When RONR is adopted by motion for a meeting

[Rob Elsman]

You go and do the count I suggested, and you will see what I mean. 🙂

[J. J.]

On 10/9/2023 at 9:08 AM, Rob Elsman said:

You go and do the count I suggested, and you will see what I mean. 🙂

Bylaws are, by their nature, are limitations on the powers of an assembly.  RONR 12th ed. says so, in so many words. 

 

[Dan Honemann]

On 10/8/2023 at 12:18 PM, Dan Honemann said:

If we are in agreement so far, I am willing to continue.  If not, I have better things to do.  🙂

 

 

On 10/9/2023 at 8:40 AM, J. J. said:

Not when it concerns bylaws.  Bylaws, generally serve as a limitation on a society (and its assembly); they act to prohibit certain actions.  That was certainly the context that Cushing was dealing with in terms of state legislatures, i.e. the concept of the "sovereign state."  While the principle exists today, it was much stronger prior to 1865.

In the abstract, I see bylaws as a contract and one that may only be modified by the assembly going through the process of amendment.  The body may temporarily suspend elements in the contract, but only by those terms within the contract. 

Mr. Jacobs, when you say that you are not in agreement with what I had posted "when it concerns bylaws",  I'm not clear as to whether you mean (a) that you do not agree that Cushing's Manual says that, as a matter of common parliamentary law, rules of order adopted by the kinds of organizations with which we are concerned are suspendible, regardless of the manner in which they adopted them, or (b) that it does say so, but it is in error. Which is it?

Let me hasten to admit that my use of the phrase "regardless of the manner in which they adopted them" is unfortunate and confusing. I am referring here to the context in which a rule or rules of order are adopted. That is to say, whether as a part of a document of some sort such as bylaws or a code of rules and regulations, as part of a set of rules for a single session or convention, as a stand alone special rule of order, or otherwise.

 

Edited October 11, 2023 at 11:11 AM by Dan Honemann
Added the last paragraph.

[J. J.]

On 10/10/2023 at 9:01 AM, Dan Honemann said:

 

Mr. Jacobs, when you say that you are not in agreement with what I had posted "when it concerns bylaws",  I'm not clear as to whether you mean (a) that you do not agree that Cushing's Manual says that, as a matter of common parliamentary law, rules of order adopted by the kinds of organizations with which we are concerned are suspendible, regardless of the manner in which they adopted them, or (b) that it does say so, but it is in error. Which is it?

Let me hasten to admit that my use of the phrase "regardless of the manner in which they adopted them" is unfortunate and confusing. I am referring here to the context in which a rule or rules of order are adopted. That is to say, whether as a part of a document of some sort such as bylaws or a code of rules and regulations, as part of a set of rules for a single session or convention, as a stand alone special rule of order, or otherwise.

 

Mr. Honemann, you cited Cushing's statement:  "The great purpose of all rules and forms, is to subserve the will of the assembly rather than to restrain it; to facilitate, and not to obstruct, the expression of their deliberate sense." 

I do not agree that this statement would apply to bylaws. 2:13 indicates that bylaws limit the assembly.  

Edited October 13, 2023 at 07:56 PM by J. J.

[J. J.]

There is a rather specific point that two posters made:

On 10/5/2023 at 3:59 PM, paulmcclintock said:

There seems to be some amorphous common law or general parliamentary law that bylaws absolutely cannot be suspended, and it is only if RONR is a bylaw-adopted parliamentary authority (PA) that you can suspend a bylaw in the nature of a rule of order.

 

On 10/5/2023 at 6:27 PM, Josh Martin said:

I am not aware of any principle in the common (or general) parliamentary law suggesting "that bylaws absolutely cannot be suspended."

To the extent "common law" refers to legal precedents established by the courts, that is a question for an attorney.

I am not suggesting that there is a general (or common) parliamentary law principle "that bylaws absolutely cannot be suspended," or that there is not one.

I am suggesting that an adopted rule outside of the bylaws (or constitution) cannot conflict, or permit a conflict, with the bylaws. Within RONR, that would be expressed within 2:13 and the very first line of 2:16.  I think that this is part of the general parliamentary law. 

Edited October 14, 2023 at 01:33 PM by J. J.

