I would question if that needed to be in the bylaws to be effective. 

I would agree that a society has the right to adopt a special rule of order to allow this use of Lay on the Table. Essentially it would be adopting the practice of the House of Representatives as described in RONR (12th ed.) 17:13n16.

This throws the character as a deliberative assembly, as envisioned by Robert's Rules, slightly (or perhaps grossly) out of whack, but according to the principle stated in 2:2 it is allowed to do so if it wishes to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In an early edition of RROO, General Robert mentioned the use of Lay on the Table to kill a main motion (and, presumably, whatever adheres to it), but only if a two-thirds vote were required to adopt it.  I think he was seeding us with the thought that a majority vote would violate a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, though he did not seem to state it that clearly.  My own sense is that this misuse of Lay on the Table by majority vote would have to be authorized in the bylaws, not simply by a special rule of order.

In short, I agree with Mr. Honemann's opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

In an early edition of RROO, General Robert mentioned the use of Lay on the Table to kill a main motion (and, presumably, whatever adheres to it), but only if a two-thirds vote were required to adopt it.  I think he was seeding us with the thought that a majority vote would violate a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, though he did not seem to state it that clearly.  My own sense is that this misuse of Lay on the Table by majority vote would have to be authorized in the bylaws, not simply by a special rule of order.

In short, I agree with Mr. Honemann's opinion.

Actually, General Robert, on page 109 of ROR, made it very clear that fundamental principles of parliamentary law require a two-thirds vote to suppress a main motion for the duration of a session without debate. 

This is a fundamental principle which is in a class by itself in that it is simply a requirement of a two-thirds vote to do something, which renders rather meaningless any assertion that it cannot be suspended by a two-thirds vote.

A meaningful discussion of this particular fundamental principle may require far more typing than I am willing to undertake at the present time, although it may dribble out in little pieces as we go along.  🙂

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

In an early edition of RROO, General Robert mentioned the use of Lay on the Table to kill a main motion (and, presumably, whatever adheres to it), but only if a two-thirds vote were required to adopt it.  I think he was seeding us with the thought that a majority vote would violate a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, though he did not seem to state it that clearly.  My own sense is that this misuse of Lay on the Table by majority vote would have to be authorized in the bylaws, not simply by a special rule of order.

In short, I agree with Mr. Honemann's opinion.

So 2/3 of the assembly voting, with previous notice, or a majority of the entire membership adopt a rule doing that.

1 hour ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

 

This throws the character as a deliberative assembly, as envisioned by Robert's Rules, slightly (or perhaps grossly) out of whack, but according to the principle stated in 2:2 it is allowed to do so if it wishes to.

It is an example, not an advocacy.  :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be understood that if the intent of a member is to misuse the motion to Lay on the Table in order to suppress a question without debate, it is this intent that is in violation of the fundamental principle that a two-thirds vote is required to suppress a main motion for the duration of a session without debate. Making the motion with this intent is therefore out of order. Adoption of a motion to Lay on the Table does not, in fact, suppress the motion laid on the table for the duration of the session.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

It should be understood that if the intent of a member is to misuse the motion to Lay on the Table in order to suppress a question without debate, it is this intent that is in violation of the fundamental principle that a two-thirds vote is required to suppress a main motion for the duration of a session without debate. Making the motion with this intent is therefore out of order. Adoption of a motion to Lay on the Table does not, in fact, suppress the motion laid on the table for the duration of the session.

Wouldn't it be out of order even if this was not a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, as stated in the 11th edition?

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, J. J. said:

Then why create it as a fundamental principle, especially the way you qualified it?

Create? I've no idea what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that General Robert somehow created this rule as a fundamental principle of parliamentary law?

And what do you mean by "the way you qualified it"?  How did I qualify it?

The rule itself is clear. It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that a two-thirds vote is required to suppress a main motion for the duration of a session without debate. I'm quite sure that General Robert did not himself invent this rule, and I have not qualified it in any way.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is your qualification:

On 10/7/2020 at 8:18 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

It should be understood that if the intent of a member is to misuse the motion to Lay on the Table in order to suppress a question without debate, it is this intent that is in violation of the fundamental principle that a two-thirds vote is required to suppress a main motion for the duration of a session without debate. Making the motion with this intent is therefore out of order. Adoption of a motion to Lay on the Table does not, in fact, suppress the motion laid on the table for the duration of the session.

 

I am suggesting that a fundamental principle of parliamentary law is whatever the author or authors of a parliamentary chose to identify as such.  I have never seen a definition of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law in text.  Except that it cannot be suspended and its violation creates breach of a continuing nature (in RONR), it has no other characteristics.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, J. J. said:

I am suggesting that a fundamental principle of parliamentary law is whatever the author or authors of a parliamentary chose to identify as such.  I have never seen a definition of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law in text.  Except that it cannot be suspended and its violation creates breach of a continuing nature (in RONR), it has no other characteristics.

