Statutory interpretation question.

[Guest FreedomThroughRules]

There is a dispute in an organization that I am involved with regarding two passages in the Constitution.

This organization happens to be a political party. So imagine that we're talking about a hypothetical political party called the National Unity Party.

In the preamble of the constitution is the following sentence: 

The party's Constitution and Bylaws are the exclusive rules of the organization.

In the last article of the Constitution is this statement, lifted directly from Robert's.

"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."* [RONR (11th ed.), pp. 15–17; p. 580, ll. 6–24; p. 588, ll. 4–8.]

 

Some contend that the first of the two passages prohibits the adoption of special rules of order and standing rules. Others contend that it does not, since Robert's allows for the use of special rules of order and standing rules. Some also point to the reference to special rules of order in the second passage in support of the latter view.

Who is right?

[Guest Correction]

"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 THIS CONSTITUTION AND THE PARTY'S bylaws and any special rules of order the Society may adopt."*

So "almost" entirely lifted from Robert's sample language [RONR (11th ed.), pp. 15–17; p. 580, ll. 6–24; p. 588, ll. 4–8.].

[Joshua Katz]

So, the first question one might ask is whether the adoption of Robert's is valid. The answer to that, I think, is yes, because it appears in the Constitution and is more specific. If it appeared in the bylaws, I'd be more concerned.

Another threshold question: does the first statement govern, given that it appears only in the preamble? I'd say yes, but there's probably some room for debate there.

Anyway, now that we have that done, we can turn to the question. Can you adopt special rules of order and standing rules? I don't think it works to say Robert's allows them, because Robert's only governs when not inconsistent with the Constitution, bylaws, and special rules.

Can you get permission for special rules from the language of the adoption of RONR? I don't think that language authorizes it, no. 

So I conclude you cannot have any sorts of rules other than the Constitution and Bylaws, and RONR. Since that is a hard way to run an organization, I'd suggest amending that as soon as possible.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/22/2023 at 4:57 PM, Joshua Katz said:

Can you get permission for special rules from the language of the adoption of RONR? I don't think that language authorizes it, no. 

By that logic, the adoption of RONR is also unauthorized.

If the constitution authorizes RONR--excepting any special rules of order that the Society may adopt--then the Society may adopt special rules of order.  To argue otherwise is to assume that that language was put there for no reason.

[Joshua Katz]

On 5/22/2023 at 8:23 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

By that logic, the adoption of RONR is also unauthorized.

 

There's a direct statement that RONR is adopted. There's no such direct statement about other rules.

On 5/22/2023 at 8:23 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

If the constitution authorizes RONR--excepting any special rules of order that the Society may adopt--then the Society may adopt special rules of order.  To argue otherwise is to assume that that language was put there for no reason.

Perhaps it was put there in case they chose to authorize it. But I get your point.

[Gary Novosielski]

Are we ignoring the fact that the statement was made in the Preamble of the constitution?  Does it have the same weight as a statement placed elsewhere?

[Guest FreedomThroughRules]

I would contend that it has more weight by being in the preamble. We're talking about a political party. Not only is this a political party, but it's a party where the conventions of this party can choose the party's nominees for public office in lieu of a primary if any of the candidates reach a certain supermajority in a multiple-ballot system that eliminates candidates until there are only two. So it's saying, hey everybody, I know I'm going to lose your attention by the time we get to Article II so before that happens, "You can only have a constitution and a bylaws and that's it!" People in political parties are always looking for ways to cheat the rules. So stating a really important premise in the very first paragraph of the document gives it greater weight, not less.

Should it have been its own Article? Sure, why not. But you have to understand how unskilled people in political parties are when it comes to drafting bylaws. And if you disqualify everything they try to do because they don't do it the way a Ph.D. in bylaws would just creates that world that Mr. Robert warned about, a world where there is the least of liberty. Believe me, you don't want to be the guy in a political party who has the dreadful job of calling out naked emperors in a party where no one cares about rules.

[Gary Novosielski]

Oh, I have had just that dreadful job for a substantial stint.

