Standing rules for discussion vs Roberts Rules

[Guest Martha]

Our President is bringing forward a set of "standing rules" for a meeting. Among other things, the rules state:

• Each person can only speak once to a motion, except the mover (who speaks first and last)
• Speaking time is limited to two minutes.
• Questions are limited to one per voter

Since our bylaws specify Roberts Rules, am I correct in arguing they are contrary to Roberts Rules and so would need a 75% vote of all members (the vote required to change our bylaws)? I am thinking:

1 Standing rules are not meant to replace parliamentary procedure.

2. The limits on speaking are contrary to the spirt of Roberts Rules, because they don't allow for sufficient discussion.

3.  This kind of limit is discriminatory against members who need more time to express themselves, whether or not they have sufficient time to prepare in advance.

 

 

 

 

[Rob Elsman]

Regardless what they are being called, these are special rules of order intended to supersede the parliamentary authority. Adoption of special rules of order not included in the bylaws requires either a two-thirds vote with previous notice or a vote of the majority of the entire membership.

[Josh Martin]

On 1/30/2023 at 9:52 AM, Guest Martha said:

Our President is bringing forward a set of "standing rules" for a meeting. Among other things, the rules state:

• Each person can only speak once to a motion, except the mover (who speaks first and last)
• Speaking time is limited to two minutes.
• Questions are limited to one per voter

It is not entirely clear to me whether these rules are intended for this meeting only or if they are intended to apply to all meetings of the assembly.

An assembly may adopt rules of order for a particular meeting by a 2/3 vote. (Some of these rules could also be viewed as an incidental main motion to Limit Debate, but the same requirements would apply, so it doesn't make much difference.) RONR does describe such rules as "convention standing rules" in the case of a convention of delegates, which may be where the President got that term from.

"An assembly at any session can change the limits of debate, for that session only, by means of a main motion adopted by a two-thirds vote without notice. In a convention—where the limits of debate generally need to be stricter than in a local society—such a modification is usually adopted in the form of a standing rule of the convention (59), requiring a two-thirds vote in such a case." RONR (12th ed.) 43:16

If it is intended to apply these rules for all meetings, that would be a special rule of order. In that case, adoption would require a 2/3 vote with previous notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership.

"The rule allowing each member two speeches of ten minutes' length per day on each debatable question can be made either more restrictive or more liberal for all meetings of a society by adopting a special rule of order by a two-thirds vote after notice, or by a vote of a majority of the entire membership (2:14ff.; see also 10:44–51). An example of a more restrictive rule might be one setting a limit of not more than one speech of five minutes' length on the same question on the same day for each member." RONR (12th ed.) 43:1

On 1/30/2023 at 9:52 AM, Guest Martha said:

Since our bylaws specify Roberts Rules, am I correct in arguing they are contrary to Roberts Rules and so would need a 75% vote of all members (the vote required to change our bylaws)? I am thinking:

I think it is correct to argue that these rules are "contrary to Robert's Rules," but it is not correct that adoption of these rules would require the same vote as amending the bylaws. What vote is required, as noted above, depends on whether these rules are intended for this meeting only or if they are intended to apply to all meetings.

On 1/30/2023 at 9:52 AM, Guest Martha said:

1 Standing rules are not meant to replace parliamentary procedure.

It is correct that the term "standing rules" is not really the correct term for what the President is trying to do. Notwithstanding this, such rules may be adopted if the assembly wishes.

On 1/30/2023 at 9:52 AM, Guest Martha said:

2. The limits on speaking are contrary to the spirt of Roberts Rules, because they don't allow for sufficient discussion.

I do not agree that these rules "are contrary to the spirt of Roberts Rules." RONR suggests that an assembly, if it feels the default limit of ten minutes is not suitable, should adopt a time limit more appropriate for the assembly's needs. Indeed, I would note that a limit of two minutes, in my experience, is not unusual in larger assemblies. Whether the rules allow for "sufficient discussion" is ultimately up to the assembly to decide.

On 1/30/2023 at 9:52 AM, Guest Martha said:

3.  This kind of limit is discriminatory against members who need more time to express themselves, whether or not they have sufficient time to prepare in advance.