Any good dictionary will provide you with definitions of the words "fundamental" and "principle", and the Introduction to RONR will will inform you as to what is meant by the term "parliamentary law." 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Any good dictionary will provide you with definitions of the words "fundamental" and "principle", and the Introduction to RONR will will inform you as to what is meant by the term "parliamentary law." 

There is, however, no definition in text, and words within a parliamentary authority may have a technical meaning. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2020 at 9:31 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Any good dictionary will provide you with definitions of the words "fundamental" and "principle", and the Introduction to RONR will will inform you as to what is meant by the term "parliamentary law." 

 

18 hours ago, J. J. said:

There is, however, no definition in text, and words within a parliamentary authority may have a technical meaning. 

Yes, words within a parliamentary authority may be terms of art, and when they are, RONR provides their meaning. The words "fundamental" and "principle", as used in RONR, are not terms of art, and so and I say again, look in any good dictionary for their definitions if you have any doubt about what they mean.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

 

Yes, words within a parliamentary authority may be terms of art, and when they are, RONR provides their meaning. The words "fundamental" and "principle", as used in RONR, are not terms of art, and so and I say again, look in any good dictionary for their definitions if you have any doubt about what they mean.

Merriam Webster defines:

Fundamental:  serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function

Principle:  a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption

That definition would include something such as a "majority vote."

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, J. J. said:

Merriam Webster defines:

Fundamental:  serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function

Principle:  a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption

That definition would include something such as a "majority vote."

Which is why RONR says (1:6) that:

"The basic principle of decision in a deliberative assembly is that, to become the act or choice of the body, a proposition must be adopted by a majority vote; that is, direct approval—implying assumption of responsibility for the act—must be registered by more than half of the members present and voting on the particular matter, in a regular or properly called meeting of the body (see also 44:1-2). Modifications of the foregoing principle that impose a requirement of more than a majority vote arise: (a) where required by law; (b) where provided by special rule of a particular organization or assembly as dictated by its own conditions; or (c) where required under the general parliamentary law in the case of certain steps or procedures that impinge on the normal rights of the minority, of absentees, or of some other group within the assembly's membership."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Which is why RONR says (1:6) that:

"The basic principle of decision in a deliberative assembly is that, to become the act or choice of the body, a proposition must be adopted by a majority vote; that is, direct approval—implying assumption of responsibility for the act—must be registered by more than half of the members present and voting on the particular matter, in a regular or properly called meeting of the body (see also 44:1-2). Modifications of the foregoing principle that impose a requirement of more than a majority vote arise: (a) where required by law; (b) where provided by special rule of a particular organization or assembly as dictated by its own conditions; or (c) where required under the general parliamentary law in the case of certain steps or procedures that impinge on the normal rights of the minority, of absentees, or of some other group within the assembly's membership."

 

Then it could not be suspended.  Simply closing debate by something less than 2/3, not the intent, becomes a breach of a continuing nature, because it violates a "fundamental principle."at least using the dictionary definition. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, J. J. said:

Then it could not be suspended.  Simply closing debate by something less than 2/3, not the intent, becomes a breach of a continuing nature, because it violates a "fundamental principle."at least using the dictionary definition. 

If you would care to expand on this a bit, I may be able to respond. As it stands, I do not know what motion or motions you have in mind, nor do I understand what point or points you are trying to make. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

If you would care to expand on this a bit, I may be able to respond. As it stands, I do not know what motion or motions you have in mind, nor do I understand what point or points you are trying to make. 

Sure.  With the FPPL expressed on 17:15 you have indicated that it was the intent of the member.

On 10/7/2020 at 8:18 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

It should be understood that if the intent of a member is to misuse the motion to Lay on the Table in order to suppress a question without debate, it is this intent that is in violation of the fundamental principle that a two-thirds vote is required to suppress a main motion for the duration of a session without debate. Making the motion with this intent is therefore out of order. Adoption of a motion to Lay on the Table does not, in fact, suppress the motion laid on the table for the duration of the session.

Adopting Objection To the Consideration To the Question would be an example.  By your qualification, if more than one third voted in favor of consideration and the chair ruled that the motion could not be considered, no fundamental principle is violated.  Under the literal reading of the text, without looking at intent, this would be a violation of the fundamental principle expressed in 17:15.

On 10/10/2020 at 6:21 PM, J. J. said:

 

Edited by J. J.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...