Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Recommended Posts

the new edition's fn on 10:26 seems to have replaced: the former asterisk on p. 251, l, 10 which referred us to p. 17, ll, 22-25 to describe a rule of order. The fn on 10:26 is lengthier and more descriptive, but difficult to understand its purpose. Is this an effort to better describe the type(s) of rules of order (or in the nature of a rule of order)? The descriptions on p. 251 (now 23:6 in 12) is clear about what a continuing breach is IF there was no asterisk or 2 references. Some work has been done by editors on this item, what does the fn mean relative to rules of orders being in bylaws?   Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

14 minutes ago, ptc122 said:

the new edition's fn on 10:26 seems to have replaced: the former asterisk on p. 251, l, 10 which referred us to p. 17, ll, 22-25 to describe a rule of order. The fn on 10:26 is lengthier and more descriptive, but difficult to understand its purpose. Is this an effort to better describe the type(s) of rules of order (or in the nature of a rule of order)? The descriptions on p. 251 (now 23:6 in 12) is clear about what a continuing breach is IF there was no asterisk or 2 references. Some work has been done by editors on this item, what does the fn mean relative to rules of orders being in bylaws?   Paul

Section 10:26 has four footnotes.  Which footnote are you referring to?

Link to post
Share on other sites

While RONR (12th ed.) 10:26f1 gives new clarity to the conditions under which a rule of order enshrined in the bylaws can be suspended, I do not think the footnote changes the substance of the corresponding rule in the 11th edition.

What is said in RONR (12th ed.) 2:20 also corresponds to what was said in the 11th edition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2020 at 8:36 PM, Rob Elsman said:

While RONR (12th ed.) 10:26f1 gives new clarity to the conditions under which a rule of order enshrined in the bylaws can be suspended, I do not think the footnote changes the substance of the corresponding rule in the 11th edition.

What is said in RONR (12th ed.) 2:20 also corresponds to what was said in the 11th edition.

Maybe an example would make  it clearer to me. Our amendment bylaw is: Previous notice and a 2/3 vote is required to amend a bylaw. A bylaw is amended by a majority vote in error. Is the requirement of a 23 vote to amend a bylaw in the nature of a rule of order? 

Thanks for the quick response. Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

A bylaw requirement of previous notice and a bylaw requirement of a two-thirds vote for adoption of a motion are both rules in the nature of rules of order. The former may not be suspended, since it is a rule protecting absentees. The latter may be suspended, but it will require a two-thirds vote to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2020 at 2:24 PM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

A bylaw requirement of previous notice and a bylaw requirement of a two-thirds vote for adoption of a motion are both rules in the nature of rules of order. The former may not be suspended, since it is a rule protecting absentees. The latter may be suspended, but it will require a two-thirds vote to do so.

what pages (either edition) leads to the conclusion that a bylaw amendment requirement of previous notice and a 2/3 vote are rules of order. And even more helpful what is an example of something within a bylaw that could not be a rule of order or in the nature of a rule of order?

I need to point out by citations how to explain each. Really appreciate it. Paul 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ptc122 said:

what pages (either edition) leads to the conclusion that a bylaw amendment requirement of previous notice and a 2/3 vote are rules of order. And even more helpful what is an example of something within a bylaw that could not be a rule of order or in the nature of a rule of order?

I need to point out by citations how to explain each. Really appreciate it. Paul 

2:14 defines what a rule of order is.  It meets the definition of a rule relating to the orderly transaction of business within a meeting or to the duties of the officers in that regard(I am paraphasing) .  35:2 (7) indicates what the rule is, absent a bylaw provision.  It is clearly something that not need be included in the bylaws. 

Another way to look at it is to ask this question:  If the bylaws are silent on how to amend the bylaws, could the society adopt a special rule to govern how the bylaws are amended?  If the answer is yes, what you have is clearly a rule in the nature of a rule of order.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2020 at 10:47 PM, J. J. said:

2:14 defines what a rule of order is.  It meets the definition of a rule relating to the orderly transaction of business within a meeting or to the duties of the officers in that regard(I am paraphasing) .  35:2 (7) indicates what the rule is, absent a bylaw provision.  It is clearly something that not need be included in the bylaws. 