This certainly seems like something to consider in debate on whether to adopt the rule in question.

Edited January 30, 2023 at 04:06 PM by Josh Martin

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

The two minutes is not at all unusual. The speaking once is somewhat unusual but if the proper vote threshold is met, it is permitted.  I personally wouldn't vote for that.

[Rob Elsman]

Outside of a convention, the term, "standing" implies operation without cessation, permanent, unchanging. Were these rules intended for operation during one session only, I do not think "standing" would have been used to describe them.

 

 

[Richard Brown]

On 1/30/2023 at 9:52 AM, Guest Martha said:

Our President is bringing forward a set of "standing rules" for a meeting. Among other things, the rules state:

• Each person can only speak once to a motion, except the mover (who speaks first and last)
• Speaking time is limited to two minutes.
• Questions are limited to one per voter

Since our bylaws specify Roberts Rules, am I correct in arguing they are contrary to Roberts Rules and so would need a 75% vote of all members (the vote required to change our bylaws)? I am thinking:

First, regardless of what they are being called, these are not standing rules but are special rules of order.  It is permissible for special rules of order adopted by the society to supersede the rules in RONR.  That is the purpose of special rules of order.  2:16 RONR (12th ed.).The adoption of special rules of order require previous notice AND a two-thirds vote (not 75%) for adoption, or, as an alternative, the vote of a majority of the entire membership. 2:22 RONR (12th ed.).

On 1/30/2023 at 9:52 AM, Guest Martha said:

I am thinking:

1 Standing rules are not meant to replace parliamentary procedure.

That is correct.  Standing rules usually have to do with the administrative aspects of running an organization, not the parliamentary aspects. 

On 1/30/2023 at 9:52 AM, Guest Martha said:

2. The limits on speaking are contrary to the spirt of Roberts Rules, because they don't allow for sufficient discussion.

The proposed rules are contrary to the rules in RONR, but, as explained above, they are not in the nature of standing rules but are special rules of order.  Special rules of order may indeed contradict and supersede the rules in RONR.

On 1/30/2023 at 9:52 AM, Guest Martha said:

3.  This kind of limit is discriminatory against members who need more time to express themselves, whether or not they have sufficient time to prepare in advance.

That is a matter of opinion and may or may not be true in a particular case.  Nonetheless, the very purpose of special rules of order is to have rules of order adopted which suit the needs and desires of most members of the society.  They may be arbitrary by their nature.  Even the rules in RONR are arbitrary and may not provide the flexibility for every member of the society to express himself or herself in the manner that member may desire. The proposed rules are not at all unusual.  Special rules of order which limit speeches to less than ten minutes (even to two minutes) and to one speech per member per motion are quite common.  RONR even suggests that organizations may want to adopt special rules of order "relating to the length or number of speeches permitted each member in debate".  2:16.

[Rob Elsman]

@Caryn Ann Harlos, how unusual what is being proposed has no bearing on parliamentary law. It should be noted that the motion to adopt these rules would be both debatable and amendable.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

On 1/30/2023 at 9:22 AM, Rob Elsman said:

@Caryn Ann Harlos, how unusual what is being proposed has no bearing on parliamentary law. It should be noted that the motion to adopt these rules would be both debatable and amendable.

I understand that.  I was giving an aside.

[Guest Martha]

Thanks for your responses, everyone.  Your clarifications are very, very helpful. Some of you have asked about whether they rules were intended by the President to be in place for more than one meeting:

These  rules  were adopted at the previous meeting by a 60% vote by members present at the meeting. We were only given one day's notice. There was no clarification at that meeting as to whether they would be in effect for future meetings. The President refuses to respond to my inquiries so I'm trying to be prepared for if he plans to say they are still in effect vs. having us vote on them again at the next meeting.

 

[Josh Martin]

On 1/30/2023 at 12:53 PM, Guest Martha said:

These  rules  were adopted at the previous meeting by a 60% vote by members present at the meeting. We were only given one day's notice. There was no clarification at that meeting as to whether they would be in effect for future meetings. The President refuses to respond to my inquiries so I'm trying to be prepared for if he plans to say they are still in effect vs. having us vote on them again at the next meeting.

