10:26 (1) fn

[ptc122]

On 11/28/2020 at 6:26 PM, Josh Martin said:

Based on these answers, it would appear that the primary issue is with the idea that a rule in the bylaws may be a rule in the nature of a rule of order. Although you seem to acknowledge that RONR says that such rules exist, I just presented you with a rule which is literally one of the examples of rules of order presented in the text, and you were unwilling to say that this was in the nature of a rule of order.

"The term rules of order refers to written rules of parliamentary procedure formally adopted by an assembly or an organization. Such rules relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in that connection." RONR (12th ed.) 

"The average society that has adopted a suitable parliamentary authority seldom needs special rules of order, however, with the following notable exceptions:

...

• A rule relating to the length or number of speeches permitted each member in debate is often found necessary." RONR (12th ed.) 2:16

"Rules contained in the bylaws (or constitution) cannot be suspended—no matter how large the vote in favor of doing so or how inconvenient the rule in question may be—unless the particular rule specifically provides for its own suspension, or unless the rule properly is in the nature of a rule of order as described in 2:14." RONR (12th ed.) 25:7, emphasis added

Since a rule "relating to the length or number of speeches permitted each member in debate" is one of the examples given of the sorts of rules of order commonly adopted by an assembly, and because it seems obvious on the face of it that rules "relating to the length or number of speeches permitted each member in debate" are rules which "relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings," I'm not sure I can imagine a rule which is more clearly in the nature of a rule of order.

You appear to acknowledge that a rule requiring a 2/3 vote is a rule of order, although you continue to insist that if this rule is in the bylaws, then it is no longer in the nature of a rule of order. Why does the placement of the rule change the nature of the rule? A rule requiring a 2/3 vote or a rule providing for a certain length or number of speeches permitted each member in debate does the same thing regardless of whether that rule is found in the bylaws or in special rules of order. In either case, the rule relates to the "orderly transaction of business in meetings."

Just in case you decide to suddenly backtrack from this acknowledgement, however, I think it is quite clear that rules pertaining to debate or to voting requirements are so central to the "orderly transaction of business in meetings" that there can be no doubt that such rules are in the nature of rules of order.

"Once a main motion has been brought before the assembly through the three steps described above, there are three further basic steps by which the motion is considered in the ordinary and simplest case (unless it is adopted by unanimous consent, as explained in 4:58–63). These normal steps are as follows:

1) Members debate the motion (unless no member claims the floor for that purpose).

2) The chair puts the question (that is, puts it to a vote).

3) The chair announces the result of the vote." RONR (12th ed.) 4:25

Debate and voting are two of the steps in considering a main motion which has been placed before the assembly. This is the manner in which business is transacted and conducted in meetings of a deliberative assembly. Rules pertaining to debate and voting are central features of the "orderly transaction of business in meetings," and rules which relate to them are in the nature of rules of order.

I think this addresses the general ideas you have expressed. Now on to some of your more specific complaints...

Where a rule is placed has nothing whatsoever to do with the nature of a rule. A rule which is in the nature of a rule of order does not lose its character as a rule of order simply because it is placed "within the bylaws section."

This is not entirely accurate. A rule which requires previous notice generally may not be suspended, but it may be suspended in the unusual case that every member of the assembly is present. The reason that rules pertaining to previous notice may not be suspended is that such rules protect the rights of absentees. In the event that there are no absentees to protect, however, there is no longer any reason such rules cannot be suspended.

It must further be understood that notwithstanding the fact that a rule pertaining to previous notice (generally) may not be suspended, the rule is nonetheless a rule of order. Rules of order are rules which "relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in that connection." There are cases where certain types of rules may not be suspended (or at least are more difficult to suspend), but nothing in Robert's Rules says that this means that they are not rules of order.

"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, emphasis added

Rules like this are actually precisely the reason why the footnote you were originally asking about exists.

"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

What this rule alludes to is the fact that some rules of order cannot be suspended and that rules of order may not be suspended beyond the end of the current session. The footnote was added to clarify that although rules in the nature of rules of order within the bylaws may be suspended, the same principles apply as when suspending other rules of order.

