RONR Adopted only for Meetings

[Guest Robert South]

Our church bylaws say  "Section 5.  Robert’s Rules of Order shall govern the conduct of all meetings of the congregation."

Rather than properly adopting a parliamentary authority.  So where does this leave us regarding all the other things RONR covers?  For instance, our board policies assign powers to an executive committee, which RONR says isn't valid unless it's in the bylaws.  Our bylaws say nothing about the executive committee.  But our bylaws only call for us to use RONR for the conduct of meetings, so does it even apply to the question of the board being able to delegate its authority to an executive committee between meetings of the board?  RONR says that in the absence of an adopted parliamentary authority we fall back on "general parliamentary procedure" or something, which I gather is a parliamentary equivalent of common law or custom.  

[Nathan Zook]

My first question is if services count as meetings. 

While an aggressive reading might claim that "all meetings of the congregation" does not include meetings of committees, boards, or the like, that feels like a rather strained claim.  You need some sort of parliamentary authority, and "I have the conch" rarely ends well.  And if a board ever actually claims to act on behalf of the congregation, then I would say that it most definitely is a "meeting of the congregation".  I would recommend an amendment to the bylaws to match the language in the sample bylaws, however.

But to the real issue.  Questions of this sort almost invariably arise from one of two sources. First, some enterprising soul (usually OP) has learned something of parliamentary law, looks around, and exclaims, "OMG!  IT'S ALL WRONG!"  (This would be me for the first five years or so.)  Second, some wounded soul (usually OP) is unhappy with the action of leadership, starts nosing around, and realizes that they can use RONR as a hammer to "fix" things.

In either case, the complaint against procedure may be completely valid, but that does not mean that it is wise for OP to run back to the organization in question and demand things be "fixed".  In the very simplest cases, if there is any conflict at all, it is going to require a majority vote to effect change.  Bylaws amendments require a two-thirds vote or majority of entire membership plus previous notice unless the bylaws themselves provide otherwise.  We're called sheep because we panic easily and move in herds (among other wonderful characteristics).  So please take it slow.  Fixing the bylaws and wrecking the congregation is a bad outcome.

Also, I am aware that there are implied doctrinal considerations for being a "member" of some congregations.  Before I knew anything of RONR, I suggested that "voting member" be distinguished from "member" when a change to the bylaws of a congregation was being contemplated to deal with a situation when minor children were brought into a business meeting.  (Members having been previously defined based on a confession of faith and believer's baptism.)

 

 

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Quote

My first question is if services count as meetings.

LOL the first Church of RONR.

 

Let us now turn to Bring Back Motions, Verse 2

[Joshua Katz]

9 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

But to the real issue.  Questions of this sort almost invariably arise from one of two sources. First, some enterprising soul (usually OP) has learned something of parliamentary law, looks around, and exclaims, "OMG!  IT'S ALL WRONG!"  (This would be me for the first five years or so.)  Second, some wounded soul (usually OP) is unhappy with the action of leadership, starts nosing around, and realizes that they can use RONR as a hammer to "fix" things.

 

Which is a good time to point out that RONR is a set of rules for facilitating meetings and respecting rights. It's worth looking around and seeing where rights are violated rather than swinging wildly at every parliamentary concern.

[Josh Martin]

12 hours ago, Guest Robert South said:

Our church bylaws say  "Section 5.  Robert’s Rules of Order shall govern the conduct of all meetings of the congregation."

Rather than properly adopting a parliamentary authority.  So where does this leave us regarding all the other things RONR covers?  For instance, our board policies assign powers to an executive committee, which RONR says isn't valid unless it's in the bylaws.  Our bylaws say nothing about the executive committee.  But our bylaws only call for us to use RONR for the conduct of meetings, so does it even apply to the question of the board being able to delegate its authority to an executive committee between meetings of the board?

It would certainly be desirable to amend the bylaws to replace this rule with the recommended wording in RONR.

"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." RONR (12th ed.) 56:66

In the interim, however, I am inclined to think that if a rule provides that a certain parliamentary manual shall govern all meetings of the society's membership, this is functionally equivalent to a rule adopting that manual as the society's parliamentary authority, and the authority should therefore be understood to be binding in the same manner as if the society had used the language above.

So yes, I would consider the rule that "As a general principle, a board cannot delegate its authority—that is, it cannot empower a subordinate group to act independently in its name—except as may be authorized by the bylaws (of the society) or other instrument under which the board is constituted; but any board can appoint committees to work under its supervision or according to its specific instructions. Such committees of the board always report to the board." and the rule that "A board cannot appoint an executive committee unless the bylaws so authorize." to be applicable to your society.

Indeed, I would generally view these rules as applicable even if nothing whatsoever regarding the parliamentary authority was said in the bylaws.

12 hours ago, Guest Robert South said:

RONR says that in the absence of an adopted parliamentary authority we fall back on "general parliamentary procedure" or something, which I gather is a parliamentary equivalent of common law or custom.  

What RONR says on this matter is the following:

"A deliberative assembly that has not adopted any rules is commonly understood to hold itself bound by the rules and customs of the general parliamentary law—or common parliamentary law (as discussed in the Introduction)—to the extent that there is agreement in the meeting body as to what these rules and practices are." RONR (12th ed.) 1:5

"Although it is unwise for an assembly or a society to attempt to function without formally adopted rules of order, a recognized parliamentary manual may be cited under such conditions as persuasive. Or, by being followed through long-established custom in an organization, a particular manual may acquire a status within the body similar to that of an adopted parliamentary authority." RONR (12th ed.) 2:18

So even in the event that the rule in question is interpreted as applying solely to what occurs during meetings of the congregation and that, for other purposes, the assembly has no parliamentary authority, the congregation may still consider RONR (which is the leading manual on the common parliamentary law) to be persuasive for other purposes if it wishes to do so, and ultimately the congregation shall determine the question of whether the board is permitted to create an executive committee and delegate its authority to that executive committee.

If the organization does, in fact, want this, then it would seem to be desirable to amend the bylaws to clear up that issue as well.

Edited October 21, 2020 at 02:53 PM by Josh Martin