Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

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

Well, I would like to see a citation that all rules related to procedure are rules in the nature of rules of order.  I do not see any support for that in text. 

I will agree with the converse, that all rules in the nature of rules of order are procedural rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 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.

 

 

J.J. appears to be confusing title and form (and possibly location - bylaws vs elsewhere). Whether a rule is in the nature of a rule of order is determined by applying the description in 2:14, "Such rules relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in that connection."

The fact that certain of those rules must be in the bylaws does not affect the fact that they are in the nature of rules of order.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Atul Kapur said:

J.J. appears to be confusing title and form (and possibly location - bylaws vs elsewhere). Whether a rule is in the nature of a rule of order is determined by applying the description in 2:14, "Such rules relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in that connection."

The fact that certain of those rules must be in the bylaws does not affect the fact that they are in the nature of rules of order.

Nothing, however, in 2:14 says that all rules that relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in that connection are rules in the nature of a rule of order.  It does say that all rules that are in the nature of a rule of order has the characteristics of being rules relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in that connection are rules in the nature of a rule of order.  Those are two different things.

I do not agree that the current text of RONR supports the first claim. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that a rule requiring that officers be elected by a certain vote threshold, whether it be majority, plurality, or whatever, could more properly be considered a rule regarding a qualification or requirement for holding office, much like a requirement that officers have been a member for two years or that they be nominated by a nominating committee.

 

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

Nothing, however, in 2:14 says that all rules that relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in that connection are rules in the nature of a rule of order.  It does say that all rules that are in the nature of a rule of order has the characteristics of being rules relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in that connection are rules in the nature of a rule of order.  Those are two different things.

I do not agree that the current text of RONR supports the first claim. 

 

J.J., I read 2:14 differently than you do. It appears that you are saying A=B does not mean that B=A.

 

31 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

It seems to me that a rule requiring that officers be elected by a certain vote threshold, whether it be majority, plurality, or whatever, could more properly be considered a rule regarding a qualification or requirement for holding office, much like a requirement that officers have been a member for two years or that they be nominated by a nominating committee.

 

Careful how far you go with that incorrect analogy, Richard. If it's a qualification, then any vote for someone who doesn't achieve the required vote threshold becomes an illegal vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

J.J., I read 2:14 differently than you do. It appears that you are saying A=B does not mean that B=A.

 

 

Yes.  I see nothing in the current text that says all rules that are procedural are rules in the nature of a rule of order or would even push me in that direction.  So far, no one has been willing to point me to it.

I do see a few things that push me away from that interpretation. 

I would also add that even your reading of it, would not make it "clearly identifiable," since there could be two views. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2020 at 10:56 PM, J. J. said:

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

No. Limit debate is listed on TP p. 14 1. but, no bylaws, and the bylaw on amending bylaws, are not listed there. The requirement of previous notice and a 2/3 vote to amend bylaws is mentioned in several pages. Also the requirement of a 2/3 vote in amending bylaws cannot be suspended. It would have to be amended (57) ergo previous notice and a 2/3 vote as spelled out in the bylaw on amending bylaws would be used. Appreciate the input. Respectfully, Paul

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

No. Limit debate is listed on TP p. 14 1. but, no bylaws, and the bylaw on amending bylaws, are not listed there. The requirement of previous notice and a 2/3 vote to amend bylaws is mentioned in several pages. Also the requirement of a 2/3 vote in amending bylaws cannot be suspended. It would have to be amended (57) ergo previous notice and a 2/3 vote as spelled out in the bylaw on amending bylaws would be used. Appreciate the input. Respectfully, Paul

Ah, yes a motion to amend the bylaws is listed.  TP-16. 

The requirement for previous notice is not in question.

The requirement for a two-thirds vote is not being changed permanently.  It is being suspended for the occasion.  Therefor, it would not be an amendment.  

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

Ah, yes a motion to amend the bylaws is listed.  TP-16. 

The requirement for previous notice is not in question.

The requirement for a two-thirds vote is not being changed permanently.  It is being suspended for the occasion.  Therefor, it would not be an amendment.  

The bylaw requirement cannot be suspended for the occasion or permanently. The fact that it cannot be suspended means it is not a rule of order. Also, in some cases, if you cannot get 2/3 to pass the amendment you are not going to get 2/3 to suspend. And previous notice is as essential part of the bylaw as is at least a 2/3 vote. Not to mention that a 2/3 vote could not be used to suspend a 2/3 requirement. It would require, I opine, a vote greater than the minority (1/3) that it is protecting (25.2, item 7. (p. 247 if RONR 12th ed.) 

