Specific Bylaw in nature of a rule of order

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I am the chair of a bylaws committee in a political party.  We have a bylaw that says:

"A majority vote of those Committee members present is necessary for a "do pass" recommendation, and in the case of the Platform Committee, a majority must approve each specific plank separately."

This has been a source of much consternation but the interesting questions posed to me were these:

 

1.  Is this a bylaw in the nature of a rule of order?

I believe yes it is.

2.  If it is a bylaw in the nature of a rule of order can it suspended?

Well in general all bylaws in the nature of a rule of order can be suspended.

3.  If the answer is yes to both of the prior questions, who can suspend it?

That is where I am a bit baffled.  The committees this applies to are committees created by the bylaws.  With the exception of one of these committees, the appointing bodies are diverse subordinate units of the national political party.  Can the committees themselves suspend these rules?  Would the convention delegates have to proactively suspend it for the incoming committees and wouldn't that be an issue to suspend it for the entire term of the committee?  Can all of the appointing bodies agree to suspend them?

I may have further questions, but I hope I made it understandable how I see this as a really confusing question.  Once this is sussed out I likely have a related question that I will start a new thread on.

 

[Rob Elsman]

It will help us if we can understand for what purpose a suspension of these rules would even be necessary or desirable. 

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

On 9/8/2023 at 8:20 AM, Rob Elsman said:

It will help us if we can understand for what purpose a suspension of these rules would even be necessary or desirable. 

Certainly, the part in particular that was the focus was the second part of the rule in question specifically saying the platform committee must approve each plank separately. Can that be suspended to take a vote on a cluster of planks or even a complete omnibus strike and replace of the whole platform recommendation.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

And I suppose in theory, but that did not come up, if the committee wanted to be able to pass things without a majority of those present which effectively turns abstentions into "no" votes.  

[Rob Elsman]

It appears to me that the intent of the bylaw is that each "plank" of the platform be an independent, free-standing, main motion which must be voted upon separately upon the demand of even a single member. So, it is my opinion that the suspension of the bylaw to vote upon planks en bloc would require unanimous consent of the committee members. 

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Okay, so it can be suspended by the committee?  Where does that authority or capability come from?  

That is why I made it general because I am trying not yet to deal with specific issues, but the philosophical questions addressed above.

Is it a bylaws in the nature of a rule that can be suspended, and if so, by who?  The specifics of each suspension are not really what I am worried about.

[Rob Elsman]

RONR (12th ed.) 2:21.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Committees cannot create their own rules of order, and I understand where a general authority to suspend is located, but what is the argument that the committee can suspend.  Since this is contained in the document that creates the committee to begin with, can't this not be considered a specific charge to the committee?

[Rob Elsman]

See RONR (12th ed.) 50:26.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Perhaps I have the dumb, but I don't see how that answers my question.  It seems it reinforces the idea that they cannot suspend it as it is part of its creation mandate under the bylaws.

[Rob Elsman]

• The bylaws presumably establish RONR (12th ed.) as the organization's parliamentary authority, and
• The parliamentary authority says that clearly identifiable rules of order in the bylaws are, with certain exceptions, suspendable, and
• The particular bylaw in question is clearly identifiable as a rule of order which does not fall within the exceptions in RONR (12th ed.) §25, and
• Committees of organized societies operate under the established bylaws, parliamentary authority, and any applicable special rules of order of the organization; therefore,
• The committee is clearly authorized to suspend the rule by unanimous consent that interferes with consideration of multiple, independent, free-standing main motions en bloc.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Okay thank you.  I need to digest that.

Would you then say the rule about requiring a majority of those present would be suspendable?

Edited September 8, 2023 at 03:35 PM by Caryn Ann Harlos

[Rob Elsman]

Again, what would be the parliamentary purpose for suspending the rule?

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I'm sorry I don't understand the question.  They want to.  That's the only reason.  I can't mine the subjunctive over what reasons a future committee might want to.  I am just trying to figure out if they could.  They want a particular proposal to be able to be passed under the normal rules for an action, a majority of those present and voting, not a majority of those present.

[Rob Elsman]

A motion for which there is no ascertainable parliamentary purpose is, by its very nature, dilitory or frivolous.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

If they have a purpose, is it suspendable?  I can make up a purpose if you like - I did above.  They want to have a particular proposal be able to be passed out of committee under regular definitions of majority.

[Rob Elsman]

I am unable to imagine a realistic parliamentary purpose for such a suspension, so I need a little reassurance that there is one; otherwise such a motion is not in order. Let's keep our feet on terra firma. Why is such a motion necessary or desirable?

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

They want a particular contentious proposal to be able to have people abstain and pass or fail under normal definitions of majority. That is a legitimate parliamentary purpose. They want people to be able to abstain freely without being an effective "no."

[George Mervosh]

What is the practical or procedural difference, if any, between the instructions given to this committee as to how it must consider these motions, versus instructions given to it as to how to consider a motion as discussed in 13:8 d, because I don't see how these instructions, no matter how given, are suspendable.

[Rob Elsman]

I interpret "...a majority must approve..." to mean more than half of the members present and voting, in contrast to the term of art, "majority of the entire membership of the committee".

[Rob Elsman]

Surely @George Mervosh is not suggesting committees cannot suspend rules of order because all such rules are to be equated to instructions given to it, though they all are given to it.

 

[George Mervosh]

On 9/8/2023 at 12:21 PM, Rob Elsman said:

Surely @George Mervosh is not suggesting committees cannot suspend rules of order because all such rules are to be equated to instructions given to it, though they all are given to it.

 

No, I'm not suggesting committees cannot suspend rules.  If the bylaw states that their task is approving a plank (whatever that is), but did not provide the specific details Ms. Harlos cites in her initial post, rules of order relating to the approval of a plank could be suspended.   

[Rob Elsman]

But 2:21 is unqualified. What is said in RONR (12th ed.) 13:8 is limited in scope to instructions given to a committee.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

On 9/8/2023 at 10:00 AM, George Mervosh said:

What is the practical or procedural difference, if any, between the instructions given to this committee as to how it must consider these motions, versus instructions given to it as to how to consider a motion as discussed in 13:8 d, because I don't see how these instructions, no matter how given, are suspendable.

Yes!  That is my dilemma.  If a committee can suspend instructions given to it, what is the point of giving it instructions!

Thank you for that citation, that crystalizes my discomfort here.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I know sometimes @Alicia Percell, PRP posts here.  I would love to hear her thoughts on this.