For example, in the case of a rule requiring previous notice, the rule is in the nature of a rule of order. RONR tells us that rules in the bylaws in the nature of rules of order can be suspended. RONR also provides that rules protecting absentees, such as a rule requiring previous notice, CANNOT be suspended (unless there are no absentees). This footnote clarifies that this limitation still applies to rules requiring previous notice found within the bylaws.

This footnote also technically refers to a situation in which, rather than actually adopting a motion to Suspend the Rules, the organization adopts an incidental main motion which conflicts with a rule of order in the bylaws, but the rule in question could have been suspended. The example the footnote gives is a situation in which a society's bylaws mandate the use of a particular order of business, and the assembly adopts an agenda for the session which deviates from this order of business. Because the rule in question is in the nature of a rule of order, the effect of the motion does not last beyond the end of the current session, and there is no other reason why the rule could not be suspended, the motion to adopt the agenda is valid notwithstanding the conflict with the bylaws, just as if the assembly had adopted a motion to suspend the rules.

Yes I agree that (assuming there are any absentees) the requirement for previous notice may not be suspended. As a logical extension of this, it is not in order (assuming there are any absentees) to suspend the requirement for previous notice and the requirement for a 2/3 vote.

It is in order, however, to suspend just the requirement for a 2/3 vote. There is nothing in the text suggesting that a requirement for a 2/3 vote cannot be suspended, although it will generally be pointless to do so.

Placing a rule of this nature in the bylaws will do nothing more to protect a member's right to debate than if the society had instead adopted this rule as a special rule of order (which is the more advisable course of action). The Previous Question may still be adopted by a 2/3 vote in any event.

If an organization has a desire to limit the circumstances under which Previous Question may be adopted, the method to do so would be to 1) specifically say so, rather than relying on inferences and 2) specify that the rule may not be suspended or, in the alternative, specify a higher threshold for suspension.

Mr. Josh Martin,
Thank you for your work on this. We may be working at cross purposes. I am concentrating on effects of our bylaws. You, and others concerns may be with interpreting Roberts. Although I do not agree with those interpretations of Roberts as they relate to my concerns.
Situations: A societies bylaw on amending bylaws reads: ” Bylaws may be amended by previous notice and at least a 2/3 vote.” 
 My conclusion is that a society’s bylaw on the requirement for amending its bylaws is NOT “clearly in the nature of a rule of order”, nor a rule of order. It is an unambiguous BYLAW.    
This conclusion is derived from the reading of the following pages pages from Roberts 12th ed.: 2:14, 2:16, 2:20, 2:21, 2:22, 10:26 1), 23:6 & n2, 25: 1,2, 7 thru 14, 35:2 (7), 44:11, 56:50 thru 56, 56:67, 56:68 1, 57:1

And, RONRIB pages provide shorter definitions: p.84 “bylaws a higher authority than PA” ; 85 “bylaws should include provisions for their own amendment”; p.86 “ 4. “Rules of Order: conduct business in MEETINGS is the function of rules of order”. 

It is also important to note that a society’s bylaws are separate from Roberts even when Roberts is the named authority there is a disclaimer: “if not inconsistent with these bylaws...”. Bylaws are a higher authority than Roberts or a named parliamentary authority.
Robert’s rules cannot be used to set aside bylaws, or to suspend a society’s bylaw.  Ex: PQ cannot be used to interfere with a member’s right to debate as outlined in the bylaws.
On the other-hand, I can argue against interpretations of Roberts, but cannot impose by views even if my society’s bylaws wording. 
Paul, 11/30/20.
Thank you for your work and courtesy Josh.

[J. J.]

43 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Yes, it does, but it deals with much more than this.  It is a rule which specifies who is to assume all of the duties of the President if the office should become vacant, both those which relate to his duties while presiding and those which relate to his administrative duties, the latter being outside the scope of parliamentary law (RONR, 12th ed., 47:20).  As far as the rules in RONR are concerned, this immediate and automatic assumption of all of the duties of the president if the office of president should become vacant is the reason for the existence of the office of vice-president, and is inherent in the nature of the office itself.