[Dan Honemann]

On 10/14/2023 at 8:20 AM, J. J. said:

I am not suggesting that there is a general (or common) parliamentary law principle "that bylaws absolutely cannot be suspended," or that there is not one.

I am suggesting that an adopted rule outside of the bylaws (or constitution) cannot conflict, or permit a conflict, with the bylaws. Within RONR, that would be expressed within 2:13 and the very first line of 2:16.  I think that this is part of the general parliamentary law. 

The fatal flaw with this argument is that it assumes that (as posited by Mr. McClintock) an adopted rule of order designed to be effective for the duration of session which conflicts with a rule in the bylaws which is in the nature of a rule of order will conflict with the bylaws, but this is not the case.  Ever since Mr. Cushing's manual was published in 1845, it has been understood that if rules in the nature of rules of order are placed within the bylaws, those rules can be suspended (with certain specified exceptions).  They can be suspended either for one particular instance or for the duration of a session.   

[J. J.]

On 10/14/2023 at 11:30 AM, Dan Honemann said:

The fatal flaw with this argument is that it assumes that (as posited by Mr. McClintock) an adopted rule of order designed to be effective for the duration of session which conflicts with a rule in the bylaws which is in the nature of a rule of order will conflict with the bylaws, but this is not the case.  Ever since Mr. Cushing's manual was published in 1845, it has been understood that if rules in the nature of rules of order are placed within the bylaws, those rules can be suspended (with certain specified exceptions).  They can be suspended either for one particular instance or for the duration of a session.   

I do not see any support for that, even in Cushing.  Cushing wrote a legislative manual, in the context of an assembly subject to the limitations of a (state) constitution.   He does not use the words "by-law" or "bylaw."

I see nothing that would indicate that "understand." I would not that, under the jurisprudence, a state constitution was considered a limitation on the rights of the assembly, i.e. anything not prohibited by that constitution was permitted (we will leave the role of the US Constitionion out of it for the moment). 

While I question the relevance of Cushing in 2023, I will note he wrote in his Author's Statement:  "Members of legislative bodies, who may have occasion to make use of this work, will do well to bear in mind, that it contains only what may be called the common parliamentary law; which, in every legislative assembly, is more or less modified or controlled by special rules."  That would indicate very strongly that the assembly could adopt even a special rule removing its own ability to suspend the rules, even if that suspension was agreed to by a fully unanimous vote (though such a rule could be amended). 

Let me be clear on one point, again.  I do not necessarily agree with Mr. McClintock that there is a principle within the general parliamentary law that says, directly at least, that no rules in the nature of order in the bylaws may be suspended.  I do not necessarily disagreeing with Mr. Martin that there may not by a prohibition in general parliamentary law on suspending rules in the nature of order in the bylaws.   I am saying that in either case, the answer is relevant to if the society may adopt a special rule (or set of rules) that violates the bylaws, and that a society could not rely on the nebulous general parliamentary law to permit that. 

Edited October 14, 2023 at 04:27 PM by J. J.

[Dan Honemann]

On 10/14/2023 at 12:02 PM, J. J. said:

I do not see any support for that, even in Cushing.  Cushing wrote a legislative manual, in the context of an assembly subject to the limitations of a (state) constitution.   He does not use the words "by-law" or "bylaw."

I do not think this is an accurate statement. As noted in the Introduction to RONR, and as is reflected in the manual itself, Cushing's Manual was written primarily to meet the procedural needs of voluntary, non-legislative societies such as political, cultural, scientific, charitable, and religious ones. 

While Cushing does not use the word "bylaws" as such in connection with his discussion of the suspendibility of rules of order, he does say that every deliberative assembly may "provide rules for itself, either in the form of a general code established beforehand, or by the adoption, from time to time, during its sitting, of such special rules as it may find necessary", and later makes it very plain that these rules may be suspended. It seems rather clear that the term "general code" here refers to an organization's constitution or bylaws, since he distinguishes a "general code established beforehand" from the adoption of special rules. 

In any event, General Robert, in his codification of common parliamentary law in 1915, very clearly states that bylaws in the nature of rules of order may be suspended (ROR, 1915, pp. 85 and 267). This, subject to certain specified exceptions, has been the rule ever since.

On 10/14/2023 at 12:02 PM, J. J. said:

I am saying that in either case, the answer is relevant to if the society may adopt a special rule (or set of rules) that violates the bylaws, and that a society could not rely on the nebulous general parliamentary law to permit that. 