But I think the quote of General Robert regarding the least of liberty means the opposite of what you imply.  Relaxing the rules just because the drafters are inept results in less liberty, not more.

My question about the preamble arises from analogy to a resolution, where the preamble, although it may contain lofty ideals, important premises, and flowery prose, is merely background material and reasons for the actual resolution.  The preamble itself contains nothing enforceable.

By comparison, the preamble to the US Constitution says, in essence, We the People, because <reasons> do ordain and establish this Constitution for the country.  The preamble gives the reasons for the rest of the document, but it can't preëmpt any of the language in the actual document.  

That's why in the current context, it's in order to adopt a parliamentary authority.  While the preamble may say that only the constitution and bylaws, and nothing else contains the rules, the language of the constitution says otherwise.  It authorizes more rules, namely RONR.  And RONR says Special Rules of Order are allowed.  And that, in my view, is not preëmpted by the preamble. 

Edited to add:

It could be preëmpted by explicit language in the bylaws prohibiting Special Rules of Order, but that would only mean that the rules in RONR could not be superseded except by amending the bylaws. And RONR itself says otherwise, and yields to special rules.

By the way, in that adoption language it is intended that the word Society be replaced by, in your case, the word Party, as that is the word used by the Party to describe itself.

Edited May 23, 2023 at 03:56 AM by Gary Novosielski
clarity

[puzzling]

On 5/23/2023 at 3:42 AM, Guest FreedomThroughRules said:

it's a party where the conventions of this party can choose the party's nominees for public office in lieu of a primary if any of the candidates reach a certain supermajority in a multiple-ballot system that eliminates candidates until there are only two

And the above is nicely and conclusively spelled out in the bylaws?

I think it is just impossible to spell out every rule anyway but it is better if they are spelled out than that they are just customs.

Maybe suggest at the next conference that the Borda count/Dogson method/ Kemeny method  is a better way to select a candidate. (Or any other of the myriad ways to hold an election) if the motion is debated and won, I predict  no election will happen at all

[Josh Martin]

On 5/22/2023 at 3:46 PM, Guest FreedomThroughRules said:

Some contend that the first of the two passages prohibits the adoption of special rules of order and standing rules. Others contend that it does not, since Robert's allows for the use of special rules of order and standing rules. Some also point to the reference to special rules of order in the second passage in support of the latter view.

Who is right?

I would first note that this is ultimately a matter for the organization itself to decide, but generally, I am of the view that the rules permit the adoption of special rules of order and standing rules, because it would seem patently absurd for the organization to insist on placing every rule, no matter how minor, in its constitution or bylaws. I think there is an even stronger argument for special rules of order, since there is a passage in the constitution which explicitly refers to special rules of order. I would refer you to the Principles of Interpretation, particularly #3, which provides "A general statement or rule is always of less authority than a specific statement or rule and yields to it." RONR (12th ed.) 56:58

Mr. Katz also raises an excellent question about whether statements found in the preamble to an organization's governing documents, which is often a paragraph which waxes poetically about the goals and history of an organization, should be viewed as actual rules. I don't think there is a hard and fast rule about this, and it would likely be necessary to review the statement in its full context to reach a conclusion on that.

I agree with Mr. Katz that the fact that Robert's Rules says you can adopt special rules of order and standing rules is immaterial, because your constitution and bylaws take precedence over RONR, and the question here is concerning the meaning of rules in your constitution and bylaws.

In the long run, I would advise either amending or striking the rule "The party's Constitution and Bylaws are the exclusive rules of the organization," since it currently seems to be doing nothing but causing confusion.

The ordinary way of doing things is that the Constitution and Bylaws are the highest level of rules in the organization, and lower-level rules (special rules of order and standing rules) can be adopted so long as they do not conflict with those rules. Regardless of what the rule currently means, I'd advise the organization to consider this on the merits and whether it's really a good idea to include every mundane detail of the organization's operations in its constitution and bylaws.

I also imagine, as is often the case when we get very high-level philosophical questions, that this debate is really about another, more specific question that we aren't being asked.