A rule dealing with the election of officers would also have to do with the non-procedural of officers.  I am not a distinction that could be made between suspending the rules to permit a president to be elected by plurality and to permit the assembly to chose someone for president when the president is removed. 

Both would either be rules in the nature of a rule of order or neither would be rules in the nature of a rule of order. 

[Atul Kapur]

". . . suspending the rules to permit a president to be elected by plurality" only deals with the vote required to elect. That clearly only affects the orderly transaction of business within the meeting.

". . . permit the assembly to chose someone for president when the president is removed" affects all the duties of the president -- both those that relate to the orderly transaction of business within meetings and those that are outside the meetings,

 

[J. J.]

10 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

". . . suspending the rules to permit a president to be elected by plurality" only deals with the vote required to elect. That clearly only affects the orderly transaction of business within the meeting.

". . . permit the assembly to chose someone for president when the president is removed" affects all the duties of the president -- both those that relate to the orderly transaction of business within meetings and those that are outside the meetings,

 

That assumes that there is some duty of a president outside of the meeting.  While their are some officers that have a duty outside of the meeting, e.g., the secretary, the president does not necessarily have any.

One of the problems with suspending the rules to permit something less that a majority is that the assembly is doing something by a two-thirds vote that it could not do by a two-thirds vote with notice or by a majority of the membership.

[Josh Martin]

14 hours ago, ptc122 said:

My conclusion is that a society’s bylaw on the requirement for amending its bylaws is NOT “clearly in the nature of a rule of order”, nor a rule of order. It is an unambiguous BYLAW.  

A rule which relates to the conduct of business in meetings is a rule in the nature of a rule of order. A rule which requires a 2/3 vote for adoption is a rule which relates to the conduct of business in meetings. Nothing on any of the pages you have cited suggests anything to the contrary.

14 hours ago, ptc122 said:

It is also important to note that a society’s bylaws are separate from Roberts even when Roberts is the named authority there is a disclaimer: “if not inconsistent with these bylaws...”. Bylaws are a higher authority than Roberts or a named parliamentary authority.
Robert’s rules cannot be used to set aside bylaws, or to suspend a society’s bylaw.  Ex: PQ cannot be used to interfere with a member’s right to debate as outlined in the bylaws.

It looks to me that what you really are trying to argue is that 1) As you interpret your bylaws, your bylaws prohibit the suspension of any rule within the bylaws (even those rules which are in the nature of rules of order) and 2) Your bylaws take precedence over Robert's Rules of Order. As a consequence, the rule in your bylaws which requires a 2/3 vote for the amendment of the bylaws cannot be suspended, notwithstanding the fact that it is in the nature of a rule of order.

The second of these points is unquestionably correct. Whether the first point is correct is for the society to interpret, but at least this argument is not absurd on the face of it in the same way as your claim that a rule requiring a 2/3 vote is not in the nature of a rule of order.

[Dan Honemann]

2 hours ago, J. J. said:

That assumes that there is some duty of a president outside of the meeting.  While their are some officers that have a duty outside of the meeting, e.g., the secretary, the president does not necessarily have any.

But J. J., you're the guy who provided the facts you wanted to use, and the sample bylaws provide that the President is to appoint all committee members and be an ex-officio member of all committees, both of which are referred to in 47:20 as being administrative in nature.

 

[J. J.]

7 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

But J. J., you're the guy who provided the facts you wanted to use, and the sample bylaws provide that the President is to appoint all committee members and be an ex-officio member of all committees, both of which are referred to in 47:20 as being administrative in nature.

 

If those requirement were not there, then the rules could be suspended to permit someone other than the vice president be elected president?  

[J. J.]

2 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

The second of these points is unquestionably correct. Whether the first point is correct is for the society to interpret, but at least this argument is not absurd on the face of it in the same way as your claim that a rule requiring a 2/3 vote is not in the nature of a rule of order.

I am aware of at least one organization that has chosen to put language in their bylaws to prohibit the suspension of rules in the nature of rules of order included in their bylaws.  It is possible in more than theory.

[Dan Honemann]

3 minutes ago, J. J. said:

I am aware of at least one organization that has chosen to put language in their bylaws to prohibit the suspension of rules in the nature of rules of order included in their bylaws.  It is possible in more than theory.