Our Society, for instance, has a specific stand alone bylaw on amending our bylaws: "previous notice and a 2/3 vote". Same wording as Roberts suggests when adding an article to your bylaws so it won't be ambiguous. and therefore the society even by unanimous vote cannot change that meaning except by amending its bylaws (56:68 1}  Paul

"Rules that are in the nature of rules of order CAN BE SUSPENDED BY A 2/3 VOTE" This helps to identify what a rule of order is. 

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

Not to mention that a 2/3 vote could not be used to suspend a 2/3 requirement. It would require, I opine, a vote greater than the minority (1/3) that it is protecting (25.2, item 7. (p. 247 if RONR 12th ed.) 

This is incorrect (one of several errors in your post). A 2/3 vote does not protect a minority of 1/3. It protects any minority larger than 1/3.

If 1/3 of the members voting are against the measure, then 2/3 are in favour and the motion has achieved a 2/3 vote. So the minority that is protected by a 2/3 vote requirement has to be larger then 1/3 (even if it is larger by just one person).

So, yes, a 2/3 vote could be used to suspend a 2/3 requirement.

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

The bylaw requirement cannot be suspended for the occasion or permanently. The fact that it cannot be suspended means it is not a rule of order.

So firstly, this seems to be rather circular logic. So far as I can tell, your argument is:

1) The bylaw requirement cannot be suspended. (See 2.) Therefore, it is not a rule of order.

2) The bylaw requirement is not a rule of order. (See 1.) Therefore, it cannot be suspended.

Additionally, the statement "The fact that it cannot be suspended means it is not a rule of order" is false. Not all rules which are rules of order can be suspended, and not all rules which are not rules of order cannot be suspended.

For instance, rules which protect absentees, the basic right of an individual member, a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, a rule in the bylaws which requires a ballot vote, or rules which have application outside of the current session cannot be suspended, but this does not mean that these are not rules of order. See RONR (12th ed.) 25:7-13.

Conversely, standing rules which have application within the context of a meeting may be suspended (by a majority vote), but that does make them rules of order. See RONR (12th ed.) 25:15.

47 minutes ago, ptc122 said:

Also, in some cases, if you cannot get 2/3 to pass the amendment you are not going to get 2/3 to suspend.

Yes, I imagine this is correct. The fact that a motion to Suspend the Rules is unlikely to succeed, however, has nothing to do with whether it is in order.

47 minutes ago, ptc122 said:

And previous notice is as essential part of the bylaw as is at least a 2/3 vote.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that the requirement for a 2/3 vote may be suspended and the requirement for previous notice may not be. The reason for this is simple.

"Rules protecting absentees cannot be suspended, even by unanimous consent or an actual unanimous vote, because the absentees do not consent to such suspension. For example, the rules requiring the presence of a quorum, restricting business transacted at a special meeting to that mentioned in the call of the meeting, and requiring previous notice of a proposed amendment to the bylaws protect absentees, if there are any, and cannot be suspended when any member is absent." RONR (12th ed.) 25:10

The rule requiring previous notice protects members who are absent. Such rules can't be suspended because the people that the rule is protecting, by definition, are not present and cannot consent to the suspension. A rule requiring a 2/3 vote, however, affords no protection to absentees or otherwise falls into the category of the types of rules of order which cannot be suspended.

47 minutes ago, ptc122 said:

Not to mention that a 2/3 vote could not be used to suspend a 2/3 requirement. It would require, I opine, a vote greater than the minority (1/3) that it is protecting (25.2, item 7. (p. 247 if RONR 12th ed.) 

A requirement for a 2/3 vote does not protect a minority of 1/3. It protects a minority greater than 1/3.

Let's set aside the motion to suspend the rules for a moment and look at the motion to amend the bylaws. Suppose that 30 members vote on the motion to amend the bylaws. If 20 vote in the affirmative and 10 in the negative, then exactly 2/3 have voted in the affirmative and exactly 1/3 have voted in the negative. In this scenario, the amendment is adopted. So the rule provides no protection to a minority of exactly 1/3. As a result, a 2/3 vote is sufficient to suspend the rule.

As I have indicated previously, this provision would be relevant if the bylaws had an even higher requirement for their amendment. If, for example, the bylaws required a 3/4 vote for their amendment, then a 3/4 vote would be needed to suspend that rule.

47 minutes ago, ptc122 said:

Our Society, for instance, has a specific stand alone bylaw on amending our bylaws: "previous notice and a 2/3 vote". Same wording as Roberts suggests when adding an article to your bylaws so it won't be ambiguous. and therefore the society even by unanimous vote cannot change that meaning except by amending its bylaws (56:68 1} 

A motion to Suspend the Rules, however, does not change the meaning of the rule. It merely suspends the rule in a particular instance, which is within the assembly's rights.