Another way to look at it is to ask this question:  If the bylaws are silent on how to amend the bylaws, could the society adopt a special rule to govern how the bylaws are amended?  If the answer is yes, what you have is clearly a rule in the nature of a rule of order.

Thank you. Those pages do help to define what a rule of order is. A requirement within a bylaw on what is needed to amend bylaws, namely "previous notice and a 2/3 vote" would NOT be a rule of order, nor in the nature of a rule of order according to those pages.

I was responding to Mr. Honeman's response that "previous notice and a 2/3vote are in the nature of rules of order" and I requested page numbers.

The wording ( ...a 2/3 vote) is within a bylaw that would not be suspendable by a 2/3 vote. Whereas one definition of a rule of order is "rules that are in the nature of rules of order CAN be suspended by a 2/3 vote" Hence my confusion and citations would help to clarify. Thank you again for responding quickly. Paul

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2020 at 2:24 PM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

A bylaw requirement of previous notice and a bylaw requirement of a two-thirds vote for adoption of a motion are both rules in the nature of rules of order. The former may not be suspended, since it is a rule protecting absentees. The latter may be suspended, but it will require a two-thirds vote to do so.

thank you. is there a difference between effect on a motion and the effect on an amendment to the bylaws? My concern is with amending bylaws and a specific bylaw on amending bylaws that requires bylaws to be amending by previous notice and a 2/3 vote.  Regards, Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ptc122 said:

Thank you. Those pages do help to define what a rule of order is. A requirement within a bylaw on what is needed to amend bylaws, namely "previous notice and a 2/3 vote" would NOT be a rule of order, nor in the nature of a rule of order according to those pages.

 

Yes it is, because it is deals with the transaction of business within a meeting and because it does not have to be put into the bylaws to be effective.  This is covered in 2:20.  2:21 notes that these rules may be suspended.

I use a two pronged test:

1.  Does the rule in the bylaws deal with the transaction of business within a meeting or the duties of the officers in that regard?

2.  If the rule was not included in the bylaws, could the assembly adopt such a rule as a special rule of order? 

If the answer to those two questions is yes, then the rule in question is a rule in the nature of a rule of order.

To determine if this rule in the nature of a rule of order can be suspended, a third prong is needed:

3.  Is there some specific prohibition to suspending this type of rule if it is a rule in the nature of a rule of order?

Let's consider these two rules. 

A.  The motion to amend the bylaws requires previous notice.

B.  The motion to amend the bylaws requires a two thirds vote.

Both of these rules meet the first two prongs of this test.  They both deal with the transaction of business within the meeting.  Absent a bylaw provision, both could be adopted as a special rule of order.

A.  A rule inquiring previous notice protects the rights of absentees (25:10).  Rules that protect the rights of absentees cannot be suspended if there are absentees.  Therefore, the rule could not be suspended, if there are absentees.

B.  A rule requiring a 2/3 vote does not protect the rights of absentees, nor does it, in this example, fall under any of the other classes of rules that cannot be suspended (20:7-20:13).  Therefore, this rule could be suspended.

There is a two pronged test to determine if a rule in the bylaws is a rule in the nature of a rule of order.  Once those two prongs are met, there is yet a third prong to determine if the rule that is in the nature of a rule of order can be suspended.

A rule in the nature of a rule of order found in the bylaws is not necessarily subject to suspension. 

 

 

 

Edited by J. J.
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2020 at 2:24 PM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

A bylaw requirement of previous notice and a bylaw requirement of a two-thirds vote for adoption of a motion are both rules in the nature of rules of order. The former may not be suspended, since it is a rule protecting absentees. The latter may be suspended, but it will require a two-thirds vote to do so.

In other words, 2/3 have to agree one way or another - either 2/3 to adopt or 2/3 to suspend the requirement for a 2/3 vote.