On 5/22/2023 at 3:57 PM, Joshua Katz said:

So I conclude you cannot have any sorts of rules other than the Constitution and Bylaws, and RONR.

But we are told that the constitution itself provides "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 THIS CONSTITUTION AND THE PARTY'S bylaws and any special rules of order the Society may adopt."

So this creates an internal conflict and ambiguity in the rules, that we can then turn to the Principles of Interpretation to resolve. I would think the "specific trumps general" rule applies. So it would seem that, at the very least, the organization can adopt special rules of order.

I suppose one could still argue that the organization is prohibited from adopting standing rules.

On 5/22/2023 at 9:42 PM, Guest FreedomThroughRules said:

I would contend that it has more weight by being in the preamble

That would be a very unusual way of doing things. But political parties do often have very unusual rules.

On 5/22/2023 at 10:42 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

My question about the preamble arises from analogy to a resolution, where the preamble, although it may contain lofty ideals, important premises, and flowery prose, is merely background material and reasons for the actual resolution.  The preamble itself contains nothing enforceable.

By comparison, the preamble to the US Constitution says, in essence, We the People, because <reasons> do ordain and establish this Constitution for the country.  The preamble gives the reasons for the rest of the document, but it can't preëmpt any of the language in the actual document.  

I concur entirely concerning the manner in which a preamble is ordinarily used. But a particular organization may well use it differently.

So while I think that the fact that this rule is found in the preamble is an important facet to consider, I do not think this fact, in and of itself, is dispositive in answering the OP's question, especially considering we know very little about the contents of the preamble or the history of how it has been used in this organization's governing documents.

Edited May 23, 2023 at 12:43 PM by Josh Martin

[Guest FreedomThroughRules]

In this particular political party, power is divided between two different bodies.
1) The state central committee.
2) The delegates who attend the party's annual conventions.

This isn't so different from the arrangement that we see in the two major political parties at the national level.
There is the xNC comprised of top-tier politicos, and then there is the convention comprised of "national" delegates who are, at least theoretically, more grassroots.

When this particular western state became a state in the 1800s, party nominees for public elections were chosen exclusively by means of convention processes. Party bosses used their control over the convention system to effectively rig elections in favor of the candidates that they supported. 

At a certain point, and I don't have the historical documents to be able to establish when this is exactly, this party adopted a constitution and bylaws. Clearly, what they did was to grab the language from the sample bylaws passages in RONR and they swapped out the word "society" for "party."

In other words, it was a mindless insertion that was intended to designate Robert's as the parliamentary. There is no reason to believe that the people who copied and pasted that passage into the bylaws had any intent to greenlight the utilization of special rules of order in party operations.

That being the case, I find it absurd to claim that the language in Article XIII is more SPECIFIC than the language in the preamble, which is VERY specific.

Yes, it's possible to read into those two passages a conflict, but it's also possible to not read into those two passages a conflict, since the clause about special rules of order isn't mandating anything. It's just a conditional statement that says, hey, if you ever have a unicorn that drops out of the sky into your party, yeah, sure, the Unicorn supersedes contradictory passages in Robert's.

And sure, this could all be made much simpler if the only reference to special rules of order in the entire ensemble of the constitution and the bylaws were removed, but that's not going to happen because the political class which has control of the state central committee doesn't want to lose this handy loophole used by the state central committee and their designated sycophantic parliamentarians to deceive the masses as they cheat the delegates out of a patronage-free convention process.

I mean, why have a level playing filed when you can pass a standing rule that says that you can ignore the protections in the constitution for grassroots control of the conventions, a standing rule that the delegates have no power to rescind, right? Because right in the constitution it says that the state central committee, not the delegates, is the governing body of the party, and right in the constitution, it says that the only documents that the delegates can amend are the constitution and the bylaws, which WE ALL KNOW, means that they cannot amend or rescind special rules of order or standing rules adopted by the state central committee.

So we're stuck with these two not-so-well-thought-out sentences that will never be amended, and are at the mercy of parliamentarians to tell us whether special rules of order are or are not kosher. 