And you keep ignoring the fact that an adopted rule of order designed to be effective for the duration of a session which conflicts with a rule in the bylaws which is in the nature of a rule of order is not a violation of the bylaws because such a rule can be suspended (unless, of course, the bylaws were to specifically say that it cannot be suspended.

[J. J.]

On 10/14/2023 at 3:19 PM, Dan Honemann said:

I do not think this is an accurate statement. As noted in the Introduction to RONR, and as is reflected in the manual itself, Cushing's Manual was written primarily to meet the procedural needs of voluntary, non-legislative societies such as political, cultural, scientific, charitable, and religious ones. 

While Cushing does not use the word "bylaws" as such in connection with his discussion of the suspendibility of rules of order, he does say that every deliberative assembly may "provide rules for itself, either in the form of a general code established beforehand, or by the adoption, from time to time, during its sitting, of such special rules as it may find necessary", and later makes it very plain that these rules may be suspended. It seems rather clear that the term "general code" here refers to an organization's constitution or bylaws, since he distinguishes a "general code established beforehand" from the adoption of special rules. 

In any event, General Robert, in his codification of common parliamentary law in 1915, very clearly states that bylaws in the nature of rules of order may be suspended (ROR, 1915, pp 85 and 2670). This, subject to certain specified exceptions, has been the rule ever since.

And you keep ignoring the fact that an adopted rule of order designed to be effective for the duration of a session which conflicts with a rule in the bylaws which is in the nature of a rule of order is not a violation of the bylaws because such a rule can be suspended (unless, of course, the bylaws were to specifically say that it cannot be suspended.

Cushing makes it clear that the assembly can adopt its own special rules, which will supersede any "common parliamentary law" rule.  The "general code" is very clearly not a constitution or bylaws; the latter did exist in the 1840's in legislative bodied and, as today, was considered a limitation on the body.  That is a fact, that is seen, even today, and even in RONR 12th ed, that you keep ignoring. 

Even ROR (1915) notes that nothing in the constitution of the society should be suspendable, unless the rule provides for its own suspension (Sec 67 p. 265); so, Mr. Honemann, there not a general principle that any rule in the nature of a rule of order could be suspended.  If we need to answer the question of if this is part of the general parliamentary law, that should answer it.

In the case where RONR is established in the bylaws, there is permission granted to suspend rules in the nature of order included in the bylaws.  As we have seen in a few organizations, the framers may include a clause in the bylaws removing that ability to suspend.  2:12 provides that bylaws (excepting a corporate charter or constitution) is the highest body of rules. 2:13 provides that these bylaws place limits on the assembly.  Unless RONR is adopted (without removing that ability), the assembly is limited to follow those rules in the bylaws that are in the nature of a rule of order.

If we all were to assume that there is a general parliamentary law principle that rules in the nature of a rule of order could be suspended, that still would not answer the question.  You would have to show, in addition, that the general parliamentary law, or rule of order adopted apart from the bylaws, can supersede those bylaws.  So far, you have not done so. 

 

[Dan Honemann]

On 10/14/2023 at 4:10 PM, J. J. said:

Cushing makes it clear that the assembly can adopt its own special rules, which will supersede any "common parliamentary law" rule.  The "general code" is very clearly not a constitution or bylaws; the latter did exist in the 1840's in legislative bodied and, as today, was considered a limitation on the body.  That is a fact, that is seen, even today, and even in RONR 12th ed, that you keep ignoring. 

We simply disagree as to this.

On 10/14/2023 at 4:10 PM, J. J. said:

Even ROR (1915) notes that nothing in the constitution of the society should be suspendable, unless the rule provides for its own suspension (Sec 67 p. 265); so, Mr. Honemann, there not a general principle that any rule in the nature of a rule of order could be suspended. 

Well, what ROR (1915) says on page 265 is that nothing should be placed in the constitution that may be suspended, with the one exception there noted. In other words, you shouldn't put rules in the nature of rules of order in the constitution.

On page 267, we find this (emphasis supplied by me):

“By-laws, except those relating to business procedure, cannot be suspended, unless they expressly provide for their suspension. By-laws in the nature of rules of order may be suspended by a two-thirds vote, as stated in 22.”