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

I use a two pronged test:

1.  Does the rule in the bylaws deal with the transaction of business within a meeting or the duties of the officers in that regard?

2.  If the rule was not included in the bylaws, could the assembly adopt such a rule as a special rule of order? 

If the answer to those two questions is yes, then the rule in question is a rule in the nature of a rule of order. 

I have no problem with the first of these because RONR tells us that the term rules of order refers to "written rules of parliamentary procedure formally adopted by an assembly or an organization", and that such rules "relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in that connection."  RONR (12th ed,) 2:14

However, I see nothing at all in RONR which tells me that, in order to be a rule in the nature of a rule of order, a rule must be one that an assembly can adopt as a special rule of order if it is not included in the bylaws. For example, a rule in the bylaws which provides that a plurality vote will suffice for the election of officers is clearly a rule in the nature of a rule of order.

Perhaps I'm missing something here, because I do not understand why it is that this second test is included.  Perhaps it can be explained to me why it is felt necessary to do so.

 

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

 

However, I see nothing at all in RONR which tells me that, in order to be a rule in the nature of a rule of order, a rule must be one that an assembly can adopt as a special rule of order if it is not included in the bylaws. For example, a rule in the bylaws which provides that a plurality vote will suffice for the election of officers is clearly a rule in the nature of a rule of order.

 

 

Can the rule that a plurality vote is needed to elect officers be properly authorized by a special rule of order?

If the answer to that question is no, how could that rule possibly be a rule in the nature of order?

(I would note that a rule might regulate the transaction of business within a meeting and not be a rule in the nature of a rule of order.)

Edited by J. J.
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2020 at 7:14 PM, Richard Brown said:

Yep. 

We cannot suspend the requirement of a 2/3 vote within a bylaw, by a 2/3 vote. Also see 25:1 Suspend Rules, items 2 and 7.

And Rules of Order 2:14 does not describe what a bylaw is, and does not describe a bylaw requirement of 2/3 for amending bylaws as a rule of order. 2:15 states "in contrast to bylaw".

Staying with the question: What pages in Roberts state that a bylaw, describing a requirement for amending bylaws, is a rule of order?

My opinion that the requirement is NOT a rule of order is taken from RONR12th., pages 23.6 a), and 10:26 1) & FN 1.; pp.  25:1, 25:2, 1 thru 8, 25:14, 56:67, 56:68 1, and 57:1 1 among others. Appreciate the input and interest in solving this. Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, ptc122 said:

Staying with the question: What pages in Roberts state that a bylaw, describing a requirement for amending bylaws, is a rule of order?

 

What pages in RONR specifically state that the motion to limit debate is a rule of order?  Do you doubt it? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2020 at 1:24 PM, ptc122 said:

Maybe an example would make  it clearer to me. Our amendment bylaw is: Previous notice and a 2/3 vote is required to amend a bylaw. A bylaw is amended by a majority vote in error. Is the requirement of a 23 vote to amend a bylaw in the nature of a rule of order? 

As Mr. Honemann has tried to tell you, yes the requirement of a 2/3 vote to amend a bylaw is in the nature of a rule of order. This is because it is a rule that, "relate[s] to the orderly transaction of business in meetings" (RONR [12th ed.] 2:14)

So, if a bylaw amendment is declared adopted on a majority vote, any point of order challenging that declaration would need to be made in a timely manner.

Thinking about it a different way, if no one raises a point of order, then the rule (requiring a 2/3 vote) has effectively been suspended by general consent.

On 11/17/2020 at 5:08 PM, ptc122 said:

And even more helpful what is an example of something within a bylaw that could not be a rule of order or in the nature of a rule of order?

An example is a rule that requires a qualification for an office. If the bylaw states that a person has to have been a member for at least one year before they are eligible to be an officer, this is not a rule of order (It is not a rule that "relate[s] to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in that connection.")
This means that it cannot be suspended, even by unanimous consent.