Based upon these additional facts, it would appear the rules were quite likely* not properly adopted. In the event the President attempts to enforce these rules at a future meeting, a member should raise a Point of Order, followed by an Appeal if necessary.

* Theoretically, I suppose the organization's rules could provide that one day of notice is sufficient, or it could be that 60% of the members present represented a vote of a majority of the entire membership.

[Richard Brown]

On 1/30/2023 at 1:02 PM, Josh Martin said:

Based upon these additional facts, it would appear the rules were quite likely* not properly adopted. In the event the President attempts to enforce these rules at a future meeting, a member should raise a Point of Order, followed by an Appeal if necessary.

* Theoretically, I suppose the organization's rules could provide that one day of notice is sufficient, or it could be that 60% of the members present represented a vote of a majority of the entire membership.

I concur with the response above by Mr. Martin, who posted his response just as i was about to say the same thing.  Unless the society has different rules, the adoption of a special rule of order would require BOTH previous notice AND a two-thirds vote or, in the alternative, the vote of a majority of the entire membership.  RONR defines previous notice as being notice being given in the call of the meeting or at the previous meeting if the assembly meets at least quarterly.   A 60 percent vote is not a two-thirds vote.  I would also think that one day's notice is not sufficient notice per the rules in RONR.  See 10:44 of RONR (12th ed.).

I will add that a 60 percent vote is also not adequate for adopting a special rule to be in effect just for the current session.  Such a motion (or rule) amounts to a suspension of the rules and would require a two thirds vote, but previous notice would not be necessary.

[Guest Quick follow-up]

Thanks once again. I understand now that the President cannot apply these rules again. 

If the President brings them forward these rules forward for a new vote at the next meeting, is the following correct?

1. If the motion is considered "suspension of rules" we do not need notice and only a 2/3 vote is necessary, but it only applies to the one meeting.

2. If the motion is presented as a "special rule", we need notice, and then approval 3/4 of all members (I understand you said 2/3 but our bylaws specify 3/4 of all members to change a bylaw).

 

 

 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/30/2023 at 10:52 AM, Guest Martha said:

Our President is bringing forward a set of "standing rules" for a meeting. Among other things, the rules state:

• Each person can only speak once to a motion, except the mover (who speaks first and last)
• Speaking time is limited to two minutes.
• Questions are limited to one per voter

Since our bylaws specify Roberts Rules, am I correct in arguing they are contrary to Roberts Rules and so would need a 75% vote of all members (the vote required to change our bylaws)? I am thinking:

1 Standing rules are not meant to replace parliamentary procedure.

2. The limits on speaking are contrary to the spirt of Roberts Rules, because they don't allow for sufficient discussion.

3.  This kind of limit is discriminatory against members who need more time to express themselves, whether or not they have sufficient time to prepare in advance.

Those rules are in the nature of rules of order, and so cannot be adopted as Standing Rules.  They would have to be adopted as Special Rules of Order (SRO), which have a higher threshold.  With respect to your three points:

1.  Special Rules of Order are meant to supersede the rules in the parliamentary authority.

2.  SROs can change the default from RONR on the number and length of speeches.  If you feel this change is inadvisable, argue against it when these rules come up for debate.

3.  Questions are not limited in this way by RONR, but it's allowable to adopt an SRO to do so.

I would agree with you that these are not particularly good ideas, but you can certainly argue against them when they come up for consideration.  

I'm not certain that just because the bylaws require a three-fourths vote for amendment that it necessarily follows that adopting Special Rules of Order would also require the same threshold, so I'll have to look that up.  It sounds reasonable, since SROs supersede the rules in the bylaws.  Does your language on parliamentary authority follow the recommended language? I.e.:

The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the Society in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the Society may adopt.

Where the word Society would typically be replaced by an appropriate synonym.

 

[Richard Brown]

On 1/30/2023 at 3:05 PM, Guest Quick follow-up said:

2. If the motion is presented as a "special rule", we need notice, and then approval 3/4 of all members (I understand you said 2/3 but our bylaws specify 3/4 of all members to change a bylaw).

