Does precedent or Constitution and By-laws prevail

[Guest Frank Leute]

We have a situation where our Constitution and By-laws say minutes shall be taken at all meetings. However our Planning Committee has never done this and claim because they haven't done it they have established a precedent which overrides the clause in the Constitution. I contend that in this and every dispute that the Constitution outweighs everything. Am I wrong?

[Josh Martin]

5 minutes ago, Guest Frank Leute said:

We have a situation where our Constitution and By-laws say minutes shall be taken at all meetings. However our Planning Committee has never done this and claim because they haven't done it they have established a precedent which overrides the clause in the Constitution. I contend that in this and every dispute that the Constitution outweighs everything. Am I wrong?

I would first note that this is technically a "custom," not a "precedent." When something has been done a particular way in the past, that is referred to as a "custom." RONR is clear that written rules take precedence over a custom in the event of a conflict.

"In some organizations, a particular practice may sometimes come to be followed as a matter of established custom so that it is treated practically as if it were prescribed by a rule. If there is no contrary provision in the parliamentary authority or written rules of the organization, such an established custom is adhered to unless the assembly, by a majority vote, agrees in a particular instance to do otherwise. However, if a customary practice is or becomes in conflict with the parliamentary authority or any written rule, and a Point of Order (23) citing the conflict is raised at any time, the custom falls to the ground, and the conflicting provision in the parliamentary authority or written rule must thereafter be complied with. If it is then desired to follow the former practice, a special rule of order (or, in appropriate circumstances, a standing rule or a bylaw provision) can be added or amended to incorporate it." RONR (12th ed.) 2:25

A "precedent" is created by a ruling of the chair on a Point of Order, and also by any subsequent appeal. This is a formal interpretation of the rules, rather than simply the way something has been done. An incorrect precedent, however, can and should be corrected.

Since I have seen only a brief paraphrase of this rule, I cannot say with any certainty whether the rule in question applies to committees. There is no doubt, however, that if the rule is applicable to committee, it takes precedence over the Planning Committee's erroneous custom to the contrary.

Edited March 4, 2021 at 07:27 PM by Josh Martin

[Richard Brown]

4 minutes ago, Guest Frank Leute said:

We have a situation where our Constitution and By-laws say minutes shall be taken at all meetings. However our Planning Committee has never done this and claim because they haven't done it they have established a precedent which overrides the clause in the Constitution. I contend that in this and every dispute that the Constitution outweighs everything. Am I wrong?

RONR is clear that the C0nstitution and bylaws prevail and that if a conflict arises between custom and a written rule (such as one in the bylaws) and a point of order is raised, the custom "falls to the ground" and the written rule must be followed thereafter.  1:5 and 2:25 of RONR (12th ed)