Fine, nothing wrong with this if it's what they want to do.

[Rob Elsman]

The motion to insert a bylaw is an incidental main motion that is debatable and amendable.  Hopefully, a vigorous debate would illuminate the advisability of the proposed action.

[J. J.]

6 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

The motion to insert a bylaw is an incidental main motion that is debatable and amendable.  Hopefully, a vigorous debate would illuminate the advisability of the proposed action.

I am not advocating it.  I am merely reporting it. 

[ptc122]

20 minutes ago, J. J. said:

I am aware of at least one organization that has chosen to put language in their bylaws to prohibit the suspension of rules in the nature of rules of order included in their bylaws.  It is possible in more than theory.

My "absurd" claim is that a bylaw requirement that states bylaws require previous notice and a 2/3 vote is a bylaw, not a rule of order nor clearly in the nature of a rule of order. 

And, our group placed in our bylaws that each member may speak to each motion and listed time and frequency. We did that in keeping with the right to speak and to eliminate PQ interrupting that right. Our bylaws are a higher authority than a parliamentary authority and should not need additional notes as what the purpose is. Although, not  a bad suggestion.

I think it is time for all of us to work on a list of rules of order. I will start now and send it along.    I appreciate the debate. Paul 

[Rob Elsman]

8 minutes ago, ptc122 said:

I think it is time for all of us to work on a list of rules of order.

The book (including the dispositive index ) is 714 pages long.  The problem is that people do not read it, not that we need some kind of list.

[Josh Martin]

54 minutes ago, ptc122 said:

My "absurd" claim is that a bylaw requirement that states bylaws require previous notice and a 2/3 vote is a bylaw, not a rule of order nor clearly in the nature of a rule of order. 

And, our group placed in our bylaws that each member may speak to each motion and listed time and frequency. We did that in keeping with the right to speak and to eliminate PQ interrupting that right. Our bylaws are a higher authority than a parliamentary authority and should not need additional notes as what the purpose is. Although, not  a bad suggestion.

Rules relating to voting requirements or rules relating to the time or number of times members may speak in debate are clearly in the nature of rules of order. Indeed, I cannot imagine rules which are more clearly in the nature of rules of order, as these rules are central to the conduct of business in meetings. The fact that these rules are placed in the bylaws does not make them stop being in the nature of rules of order.

It may well be that your bylaws contain an implicit requirement that no rules in the bylaws, even those which are in the nature of rules of order, may be suspended. Alternatively, it may be that there are implicit requirements in your bylaws that these particular rules may not be suspended, even although they are rules in the nature of rules of order. To the extent that the bylaws are ambiguous, they should be interpreted with the intent of the drafters in mind (to the extent that this can be determined), and if it was the intent of the drafters that the rule relating to how long "each member may speak to each motion and listed time and frequency" would "eliminate PQ interrupting that right," that fact should certainly be taken into account in interpreting whether the rule in question may be suspended. It may be that there are similar factors at play in regard to the rule for amending the bylaws.

It would certainly be preferable, however, to include explicit language to this effect if this is what is desired.

If you wish to continue in your quest to assert that the rules in question cannot be suspended, you would be better off looking to your bylaws to support this argument than continuing in this assertion that rules which relate to voting requirements or debate somehow stop relating to the conduct of a meeting simply because they are in the bylaws.

54 minutes ago, ptc122 said:

I think it is time for all of us to work on a list of rules of order. I will start now and send it along.

Almost every rule in the book is a rule of order, and no doubt there are countless other rules of order which could be adopted, so I expect this will be a very long list.

Edited December 1, 2020 at 06:48 PM by Josh Martin

[George Mervosh]

I remember ptc122 when he was paulc6 in old forum and having these debates with references to the wording in the 10th and 11th editions.  I respectfully suggest he's not going to change his mind with the wording in the 12th edition either.  

[J. J.]

3 hours ago, ptc122 said:

My "absurd" claim is that a bylaw requirement that states bylaws require previous notice and a 2/3 vote is a bylaw, not a rule of order nor clearly in the nature of a rule of order. 

