Orders (10:24)

[JustinPappano]

RONR states, "In organizations with employees, the assembly or the board can give instructions to an employee in the form of an order..."

Does this preclude the the assembly or the board giving instructions to an officer who is not an employee in the form of an order?

E.g. "Ordered, that the secretary mail a letter to Mr. X" Is this motion permissible if the Secretary is not an employee?

Would a better form of that motion be: "Resolved, that the secretary mail a letter to Mr. X" ?

I think the word can is of note in this case.

Thoughts?

Edited December 15, 2021 at 12:05 AM by JustinPappano

[J. J.]

On 12/14/2021 at 7:03 PM, JustinPappano said:

RONR states, "In organizations with employees, the assembly or the board can give instructions to an employee in the form of an order..."

Does this preclude the the assembly or the board giving instructions to an officer who is not an employee in the form of an order?

E.g. "Ordered, that the secretary mail a letter to Mr. X" Is this motion permissible if the Secretary is not an employee?

Would a better form of that motion be: "Resolved, that the secretary mail a letter to Mr. X" ?

I think the word can is of note in this case.

Thoughts?

Technically, I would say no.  The text says "employee" and an officer is not technically an employee. A resolution or main motion would be better. 

[Atul Kapur]

Agreeing with J.J., I believe that the word "can" applies to the ability to give orders to an  employee.

I await with interest an explanation from others as to the history of the distinction between ordering employees, when in other cases the presiding officer can just order the execution of the adopted motion/resolution, as stated in RONR (12th ed.) 4:43(3) and shown in 4:46 

[Josh Martin]

On 12/14/2021 at 6:03 PM, JustinPappano said:

Does this preclude the the assembly or the board giving instructions to an officer who is not an employee in the form of an order?

It would seem to me that, while this format is primarily intended for employees, there is no reason it cannot be used for any person or group of persons under the assembly's authority.

But it's hard to say for certain since this entire subject is only given a brief paragraph in RONR.

On 12/14/2021 at 6:03 PM, JustinPappano said:

E.g. "Ordered, that the secretary mail a letter to Mr. X" Is this motion permissible if the Secretary is not an employee?

Would a better form of that motion be: "Resolved, that the secretary mail a letter to Mr. X" ?

I think the word can is of note in this case.

Thoughts?

It would seem to me that either is acceptable, and it would also be acceptable for the motion to simply be "That the Secretary mail a letter to Mr. X." 

On 12/14/2021 at 8:41 PM, J. J. said:

Technically, I would say no.  The text says "employee" and an officer is not technically an employee. A resolution or main motion would be better. 

Are we certain this is the only way to interpret this rule? Is there any particular reason why the assembly can use the word "ordered" when giving orders to some persons but not when giving orders to others?

[J. J.]

On 12/15/2021 at 7:13 AM, Josh Martin said:

It would seem to me that, while this format is primarily intended for employees, there is no reason it cannot be used for any person or group of persons under the assembly's authority.

 

One difference is that the assembly could not "order" an officer to do certain things, e.g. order the secretary not to include the adoption of a main motion in the minutes, by majority vote.   An order prohibiting a member or even a group of members from debating a motion would be out of order.  An "order," for me, is something binding on the person being ordered, though that is a matter of connotation. 

[Josh Martin]

On 12/15/2021 at 6:46 AM, J. J. said:

One difference is that the assembly could not "order" an officer to do certain things, e.g. order the secretary not to include the adoption of a main motion in the minutes, by majority vote.   An order prohibiting a member or even a group of members from debating a motion would be out of order.  An "order," for me, is something binding on the person being ordered, though that is a matter of connotation. 

Yes, certain orders are not proper, but I think that is beside the point, since that is the case regardless of what wording the assembly uses in the motion.

To the extent that an order to an officer or committee is proper, is there any reason the assembly cannot word that motion in the form of an order?

[Dan Honemann]

On 12/15/2021 at 8:39 AM, Josh Martin said:

To the extent that an order to an officer or committee is proper, is there any reason the assembly cannot word that motion in the form of an order?

Nothing in RONR precludes it.

What is said in 10:24 goes back at least as far as the 1915 edition, where it seems to me that General Robert was simply stating a fact concerning customary practice and not some sort of hard and fast rule.

[Gary Novosielski]

I agree with @Dan Honemann that this is likely a nod to a long-standing custom, rather than an attempt to establish a rule or even a "should". 

I'm fine with reserving it for paid employees, where it presents an easily interpreted bright line distinction, which can be useful to those reading the resolution or order, and has the weight of tradition behind it. 

I don't think it's worth trying to analyze when it would or would not be applicable to members, officers, committees, etc., since all forms are equally binding.

The only time I've seen it in the wild is a resolution passed in a former organization which did have a paid non-voting secretary.  The resolution ended with something like "be it Resolved, that the Board favors the passage of S.123; and be it Ordered that the Secretary forward a certified copy of this Resolution and Order to Senator Claghorn."