And so I come to you for your insights, and surprise, surprise, I'm getting a 4-4 (figurative) Supreme Court ruling so far. Which means that the foxes are going to win this fight and the hens are going to lose, just like they always do in this particular political party where Mr. Smith doesn't go to Washington if the foxes have their say. And the foxes almost always have their say, thanks to parliamentarians who almost always side with the foxes. Funny how that is.

You guys have been great. Thanks for your input.

 

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 5/23/2023 at 2:29 PM, Guest FreedomThroughRules said:

That being the case, I find it absurd to claim that the language in Article XIII is more SPECIFIC than the language in the preamble, which is VERY specific.

By that logic, the entire article specifying the parliamentary authority should be ignored.

On 5/23/2023 at 2:29 PM, Guest FreedomThroughRules said:

why have a level playing filed when you can pass a standing rule that says that you can ignore the protections in the constitution for grassroots control of the conventions, a standing rule that the delegates have no power to rescind

As Mr. Martin has already noted, in any organization the Constitution supersedes any conflicting provisions of adopted standing rules. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/23/2023 at 2:29 PM, Guest FreedomThroughRules said:

Clearly, what they did was to grab the language from the sample bylaws passages in RONR and they swapped out the word "society" for "party."

Except apparently they didn't.  The language you quoted still says Society.

[Joshua Katz]

On 5/23/2023 at 1:29 PM, Guest FreedomThroughRules said:

In other words, it was a mindless insertion that was intended to designate Robert's as the parliamentary. There is no reason to believe that the people who copied and pasted that passage into the bylaws had any intent to greenlight the utilization of special rules of order in party operations.

By itself, I don't find this sort of thing very persuasive, but that's because I'm a textualist/originalist.

On 5/23/2023 at 1:29 PM, Guest FreedomThroughRules said:

I mean, why have a level playing filed when you can pass a standing rule that says that you can ignore the protections in the constitution for grassroots control of the conventions, a standing rule that the delegates have no power to rescind, right? Because right in the constitution it says that the state central committee, not the delegates, is the governing body of the party, and right in the constitution, it says that the only documents that the delegates can amend are the constitution and the bylaws, which WE ALL KNOW, means that they cannot amend or rescind special rules of order or standing rules adopted by the state central committee.

Regardless whether your organization may have standing rules, it seems that a separate issue is that those rules may be used in an impermissible way, or (putatively) adopted by one body to govern another, or to govern a superior body. Hard to say without the specifics, but none of what you've described appears to me to be possible to achieve with a standing rule. I have not seen the language you refer to about the delegates being limited to amending two documents. But if the delegates in convention feel the board is exercising undue power over them, they can always amend the constitution or bylaws to do what they want. For instance, to remove any limitation on them controlling their own standing rules.

 

On 5/23/2023 at 1:29 PM, Guest FreedomThroughRules said:

And so I come to you for your insights, and surprise, surprise, I'm getting a 4-4 (figurative) Supreme Court ruling so far. Which means that the foxes are going to win this fight and the hens are going to lose, just like they always do in this particular political party where Mr. Smith doesn't go to Washington if the foxes have their say. And the foxes almost always have their say, thanks to parliamentarians who almost always side with the foxes. Funny how that is.

Third parties (something I have quite a lot of experience with, state and national) sometimes remind me of Kissinger's quote about academia. Anyway, I know you said figurative, but to be quite clear, we're not any sort of court. We haven't even looked at your bylaws as a whole. And even if we did, and if your organization hired all of us as parliamentarians, we'd just give advice; we'd have no say whatsoever over what is actually done. That's up to your organization.

On 5/22/2023 at 9:42 PM, Guest FreedomThroughRules said:

I would contend that it has more weight by being in the preamble.

Well, I would disagree, but admittedly, that's because of my experience interpreting statutes, not experience interpreting your organization's documents.

 

On 5/22/2023 at 9:01 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Are we ignoring the fact that the statement was made in the Preamble of the constitution?  Does it have the same weight as a statement placed elsewhere?