 

On 1/30/2023 at 3:26 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I'm not certain that just because the bylaws require a three-fourths vote for amendment that it necessarily follows that adopting Special Rules of Order would also require the same threshold, so I'll have to look that up. 

That's a good question.  In my opinion, a three-fourths vote would be necessary only to amend the bylaws.  Adoption of a special rule of order which is not a bylaw provision would require only the vote threshold required in RONR, namely, a two-thirds vote and previous notice, or, in the alternative, the vote of a majority of the entire membership (with or without notice).

Others might disagree.  Let's see how this goes.

[Rob Elsman]

Mr. Novosielski, it is not correct to say that special rules of order control over a conflicting rule of order in the bylaws.

A motion to create a special rule of order not incorporated into the bylaws is not in order if it conflicts with a rule of order in the bylaws; the relevant bylaw must be amended, and the vote required is the vote required to amend the bylaws.

The vote required to adopt a special rule of order not incorporated into the bylaws and not in conflict with a rule of order incorporated into the bylaws is either a two-thirds vote with previous notice or a vote of the majority of the entire membership, regardless of the vote required to amend the bylaws.

[Guest Martha (Guest)]

Quote

Does your language on parliamentary authority follow the recommended language? I.e.:The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the Society in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the Society may adopt.

 

The bylaws just state "All meetings shall be conducted according to Robert's Rules of Order."

[Josh Martin]

On 1/30/2023 at 3:05 PM, Guest Quick follow-up said:

2. If the motion is presented as a "special rule", we need notice, and then approval 3/4 of all members (I understand you said 2/3 but our bylaws specify 3/4 of all members to change a bylaw).

No. As previously noted, adoption of a special rule of order requires a 2/3 vote with notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership.

The fact that your bylaws specify 3/4 of all members to amend the bylaws is irrelevant, because you aren't amending the bylaws. Special rules of order can be adopted separately from the bylaws, provided they do not conflict with anything in the bylaws.

"Adoption or amendment of special rules of order that are separate from the bylaws requires either (a) previous notice (10:44–51) and a two-thirds vote or (b) a vote of a majority of the entire membership." RONR (12th ed.) 2:22

So unless there is something in the bylaws themselves concerning these matters, then a 2/3 vote with notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership is sufficient.

On 1/30/2023 at 3:26 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

It sounds reasonable, since SROs supersede the rules in the bylaws.

I believe what you meant to say is that special rules of order supersede conflicting rules within the parliamentary authority prescribed in the bylaws.

On 1/30/2023 at 3:47 PM, Guest Martha (Guest) said:

The bylaws just state "All meetings shall be conducted according to Robert's Rules of Order."

This language is unfortunate for several reasons, and you should amend the bylaws as soon as possible to make this language consistent with the language RONR recommends for its adoption.

Notwithstanding this, RONR itself provides that special rules of order take precedence over it, so I don't think this changes my response.

"When a society or an assembly has adopted a particular parliamentary manual—such as this book—as its authority, the rules contained in that manual are binding upon it in all cases where they are not inconsistent with the bylaws (or constitution) of the body, any of its special rules of order, or any provisions of local, state, or national law applying to the particular type of organization." RONR (12th ed.) 2:18

Also, as some of these rules involve the length and number of times members can speak in debate, RONR explicitly covers that, since that is the most common special rule a society finds the need to adopt.

"Special rules of order supersede any rules in the parliamentary authority with which they may conflict. 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

"In a nonlegislative body or organization that has no special rule relating to the length of speeches (2), a member, having obtained the floor while a debatable motion is immediately pending, can speak no longer than ten minutes unless he obtains the consent of the assembly." RONR (12th ed.) 43:8, emphasis added

Edited January 31, 2023 at 12:20 PM by Josh Martin

[Guest Martha (Guest)]

I think I understand it now. Thanks so much to all of you who took time to respond!

 

 

 

[Guest Martha (Gues)]

I understand it now. Thanks so much to all of you for your clarification. I really appreciate it.