And, our group placed in our bylaws that each member may speak to each motion and listed time and frequency. We did that in keeping with the right to speak and to eliminate PQ interrupting that right. Our bylaws are a higher authority than a parliamentary authority and should not need additional notes as what the purpose is. Although, not  a bad suggestion.

I think it is time for all of us to work on a list of rules of order. I will start now and send it along.    I appreciate the debate. Paul 

Your bylaws would actually have to state something like, "This rule may not be suspended," or "Rules of order included in the bylaws may not be suspended."  Your society has a perfect right to put this in the bylaws.

Your society has a right, in most cases, to adopt a parliamentary authority that does not have this function.

Absent of either, rules relating to debate are rule clearly in the nature of a rule of order and could be suspended.

If you want this to happen, you can modify your bylaws to make it happen. 

[ptc122]

19 hours ago, J. J. said:

Your bylaws would actually have to state something like, "This rule may not be suspended," or "Rules of order included in the bylaws may not be suspended."  Your society has a perfect right to put this in the bylaws.

Your society has a right, in most cases, to adopt a parliamentary authority that does not have this function.

Absent of either, rules relating to debate are rule clearly in the nature of a rule of order and could be suspended.

If you want this to happen, you can modify your bylaws to make it happen. 

Our bylaws cannot be suspended. If there meaning is clear they cannot be suspended by any vote. We do not have meeting rules in our bylaws. They are separate. The bylaw that describes how we must amend our bylaws is a bylaw with nothing in it that is in the nature of a rule of order. The combination of a requirement of previous notice and at least a 2/3 vote is most certainly not a rule of order. Other 2/3rd requirement that are in the procedural rules are rules of order as they are used in meetings. It does not mean that every "2/3" is a rule of order, especially when appearing as part of a requirement bylaw.

Roberts suggest that the requirement for amending bylaws should be in the bylaws so that there is no confusion. Also Roberts suggest that societies bylaws, are a higher authority then Roberts (Roberts will be used when not inconsistent with these bylaws, or statutes, regulations, Laws)

 By publishing our bylaws separate from our authority, we are saying that this is the preferred and correct wording we want. It should not be necessary to add another line describing intentions. Bylaws are reviewed regularly and if question of clarity or interpretation come up, it could be dealt with by amendment. In the meantime: 56:67, 56:68 1) help us to establish our wording, and to,interpret.

As to the list. One should be started. I have. It is long, but illuminating. Paul 

[Dan Honemann]

2 minutes ago, ptc122 said:

Our bylaws cannot be suspended. If there meaning is clear they cannot be suspended by any vote. We do not have meeting rules in our bylaws. They are separate. The bylaw that describes how we must amend our bylaws is a bylaw with nothing in it that is in the nature of a rule of order. The combination of a requirement of previous notice and at least a 2/3 vote is most certainly not a rule of order. Other 2/3rd requirement that are in the procedural rules are rules of order as they are used in meetings. It does not mean that every "2/3" is a rule of order, especially when appearing as part of a requirement bylaw.

Roberts suggest that the requirement for amending bylaws should be in the bylaws so that there is no confusion. Also Roberts suggest that societies bylaws, are a higher authority then Roberts (Roberts will be used when not inconsistent with these bylaws, or statutes, regulations, Laws)

 By publishing our bylaws separate from our authority, we are saying that this is the preferred and correct wording we want. It should not be necessary to add another line describing intentions. Bylaws are reviewed regularly and if question of clarity or interpretation come up, it could be dealt with by amendment. In the meantime: 56:67, 56:68 1) help us to establish our wording, and to,interpret.

As to the list. One should be started. I have. It is long, but illuminating. Paul 

Okay, Paul. Thank you.

[ptc122]

28 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Okay, Paul. Thank you.

You are most welcome. I respect all the work you do. Paul

[J. J.]

8 hours ago, ptc122 said:

Our bylaws cannot be suspended. If there meaning is clear they cannot be suspended by any vote. We do not have meeting rules in our bylaws. They are separate.