I don't think so:

On 5/22/2023 at 3:57 PM, Joshua Katz said:

Another threshold question: does the first statement govern, given that it appears only in the preamble? I'd say yes, but there's probably some room for debate there.

 

 

[Guest FreedomThroughRules]

On 5/23/2023 at 3:36 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Except apparently they didn't.  The language you quoted still says Society.

Yeah, my bad. I inadvertently pasted the wrong text copied from a cheat sheet that I put together for formulating my questions here that had both versions on it. I don't know if it's because I'm an "unverified participant," but I'm not seeing any functionality for editing or deleting posts when I make mistakes like that.

Here's the actual wording from Article XIII of the party's constitution: Sorry for the error.

The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order shall govern all meetings of the Party unless contrary to the Party Constitution and Bylaws and any special rules of order the Party may adopt.

Here's my best guess as to how these two potentially malaligned passages made it into the opposite ends of the state party constitution. 

Article XIII was there from the time dirt was invented. The preamble, on the other hand, was amended to carry out the huge job that legislation in 1994 placed upon the major political parties in this state. The speaker of the House passed a bill to deregulate the parties, meaning that whereas state law HAD controlled the operations of party operations in very granular ways, as of November 1994, the political parties in the state were much more free to define processes for the same within their own internal documents.

The state law that made these changes nonetheless mandated that all political parties were to have a constitution and a bylaws. For clarity:  Note that the number being named is 2 and 2 is the number that is being named. 3 thou shalt not name, neither shalt that name 4. 5 is right out.

So mystery of mysteries, the committee charged by the governor of this state with handling the updates to the constitution of his particular political party felt it important to state that there were just two allowed [amendable] documents within the party, which would be perfectly consistent with the wording of state law. So there WAS intent I would contend. 

And they didn't bother to add Robert's to that list because Robert's was already listed as the non-amendable parliamentary authority in Article XII, which, of course, was the case well before the 'deregulation' took place. Because Robert's, too, is older than dirt.

However, they didn't take note of the fact that one of the rules instruments that would be prohibited under a proper "expressio unius" reading of the exclusive rules sentence just happened to have a cameo appearance in Article XIII. 

I am not able to find a copy of the rules pre-1994, so I am not sure that the "exclusive rules" part of the preamble wasn't place there long before this legislative change was enacted. If it has been there for as long as the Robert's article has been, then clearly, whoever put in the latter of the two wasn't noting the potential discombobulation that was being set in motion. And look how much that carelessness has cost us, if carelessness there was.

As to intent, with respect to Article XIII, I would contend that there is no possible way of reading "intent" into something that is so obviously copied and pasted by amateurs. Believe me, the entire document was created by amateurs.

On the other hand, if the intent was to align our processes with state law, then there was clearly "intent" in adding Sentence 2 to the preamble, and it would be a tad dubious to claim that the intent was to create an allowed list of rules instruments that was just as vast as would have been the case had the sentence not been added at all. As we ALL agree, Article XIII, in the absence of the exclusive rules clause, allows for the existence of special rules of order and standing rules and even articles of incorporation, am I right? 

The question that the expansionists here haven't answered to my satisfaction is why would someone have put the exclusive rules clause in the constitution at all if the effect of it being there has to be interpreted to give exactly what is given if it is NOT there.

For the Prophet Henry has written,

There is a presumption that nothing has been placed in the bylaws without some reason for it. There can be no valid reason for authorizing certain things to be done that can clearly be done without the authorization of the bylaws, unless the intent is to specify the things of the same class that may be done, all others being prohibited. Thus, where Article IV, Section 1 of the Sample Bylaws (56:62) lists certain officers, the election of other officers not named, such as a sergeant-at-arms, is prohibited.

Thus, where Sentence 2 of the Preamble lists certain allowed rules instruments, the inclusion of rules instruments not named, such as special rules of order or standing rules, is prohibited.

And no, you can't SNEAK THEM BACK in by means of a Robert's back door because Robert's is INFERIOR IN THE ORDER OF PRECEDENCE TO THE GOSH-DANG CONSTITUTION.