1 hour ago, ptc122 said:

And Rules of Order 2:14 does not describe what a bylaw is

1 hour ago, ptc122 said:

What pages in Roberts state that a bylaw, describing a requirement for amending bylaws, is a rule of order?

Nothing says that, because that's a misunderstanding. The question is not, "When is a bylaw a rule of order?"

The question is, "When is a provision in a bylaw in the nature of a rule of order? The answer is in the citation above from 2:14

1 hour ago, ptc122 said:

My opinion that the requirement is NOT a rule of order is taken from RONR12th., pages 23.6 a), and 10:26 1) & FN 1.; pp.  25:1, 25:2, 1 thru 8, 25:14, 56:67, 56:68 1, and 57:1 1 among others.

The problem seems to be that you are ignoring the fact that a rule in a bylaw can be in the nature of a rule of order and these can be suspended: "Rules clearly identifiable as in the nature of rules of order that are placed within the bylaws can (with the exceptions specified in 25) also be suspended by a two-thirds vote;" (2:21).

None of the exceptions in §25 apply to the rule requiring a 2/3 vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ptc122 said:

We cannot suspend the requirement of a 2/3 vote within a bylaw, by a 2/3 vote.

Yes, you can.

A rule in the bylaws which is in the nature of a rule of order may be suspended. A rule pertaining to a voting threshold is in the nature of a rule of order. There is no point in suspending such rules, however, since if you have the votes to suspend the rule, you also have the votes to amend the bylaws (or prevent their amendment).

12 hours ago, ptc122 said:

Also see 25:1 Suspend Rules, items 2 and 7.

"2. Can be applied to any rule of the assembly except bylaws (or rules contained in a constitution or corporate charter)." RONR (12th ed.) 25:1

This sentence has a footnote, however, and that footnote refers back to another rule.

"Regarding the suspendibility of rules in the nature of rules of order when placed within the bylaws (or constitution), see 2:21. Nothing in a corporate charter can be suspended unless the charter or applicable law so provides." RONR (12th ed.) 25:1n5

"Rules clearly identifiable as in the nature of rules of order that are placed within the bylaws can (with the exceptions specified in 25) 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 (12th ed.) 2:22

So I don't see how this supports your argument. This provides that rules in the bylaws cannot be suspended unless the rule is in the nature of a rule of order, so we're back to a discussion of whether this is in the nature of a rule of order.

"7. Usually requires a two-thirds vote (see below, however). In any case, no rule protecting a minority of a particular size can be suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as the minority protected by the rule." RONR (12th ed.) 25:1

The latter portion of this sentence has no relevance here. A rule requiring a 2/3 vote protects a minority of greater than one-third. If there are two-thirds in favor, then there is not "a negative vote as large as the minority protected by the rule."

This rule would be relevant if the bylaws required an even higher threshold for adoption. If, for instance, the bylaws required a 3/4 vote for adoption, then a 3/4 vote would be required to suspend that rule.

12 hours ago, ptc122 said:

And Rules of Order 2:14 does not describe what a bylaw is, and does not describe a bylaw requirement of 2/3 for amending bylaws as a rule of order.

An exhaustive list of every possible rule of order would not be practical, so the fact that this isn't listed means nothing. RONR (12th ed.) 2:22 is clear that rules in the bylaws can be in the nature of rules of order.

12 hours ago, ptc122 said:

Staying with the question: What pages in Roberts state that a bylaw, describing a requirement for amending bylaws, is a rule of order?

This is missing the point.

Whether or not something is in the bylaws has nothing to do with whether the rule is in the nature of a rule of order. A rule of order is a rule which "relate[s] to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in that connection." RONR (12th ed.) 2:14

Placing something in the bylaws doesn't make it stop being in the nature a rule of order. If a rule is in the nature of a rule of order, it is in the nature of a rule of order whether or not it is in the bylaws. If it is not in the nature of a rule of order, it is not in the nature of a rule of order whether or not it is in the bylaws.