[J. J.]

On 12/15/2021 at 9:27 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Nothing in RONR precludes it.

What is said in 10:24 goes back at least as far as the 1915 edition, where it seems to me that General Robert was simply stating a fact concerning customary practice and not some sort of hard and fast rule.

I would not be certain of that.  An employee refusing to follow an "order" could be fired without due process.  An officer or member could face substantial due process, even in 1915.

Likewise, the concept of an "illegal order,"  in a military sense, may not have been as established as now.  That might part of the reason as well.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/15/2021 at 6:40 PM, J. J. said:

I would not be certain of that.  An employee refusing to follow an "order" could be fired without due process.  An officer or member could face substantial due process, even in 1915.

Likewise, the concept of an "illegal order,"  in a military sense, may not have been as established as now.  That might part of the reason as well.

I think the claim that it is not a "hard and fast rule" in this context refers to whether to use Resolved or use Ordered in the wording of a resolution/order. 

The passage of either one can certainly create a hard and fast rule for the person tasked with carrying it out.

[J. J.]

On 12/18/2021 at 5:32 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I think the claim that it is not a "hard and fast rule" in this context refers to whether to use Resolved or use Ordered in the wording of a resolution/order. 

The passage of either one can certainly create a hard and fast rule for the person tasked with carrying it out.

Also, there is the connotation.  There is concept that an order can be given only by a superior to an inferior.  That is not the case in the assembly giving an order to an officer or another member.

[Rob Elsman]

On 12/19/2021 at 5:24 AM, J. J. said:

Also, there is the connotation.  There is concept that an order can be given only by a superior to an inferior.  That is not the case in the assembly giving an order to an officer or another member.

An order is given by one who has authority to give orders to one who has the responsibility to execute orders given.  An assembly can order a member to retire from the meeting room or area for the remainder of the meeting as a punishment inflicted for unruly behavior; likewise, a presiding officer can order the sergeant at arms to close the doors when an assembly enters executive session.  I see nothing particular about the superiority of the one over the inferiority of the other.  Each merely has a different role with different authorities and responsibilities.

[J. J.]

On 12/20/2021 at 1:34 PM, Rob Elsman said:

An order is given by one who has authority to give orders to one who has the responsibility to execute orders given.  An assembly can order a member to retire from the meeting room or area for the remainder of the meeting as a punishment inflicted for unruly behavior; likewise, a presiding officer can order the sergeant at arms to close the doors when an assembly enters executive session.  I see nothing particular about the superiority of the one over the inferiority of the other.  Each merely has a different role with different authorities and responsibilities.

No, the removal can only happen after the member was named.  The presiding officer cannot order the doors locked without the assembly going into executive session.  Further, in either case, neither could be fired for failing to follow an order.

[Dan Honemann]

On 12/20/2021 at 1:34 PM, Rob Elsman said:

An order is given by one who has authority to give orders to one who has the responsibility to execute orders given.  An assembly can order a member to retire from the meeting room or area for the remainder of the meeting as a punishment inflicted for unruly behavior; likewise, a presiding officer can order the sergeant at arms to close the doors when an assembly enters executive session.  I see nothing particular about the superiority of the one over the inferiority of the other.  Each merely has a different role with different authorities and responsibilities.

Mr. Elsman, if someone wishes to believe that there is a significant difference between the meaning of the words "order" (or "ordered") and "direct" (or "directed") as used in RONR, I see no point in attempting to disabuse him of this notion.    

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/20/2021 at 1:34 PM, Rob Elsman said:

I see nothing particular about the superiority of the one over the inferiority of the other.  Each merely has a different role with different authorities and responsibilities.

Well, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that General Robert may have had a pretty fair idea of what the word order meant, and felt comfortable using it for employees, preferring to use other words such as direct and instruct in other contexts.  I'm content to follow his example.

Edited December 22, 2021 at 12:45 AM by Gary Novosielski
fix typo

[J. J.]

On 12/21/2021 at 9:21 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Mr. Elsman, if someone wishes to believe that there is a significant difference between the meaning of the words "order" (or "ordered") and "direct" (or "directed") as used in RONR, I see no point in attempting to disabuse him of this notion.    

Well, there is a substantive difference in dealing with an employee who does not carry out an order, a member that does not a direction, and an officer that fails to carry out a direction.  You may also wish to note the difference between an "order" or "direction" that refers to something within a meeting and outside of a meeting,

[Dan Honemann]

On 12/22/2021 at 7:25 AM, J. J. said:

Well, there is a substantive difference in dealing with an employee who does not carry out an order, a member that does not a direction, and an officer that fails to carry out a direction.  You may also wish to note the difference between an "order" or "direction" that refers to something within a meeting and outside of a meeting,

Okay.