Respectfully, 

A well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 5/23/2023 at 7:19 PM, Joshua Katz said:

By itself, I don't find this sort of thing very persuasive, but that's because I'm a textualist/originalist.

Haven't you heard? We're all textualists now. 

[Joshua Katz]

I have heard that. But I've also heard from the right that we're all living constitutionalists now.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 5/22/2023 at 4:46 PM, Guest FreedomThroughRules said:

In the preamble of the constitution is the following sentence: 

The party's Constitution and Bylaws are the exclusive rules of the organization.

 

On 5/24/2023 at 4:32 AM, Guest FreedomThroughRules said:

Here's the actual wording from Article XIII of the party's constitution: Sorry for the error.

The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order shall govern all meetings of the Party unless contrary to the Party Constitution and Bylaws and any special rules of order the Party may adopt.

If the Constitution makes no mention of standing rules, then I would tend to agree that no standing rules can be adopted. But it does provide for rules of parliamentary procedure (Robert's Rules of Order and special rules of order), so I don't think many will be persuaded that the provision has no effect. 

[Guest FreedomThroughRules]

On 5/24/2023 at 8:48 AM, Shmuel Gerber said:

If the Constitution makes no mention of standing rules, then I would tend to agree that no standing rules can be adopted. But it does provide for rules of parliamentary procedure (Robert's Rules of Order and special rules of order), so I don't think many will be persuaded that the provision has no effect. 

It does not provide for special rules of order. It provides for Robert's and then lists actual and hypothetical rules instruments which will be deemed to supersede Robert's.

Further, an interpretation that places Article XIII over Sentence 2 of the preamble fails the general/specific test. The preamble specifically MANDATES, under the terms of "expressio unius est exclusio alteres" that anything that isn't either the constitution or the bylaws is prohibited. Article XIII's conditional reference to special rules of order, lifted from boilerplate language in Robert's sample bylaws, can in no way be interpreted to create a MANDATE OR EVEN AN ALLOWANCE for special rules of order. It's just a conditional statement that was carelessly left in by whoever drafted the "exclusive rules clause" either by failing to remove it from an already existent article lifted from Robert's or from text on their computer clipboard that should have been removed the minute that they hit paste.

Further, here's the law that became effective in 1994 and which is still effective today.

20A-8-401. Registered political parties -- Bylaws -- Report name of midterm vacancy candidate.

• (1)
  • (a) Each new or unregistered state political party that seeks to become a registered political party under the authority of this chapter shall file a copy of the party's proposed constitution and bylaws at the time the party files the party's registration information.
  • (b) Each registered state political party shall file revised copies of the party's constitution or bylaws with the lieutenant governor before 5 p.m. within 15 days after the day on which the constitution or bylaws are adopted or amended.

• (2) Each state political party, each new political party seeking registration, and each unregistered political party seeking registration shall ensure that the party's constitution or bylaws contain:

<skipping>

• (j) a procedure for amending the constitution or bylaws that allows active participation by party members or their representatives;

= = = = = = = = =

Are we not all seeing  a pattern here?

Who here has enough experience with the operations of political parties in states where a convention can decide which candidates get eliminated from the race for, say, a US senate seat to comprehend just why you would want copies of the constitution and bylaws being filed with public officers of the state government every time that they are amended?

[Dan Honemann]

Your organization will have to decide for itself how to properly construe the provisions of its Constitution, but since you have brought the question here to this forum, I will say that I find nothing that you have posted that would convince me that what is said in the so-called "Preamble" to your constitution prohibits your organization from adopting special rules of order which, absent the Preamble, it would be free to adopt.

But so what?  You don't need to convince me.  You need to convince the members of your organization.

[Guest FreedomThroughRules]

On 5/24/2023 at 10:51 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Your organization will have to decide for itself how to properly construe the provisions of its Constitution, but since you have brought the question here to this forum, I will say that I find nothing that you have posted that would convince me that what is said in the so-called "Preamble" to your constitution prohibits your organization from adopting special rules of order which, absent the Preamble, it would be free to adopt.