So the question is not whether "a bylaw, describing a requirement for amending bylaws, is a rule of order" or whether "a bylaw requirement of 2/3 for amending bylaws" is a rule of order. Rather, the question is whether a requirement for a 2/3 vote is in the nature of a rule of order. When asked that way, the answer seems pretty obvious to me.

What is your argument for how a rule relating to a voting requirement is not a rule which "relate[s] to the orderly transaction of business in meetings?"

12 hours ago, ptc122 said:

pages 23.6 a), and 10:26 1) & FN 1.; pp.  25:1, 25:2, 1 thru 8, 25:14, 56:67, 56:68 1, and 57:1 1 among others.

"The only exceptions to the requirement that a point of order must be made promptly at the time of the breach arise in connection with breaches that are of a continuing nature, whereby the action taken in violation of the rules is null and void. In such cases, a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance of the breach—that is, at any time that the action has continuing force and effect—regardless of how much time has elapsed. Instances of this kind occur when:

a) a main motion has been adopted that conflicts with the bylaws (or constitution) of the organization or assembly," RONR (12th ed.) 23:6

This is not applicable. If a motion to amend the bylaws is adopted with less than a 2/3 vote when the bylaws require a 2/3 vote, no main motion has been adopted that conflicts with the bylaws. The main motion itself must conflict with the bylaws for this provision to be applicable. This is inapplicable in the case of a motion to amend the bylaws. Additionally, even if one hallucinates the words "a main motion has been adopted" as instead saying "any action has been taken," there's still this footnote:

"However, see 10:26(1) and the footnote there for exceptions." RONR (12th ed.) 23:6n2

"1) No main motion is in order that conflicts with the corporate charter, constitution, or bylaws (although a main motion to amend them may be in order; see 35, 57); and to the extent that procedural rules applicable to the organization or assembly are prescribed by federal, state, or local law, no main motion is in order that conflicts with such rules." RONR (12th ed.) 10:26

Again, this is inapplicable, because this is not a motion which conflicts the bylaws. It is a motion to amend the bylaws, which is entirely proper, as the citation explicitly states. The problem here is not with the motion itself, but with the voting threshold. Once again, even if one hallucinates the words "No main motion" as instead saying "No action," there's still this footnote.

"However, an incidental main motion that conflicts with a provision in the nature of a rule of order in the bylaws or constitution is in order provided that (a) the motion has no continuing force and effect beyond the current session and (b) the provision that it conflicts with is one that can be suspended. Such a motion is, in effect, an incidental main motion to suspend the rules, and the vote required for its adoption is the same as for the corresponding incidental motion (25)—that is, it usually requires a two-thirds vote. (See 6:23, 25:2(7), 25:7–14.) For example, it is in order, by a two-thirds vote, to adopt an agenda for the current session that differs from an order of business set forth in the bylaws." RONR (12th ed.) 10:26n1

"When an assembly wishes to do something during a meeting that it cannot do without violating one or more of its regular rules, it can adopt a motion to Suspend the Rules interfering with the proposed action—provided that the proposal is not in conflict with the organization’s bylaws (or constitution), with local, state, or national law prescribing procedural rules  applicable to the organization or assembly, or with a fundamental principle of parliamentary law." RONR (12th ed.) 25:1

As has already been repeatedly established, there is an exception to this rule if the rule in the bylaws is in the nature of a rule of order.

I already covered SDCs 2 and 7 of 25:2. I'm not really clear on how the other SDCs are applicable.

"The rules of order of a society, as contained in the manual established by the bylaws as the parliamentary authority, or as included in any special rules of order adopted by the organization (see 2), are rules of parliamentary procedure, the suspension of which requires a two-thirds vote. Some societies call all their rules “standing rules.” But by whatever name a rule is called, if it relates to parliamentary procedure, it requires a two-thirds vote for its suspension." RONR (12th) ed. 25:14

This actually seems to be one of the best citations to refute your argument, as the rule clearly states "But by whatever name a rule is called, if it relates to parliamentary procedure, it requires a two-thirds vote for its suspension." A rule pertaining to a voting threshold unquestionably "relates to parliamentary procedure."