47 minutes ago, ptc122 said:

"Rules that are in the nature of rules of order CAN BE SUSPENDED BY A 2/3 VOTE" This helps to identify what a rule of order is. 

Except it really doesn't, because some rules that are in the nature of rules of order can't be suspended. So whether a rule can be suspended doesn't identify whether a rule is in the nature of a rule of order.

A rule of order, as has been previously explained several times, is a rule which pertains to the conduct of business in meetings, and a rule pertaining to the voting requirement to adopt a particular motion is unquestionably such a rule.

Edited by Josh Martin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding suspending the requirement of a 2/3 vote to amend the bylaws, pfc122 said:

2 hours ago, ptc122 said:

Also the requirement of a 2/3 vote in amending bylaws cannot be suspended.

he also said:

35 minutes ago, ptc122 said:

The bylaw requirement cannot be suspended for the occasion or permanently.

He also said:

38 minutes ago, ptc122 said:

Not to mention that a 2/3 vote could not be used to suspend a 2/3 requirement.

Atul Kapur said:

16 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

This is incorrect (one of several errors in your post). A 2/3 vote does not protect a minority of 1/3. It protects any minority larger than 1/3.

If 1/3 of the members voting are against the measure, then 2/3 are in favour and the motion has achieved a 2/3 vote. So the minority that is protected by a 2/3 vote requirement has to be larger then 1/3 (even if it is larger by just one person).

So, yes, a 2/3 vote could be used to suspend a 2/3 requirement.

I agree with Dr. Kapur and JJ (and with Josh Martin who made his post as I was finishing this one).  I disagree with PFC123. I was about to make a post to the effect that a bylaw provision requiring a 2/3 vote to amend the bylaws may indeed be suspended by a 2/3 vote when Dr. Kapur and Josh Martin made their posts. 

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

The bylaw requirement cannot be suspended for the occasion or permanently.

 

"Rules that are in the nature of rules of order CAN BE SUSPENDED BY A 2/3 VOTE" This helps to identify what a rule of order is. 

Who told you that?

RONR says that rules that are clearly in the nature of a rule of order in the bylaws may be suspended (2:21).

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

the requirement of a 2/3 vote in amending bylaws cannot be suspended

 

2 hours ago, J. J. said:

Who told you that?

RONR says that rules that are clearly in the nature of a rule of order in the bylaws may be suspended (2:21).

pfc122, please give it up. It is clear that such a rule is a rule in the nature of a rule of order and may be suspended. I doubt that you will find anyone on this forum who agrees with your position.

if you want the provision in the bylaws that says the bylaws can only be amended with previous notice and a 2/3 vote to be non-suspendable, that is an easy matter to fix. You simply add the following sentence to that provision: “this provision may not be suspended“. Problem solved.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who told you that?  Our bylaws told me. And it is confirmed in RONR 12th ed. 56:66 thru 56:68 1) We cannot suspend our bylaws, we can only amend them. I think our differences are based on our interpretations of what is clearly in the nature of a rule of order. Some start with the conclusion that a requirement written into a stand alone bylaw statement "These bylaws can be amended by previous notice and at least a 2/3 vote" is a bylaw and therefore cannot be suspended, other's interpretation is that it is clearly in the nature of a rule of order. I submitted page numbers to support that the bylaw is NOT clearly in the nature of a Rule or Order.

My quest for clarity started with the asterisk from RONR 11, p. 251, l.10 that leads to p. 17,  22-25 "rules clearly identifiable....." but could not take from that, or any descriptions in Roberts that a bylaw stating that bylaws require previous notice and a 2/3 vote as being clearly identifiable as anything but a bylaw, not a rule of order. RONR 12 leads us to 10:26 1) and fn 1. which is much more detailed than 11's p. 17, 22-25 and does provide some examples. Which supports my position, I think, more than "it is clearly identifiable as a rule of order.

As to my contention that a bylaw requirement cannot be suspended by a 2/3 vote it is because a: it is a bylaw and b: 25:1 supports and 25:2, item 2. (and 2:21 does not change that) and Item 7. supports why I believe a bylaw requiring 2/3 to be amended cannot be suspended by a 2/3 vote; and 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????

That is what prompted my original submission/question: On the meaning of fn 1? Does it not clarify even more what a rule of order is and is not? The editors put some work into that.   

I could find some to  agree with me within this forum if they investigate from an opposite point of view. Take my side and find pages that agree with it. Paul

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

Who told you that?  Our bylaws told me.

 

You bylaws say "The bylaw requirement cannot be suspended for the occasion or permanently?"    If that is in your bylaws, I might change my opinion.  :)

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...