But so what?  You don't need to convince me.  You need to convince the members of your organization.

Funny thing is the very people who had me put in jail for calling out the cheaters in this particular political party use exactly this "preamble" get out of jail card to defend their use of a "standing rule" to overrule the Constitution when it comes to cheating superdelegates into our conventions in violation of the state party constitution.

So to all of you, I will say exactly what I say to the NAP endorsed parliamentarians who defend party bosses in this state who jail dissident whistleblowers, "Where exactly does it say in Robert's that binding rules are only binding if not included in the preamble?" I'll wait.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/24/2023 at 4:32 AM, Guest FreedomThroughRules said:

There is a presumption that nothing has been placed in the bylaws without some reason for it. 

Exactly.  And that is my presumption regarding the authorization of Special Rules of Order.  The fact that it was pasted by amateurs is of no consequence.  Amateurs are perfectly capable of having intent. 

The language in the preamble either vitiates Article XIII, in which case RONR is not your parliamentary authority because it is not mentioned in the preamble, or it does not, in which case all of Article XIII is in full force and effect. 

Given a conflict between language in a preamble, vs. language in the body of a document, there is just no contest.  But as Mr. Honemann points out, we are not the ones you must convince.  My arguments may not persuade you since I am not a member of your party; and your arguments may not persuade me because, well, because I am not a member of your party.

On 5/24/2023 at 11:10 AM, Guest FreedomThroughRules said:

Who here has enough experience with the operations of political parties in states where a convention can decide which candidates get eliminated from the race for, say, a US senate seat to comprehend just why you would want copies of the constitution and bylaws being filed with public officers of the state government every time that they are amended?

Actually I have.  I was a founding member, a bylaws author, and the first Chair of a state political party with such provisions, and a delegate on the xNC for several years.  I would not welcome any requirement to have bylaws changes filed with the state government.  In fact that's a strong argument for placing changeable rules within Special Rules of Order where appropriate.  

I am no longer a resident of that state, nor a member of that party.  My leaving did not involve rigged elections, wolves, foxes, or falling unicorns, but I would think that their presence would, at least my view, constitute good reason to part ways with a political group.

[FreedomThroughRules]

On 5/24/2023 at 12:46 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

The language in the preamble either vitiates Article XIII, in which case RONR is not your parliamentary authority because it is not mentioned in the preamble, or it does not, in which case all of Article XIII is in full force and effect. 

Funny that you mention this. The current language, adopted by the state convention delegates in 2007 now reads as follows.
 

This Constitution, the Party Bylaws, and Robert’s Rules of Order Current Edition are the exclusive governing rules of the ___ Party.

 

Before 2007, there was no mention of Robert's. And the process by which it became the current language is supportive of the hens' interpretation rather than the foxes' interpretation. But that's a story for another post.

Anyway ...
All of this would be so much easier if the wording had always been as follows (paraphrasing, of course):

Not in the preamble:

The exclusive amendable rules of the party are the constitution and the bylaws.

At the end of the constitution:

Robert's governs except when in conflict with the Constitution or the Bylaws.

(Note the omission of any reference to special rules of order or standing rules.)

And we wouldn't have to have had this conversation that cuts into my billable hours, and no doubt yours. 

Can I get an amen?

 

[FreedomThroughRules]

Oh my heck!!! I didn't have to do that crazy card slider Captcha for the first time. Membership has its privileges. I'm very pleased to be part of this.  How long has it been in existence? I'm thinking that had I been part of it many years earlier, my life might be very different than it is now. It's as bad as it is now because I didn't have good and knowledgeable people to turn to during many years of great need. Perhaps some poor future whistleblower can be spared what I went through, left only to myself as I was.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 5/24/2023 at 2:45 PM, FreedomThroughRules said:

Funny that you mention this. The current language, adopted by the state convention delegates in 2007 now reads as follows.
 

This Constitution, the Party Bylaws, and Robert’s Rules of Order Current Edition are the exclusive governing rules of the ___ Party.

Then what the [bleep] have we been talking about for the past 20+ responses?