"ARTICLE IX: AMENDMENT OF BYLAWS These bylaws may be amended at any regular meeting of the Society by a two-thirds vote, provided that the amendment has been submitted in writing at the previous regular meeting." RONR (12th ed.) 56:67

I would first note that this is a portion of the sample bylaws, so this does not have much relevance unless the bylaws of the society you are referring to have identical language. In the event that they do, the portion of this rule which requires "a two-thirds vote" may be suspended by a 2/3 vote.

I don't understand what part of 56:68 item 1 you think supports your argument. I'm guessing this?

"When the meaning is clear, however, the society, even by a unanimous vote, cannot change that meaning except by amending its bylaws." RONR (12th ed.) 56:68

Suspending a rule in a particular case, however, isn't the same as changing its meaning. If the bylaws provide that a 2/3 vote is required, certainly the society cannot adopt a special rule of order saying that some other voting threshold is required to amend the bylaws. The society could, however, suspend the rules in a particular instance to require some other voting threshold, but doing so would require a 2/3 vote (and would therefore be fairly pointless). The society could only permanently change the voting threshold by amending the bylaws.

"A motion to amend the bylaws is a particular case of the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted (35); it is therefore a main motion, and it is subject to the same rules as other main motions with the following exceptions:

1) Special requirements for this motion’s adoption should be specified in the bylaws, and they should always include at least notice and a two-thirds vote, which (with a vote of a majority of the entire membership as an allowable alternative) are the requirements for its adoption if such specification in the bylaws is neglected (see 56:50–56)." RONR (12th ed.) 57:1

I don't see what relevance this has. The rule provides that special requirements for the motion's adoption should be specified in the bylaws. This has no relevance to whether those requirements can be suspended.

Edited by Josh Martin
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

This actually seems to be one of the best citations to refute your argument, as the rule clearly states "But by whatever name a rule is called, if it relates to parliamentary procedure, it requires a two-thirds vote for its suspension." A rule pertaining to a voting threshold unquestionably "relates to parliamentary procedure."

 

Ah, just for clarity, there are many rules that relate to parliamentary procedure that cannot be suspended.  A rule establishing a quorum clearly relates to parliamentary procedure.  That rule could not be suspended, unless it provided for its own suspension.  :) 

That said, the rule that a 2/3 vote is needed to amend the bylaw is very clearly a rule in the nature of a rule of order. 

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

Can the rule that a plurality vote is needed to elect officers be properly authorized by a special rule of order?

No.  A rule enabling a plurality vote to suffice for the election of officers must be prescribed in the bylaws in order to be effective.   RONR, 12th ed., 44:11

 

13 hours ago, J. J. said:

If the answer to that question is no, how could that rule possibly be a rule in the nature of order [sic]?

This question is difficult to answer without seemingly begging the question because it is based upon a false presupposition.  That false presupposition is that a rule must be a rule that can be created by the adoption of a special rule of order in order to be a rule in the nature of a rule of order.  This is simply not the case.

The nature of a rule is to be found within the rule itself, and nowhere else.

A society's bylaws may contain both a rule to the effect that a plurality vote will suffice for the election of its treasurer and a rule to the effect that that a plurality vote will suffice for the election of the members of its finance committee.  Both of these rules deal with the vote required for election, and both are clearly rules in the society's bylaws which are in the nature of rules of order.  The fact that one of them can be adopted only by a provision in the bylaws has no bearing on the nature of the rule itself.

Much of what Mr. Martin has said above is to this same effect, and I commend it to you. 

16 hours ago, J. J. said:

(I would note that a rule might regulate the transaction of business within a meeting and not be a rule in the nature of a rule of order.)

If by this you mean that it may be a rule of order and not just a rule in the nature of a rule of order, I agree.  But somehow I doubt that this is so.  🙂

 

 

 

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

No.  A rule enabling a plurality vote to suffice for the election of officers must be prescribed in the bylaws in order to be effective.   RONR, 12th ed., 44:11

 

This question is difficult to answer without seemingly begging the question because it is based upon a false presupposition.  That false presupposition is that a rule must be a rule that can be created by the adoption of a special rule of order in order to be a rule in the nature of a rule of order.  This is simply not the case.