 

Your bylaws would actually have to say that, if they incorporate RONR as their authority. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 11/30/2020 at 5:58 PM, J. J. said:

Why, in this case, isn't it a rule in the nature of a rule of order?  It does deal with orderly transaction of business within a meeting and the duties of the officers in that regard.

I agree that it goes well beyond the transaction of business in meetings, but even if it were a rule of order, it would not be suspendible.  It is mandatory unless the bylaws contain an express provision on presidential succession.

[J. J.]

11 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

I agree that it goes well beyond the transaction of business in meetings, but even if it were a rule of order, it would not be suspendible.  It is mandatory unless the bylaws contain an express provision on presidential succession.

That is my particular point.  If something is required to be in the bylaws to be effective, it is not subject to suspension. 

Something that could not be effective by a 2/3 vote with notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership could not be effective by a 2/3 vote, without notice. 

[Dan Honemann]

13 minutes ago, J. J. said:

That is my particular point.  If something is required to be in the bylaws to be effective, it is not subject to suspension. 

I do not agree. For example, a quorum requirement of anything other than a majority of all of the enrolled members must be in the bylaws in order to be effective (3:3, 40:2).  However, any such requirement in the bylaws can be suspended whenever there are no absentees (25:10), unless, of course, the bylaws specifically provide otherwise.

[J. J.]

3 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I do not agree. For example, a quorum requirement of anything other than a majority of all of the enrolled members must be in the bylaws in order to be effective (3:3, 40:2).  However, any such requirement in the bylaws can be suspended whenever there are no absentees (25:10), unless, of course, the bylaws specifically provide otherwise.

I believe we went over that point, and you said:

On 11/25/2020 at 12:34 PM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

In the factual situation originally presented by J. J., the motion to suspend the rules is a motion to suspend, for the remainder of the session, the default quorum rule, and to create a new quorum rule which is to last for the remainder of the session. I can understand why there may be some doubt about the ability of an assembly to create, by a motion to suspend the rules, a rule to last for the remainder of a session which it cannot create to last beyond that time by the adoption of a special rule of order.  I'm inclined to doubt it myself.

I would question if the assembly can create a rule, even temporarily, by a 2/3 vote that it could not create by a 2/3 vote with notice or with a vote of a majority of the entire membership.

I would also note that the rule that plurality voting authorization for officers had to be placed in the bylaws first appeared in the 7th edition.  What reasonable would there be for that, except to put this out of reach by a 2/3 vote, a 2/3 vote with notice, or a vote of a majority of the entire membership.

I would add that one of the authors of the 7th edition (Henry M. Robert, III) noted, in this regard, "Any member has a right not to have an officer imposed upon his who is not acceptable to the majority."  "And any minority, no matter how small, has the right to have its candidate come up in a dark-horse situation if neither of the leading candidates can achieve a majority."  He very clearly regarded a majority vote as a right that would protect, at the least, of a minority of one, and probably the basic right of an individual member. 

I would also note that as part of a committee, one of the other authors (William J. Evan) concluded that, even in the case of committee members, a special rule should be adopted in advance, to "prevent the unfair application of the plurality vote to a single election."

Clearly something that would protect the right of one member could not be suspended by a 2/3 vote.  Further, it could legitimately be regarded as the basic right of an individual member and not be subject to suspension. 

Further, even the application of "the plurality vote to a single election," is questionable, even if it is not for the election of officers.  That would indicate that applying some mechanism that would permit a one time plurality vote is not permitted.

 

 

[Dan Honemann]

J.J., you can note all you want, but the truth of the matter is that the mere fact that some rules which are in the nature of rules of order that must be placed in the bylaws in order to be effective, such as establishment of a quorum and plurality voting for officers, are rules which can be suspended.

What I posted on 11/25/2020 did not say otherwise. What I said there was that I doubted the ability of an assembly to create, by a motion to suspend the rules, a rule to last for the remainder of a session if it is a rule that it cannot create to last beyond the session by the adoption of a special rule of order. I did not say that the assembly could not suspend the rule at all. In the two instances I mention above, it can. Beside that, I said only that I doubted its ability to create a rule to last for the remainder of the session by suspending the rules, and that's where I remain as to that question only -- simply in a state of doubt.