Interpretation of New Rule

[Mike Phillips]

Our political party passed this rule yesterday at our annual convention. 
 

Quote

Motions to amend a Report of the following Committees: Rules, Plan of Organization, Platform or Resolutions shall not be in order unless a motion is made to the respective Committee Chair 10 days prior to the convening of the Convention.

3:22: A motion is a formal proposal by a member, in a meeting, that the assembly take certain action.  

Having concluded their work, our Committees do not normally meet after making their Reports to the party for posting on the party website at least 30 days prior to the Convention  

Question: How does a Delegate to the convention make a motion “to the respective Committee Chair 10 days prior to convening of the Convention” when the Committee is not or is not scheduled to be in session during that time period? 

I believe our organization has seriously limited the ability of the deliberative body to deliberate important matters at its convention, with such deliberations being the primary business of the Convention. It’s not relevant what the body meant to pass, it’s relevant what it actually passed. 

 

[Josh Martin]

On 6/10/2023 at 7:38 AM, Mike Phillips said:

Question: How does a Delegate to the convention make a motion “to the respective Committee Chair 10 days prior to convening of the Convention” when the Committee is not or is not scheduled to be in session during that time period? 

Strictly speaking, they don't.

Presumably what was meant is that previous notice of the intent to make the motion must be sent to the respective Committee Chair 10 days prior to convening the convention. And that is how I would interpret the rule.

Ultimately, of course, it is up to your organization to interpret its own rules. In the long run, it would be desirable to amend the rule for clarity.

I would also note that it may be possible to suspend this rule. It's not clear what happens to the amendment after it is sent to the committee chair. If it is subsequently sent out to all delegates and is thus a previous notice requirement, then the rule could not be suspended, unless the organization's rules so provide. On the other hand, if this is sent to the committee chair solely for the purpose of notifying the committee, then I do not think that is a "previous notice" requirement in the traditional sense, and that the rule could therefore be suspended by a 2/3 vote.

On 6/10/2023 at 7:38 AM, Mike Phillips said:

I believe our organization has seriously limited the ability of the deliberative body to deliberate important matters at its convention, with such deliberations being the primary business of the Convention. It’s not relevant what the body meant to pass, it’s relevant what it actually passed. 

I think this is correct to the extent that it is clear what the body actually passed. But intent does play a role when the rule is ambiguous. And I think the fact that not everyone is a professional parliamentarian and knows the formal definitions of parliamentary terms must be taken into account. This rule, in my view, is ambiguous. RONR has the following to say on this matter:

"1) Each society decides for itself the meaning of its bylaws. When the meaning is clear, however, the society, even by a unanimous vote, cannot change that meaning except by amending its bylaws. An ambiguity must exist before there is any occasion for interpretation. If a bylaw is ambiguous, it must be interpreted, if possible, in harmony with the other bylaws. The interpretation should be in accordance with the intention of the society at the time the bylaw was adopted, as far as this can be determined. Again, intent plays no role unless the meaning is unclear or uncertain, but where an ambiguity exists, a majority vote is all that is required to decide the question. The ambiguous or doubtful expression should be amended as soon as practicable.

When a provision of the bylaws is susceptible to two meanings, one of which conflicts with or renders absurd another bylaw provision, and the other meaning does not, the latter must be taken as the true meaning." RONR (12th ed.) 56:68

On this basis, if one reads the phrase "unless a motion is made" literally, then it is impossible to comply with the rule, because "unless a motion is made to the respective Committee Chair 10 days prior to the convening of the Convention" is not how making motions works. But this doesn't make any sense and renders most of the words in the rule meaningless. This obviously cannot be the true meaning. If it had been the assembly's intent to provide that amendments to these reports are not in order, period, they could have said so much more simply and directly.

It seems reasonable instead to interpret the rule as providing that a member must provide notice to the committee chair of the motion the member intends to make, and the drafters of the rule simply used imprecise language when saying "unless a motion is made". With this interpretation, the rule makes perfect sense and every part of it can be logically and consistently applied. Therefore, I would interpret this as the true meaning of the rule.

Edited June 10, 2023 at 12:30 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

If I'm reading the rule correctly, it requires someone to have taken an action ten days prior to the time that the rule was passed.  Since the rule was not in effect then, I don't see how it can be properly applied to that period of time.

[Josh Martin]

On 6/10/2023 at 9:57 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

If I'm reading the rule correctly, it requires someone to have taken an action ten days prior to the time that the rule was passed.  Since the rule was not in effect then, I don't see how it can be properly applied to that period of time.

I believe the OP's question was principally concerning applying the rule to future conventions.

But I see nothing in RONR which would prevent the convention from adopting a rule which will have the effect of preventing any amendments to the reports in question for the remainder of the convention at which the rule was adopted. Certainly, the convention may wish to adopt a proviso that the rule shall not take effect until adjournment of the convention, but I do not believe it is required to do so.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/10/2023 at 4:53 PM, Josh Martin said:

I believe the OP's question was principally concerning applying the rule to future conventions.

But I see nothing in RONR which would prevent the convention from adopting a rule which will have the effect of preventing any amendments to the reports in question for the remainder of the convention at which the rule was adopted. Certainly, the convention may wish to adopt a proviso that the rule shall not take effect until adjournment of the convention, but I do not believe it is required to do so.

Yes, I think it's fine for future conventions, as long as it provides that the thing to be done is possible to do, and not some logic paradox.