The nature of a rule is to be found within the rule itself, and nowhere else.

A society's bylaws may contain both a rule to the effect that a plurality vote will suffice for the election of its treasurer and a rule to the effect that that a plurality vote will suffice for the election of the members of its finance committee.  Both of these rules deal with the vote required for election, and both are clearly rules in the society's bylaws which are in the nature of rules of order.  The fact that one of them can be adopted only by a provision in the bylaws has no bearing on the nature of the rule itself.

Much of what Mr. Martin has said above is to this same effect, and I commend it to you. 

If by this you mean that it may be a rule of order and not just a rule in the nature of a rule of order, I agree.  But somehow I doubt that this is so.  🙂

 

 

 

I do not see anything in RONR that suggests that all procedural rules are rules in the nature of a rule. There is not, and has never been, a statement in RONR that all procedural rules are in the nature of a rule of order.  To claim otherwise makes an assumption that is not in evidence, i.e. it begs  the question.

I do, however, see evidence that some rules relating to procedure are not rules of order. 

1.  As you have noted, some things that are clearly procedural cannot be authorized by a rule of order. 

2.  In noting this, 2:16 (5) say that only "a certain rule can be altered only by a provision in the bylaws."  It does not say, "a certain rule of order," or "rules of order that ... ."  In doing so, RONR has not identified these rules as rules in the nature of rules of order. 

So, there is no statement in RONR that says, in effect, all rules related to procedure are rules in the nature of a rule of order.  Further, there is a statement that there are certain rules relating to procedure are not cannot be adopted as a rule of order, nor are they specifically described as a rule of order.

Now, we come what RONR says about rules of order included in the bylaws.  A rule in the bylaws that is "clearly identifiable as a rule in the nature of a rule of order (2:21)." 

A rule related to election of officers by plurality, your example, "clearly" deals with procedure; however it is not "clearly identifiable" as a rule in the nature of a rule of order.  It is a "certain rule" which "can be altered only by a provision of the bylaws."  It is a rule that could not be adopted as a rule of order.  Therefor, at least until  RONR says that all rules relating to procedure are rules in the nature of a rule of order, it cannot be "clearly identifiable" as rule in the nature or a rule of order.

 

 

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

I do not see anything in RONR that suggests that all procedural rules are rules in the nature of a rule. There is not, and has never been, a statement in RONR that all procedural rules are in the nature of a rule of order.  To claim otherwise makes an assumption that is not in evidence, i.e. it begs  the question.

I do, however, see evidence that some rules relating to procedure are not rules of order. 

1.  As you have noted, some things that are clearly procedural cannot be authorized by a rule of order. 

2.  In noting this, 2:16 (5) say that only "a certain rule can be altered only by a provision in the bylaws."  It does not say, "a certain rule of order," or "rules of order that ... ."  In doing so, RONR has not identified these rules as rules in the nature of rules of order. 

So, there is no statement in RONR that says, in effect, all rules related to procedure are rules in the nature of a rule of order.  Further, there is a statement that there are certain rules relating to procedure are not cannot be adopted as a rule of order, nor are they specifically described as a rule of order.

Now, we come what RONR says about rules of order included in the bylaws.  A rule in the bylaws that is "clearly identifiable as a rule in the nature of a rule of order (2:21)." 

A rule related to election of officers by plurality, your example, "clearly" deals with procedure; however it is not "clearly identifiable" as a rule in the nature of a rule of order.  It is a "certain rule" which "can be altered only by a provision of the bylaws."  It is a rule that could not be adopted as a rule of order.  Therefor, at least until  RONR says that all rules relating to procedure are rules in the nature of a rule of order, it cannot be "clearly identifiable" as rule in the nature or a rule of order.

 

 

Obviously we disagree, but I won't keep repeating myself.

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...