In 22, on page 85, we find this:

“Sometimes societies include in their by-laws some rules relating to the transaction of business without any intention, evidently, of giving these rules any greater stability than is possessed by other rules of their class, and they may be suspended the same as if they were called rules of order.”

RONR today very clearly reiterates this common (general) parliamentary law. Clauses in bylaws in the nature of rules of order as described 2:14 may be suspended (see 2:8(4), 2:21, 25:7).

On 10/14/2023 at 4:10 PM, J. J. said:

If we all were to assume that there is a general parliamentary law principle that rules in the nature of a rule of order could be suspended, that still would not answer the question.  You would have to show, in addition, that the general parliamentary law, or rule of order adopted apart from the bylaws, can supersede those bylaws.  So far, you have not done so. 

I say again, the adoption of a special rule of order designed to be effective for the duration of a session which conflicts with a rule in the bylaws which is in the nature of a rule of order is not a violation of the bylaws because such a rule in the bylaws can be suspended (unless, of course, the bylaws were to specifically say that it cannot be suspended). The adoption of such a rule of order is, in effect, a suspension of the rule in the bylaws for the duration of the session.

[J. J.]

However, ROR (1915) does not permit rules in the constitution to be suspended.  You have pretty much made Mr. McClintock's case.

Again, I ask you, apart from RONR, is there any source that currently indicates that rules in the nature of rules of order in the bylaws may be suspended? 

Edited October 15, 2023 at 12:51 AM by J. J.

[Dan Honemann]

On 10/14/2023 at 8:27 PM, J. J. said:

However, ROR (1915) does not permit rules in the constitution to be suspended.

I'm afraid that you are misreading what is said on page 265 of ROR (1915).  It lists there the things that a constitution should contain, and this does not include rules of order. It then goes on to say that rules that can be suspended (referring to rules of order) should not be placed in a constitution or bylaws because, as is noted on pages 84-85, and on page 267, such rules can be suspended, and doing so can cause some confusion in this regard. 

On 10/14/2023 at 8:27 PM, J. J. said:

You have pretty much made Mr. McClintock's case.

I've no idea what this means.  His question was: "When RONR is adopted by motion for a meeting (no PA specified in the bylaws), can a bylaw provision in the nature of a rule of order be suspended?" I am confident that by now he is fully convinced that the answer is yes.

On 10/14/2023 at 8:27 PM, J. J. said:

Again, I ask you, apart from RONR, is there any source that currently indicates that rules in the nature in of rules of order in the bylaws may be suspended? 

The only gentlemen who have set forth the rules on this subject prior to the advent of RONR are Mr. Cushing and General Robert, and both have indicated that rules in the bylaws that are in the nature of rules of order can be suspended.

If you are asking me if there has been any publication that deals with this subject subsequent to the publication in 1970 of RONR, I think I have previously responded that, if there are any, it doesn't matter. What matters is what is said in RONR, and not what is said in any other book or manual published after or contemporaneously with any edition of RONR.  The reason for this is that no other book or manual has obtained a sufficient degree of acceptance in this country to warrant such attention. It is quite evident that, in this country, RONR is overwhelmingly recognized as the authority on what constitutes this country's common parliamentary law (except for those provisions having no application outside legislative bodies).

[J. J.]

Page 267 of ROR only deals rules within the bylaws.  265 clearly refers to a constitution and does not permit suspension, except for a rule in the constitution permitting its own suspension.  Cushing does not even deal with bylaws, by your own admission.

A manual may be widely used, but, based on Gen. Robert's belief, that would not establish it as the amorphous general parliamentary law (RONR, 12th ed, xli).   Do not, however, think that I regard RONR's divergence from the general parliamentary law as a bad thing; I take an opposite view. 

The answer to my question is that there is no additional source, currently, that would indicate that rule within the bylaws may be suspended, except if the bylaw provides for its own suspension. 

So, could a special rule supersede something in the bylaws?  No. 

 

[Dan Honemann]

On 10/15/2023 at 8:25 AM, J. J. said:

Page 267 of ROR only deals rules within the bylaws.  265 clearly refers to a constitution and does not permit suspension, except for a rule in the constitution permitting its own suspension.  Cushing does not even deal with bylaws, by your own admission.

A manual may be widely used, but, based on Gen. Robert's belief, that would not establish it as the amorphous general parliamentary law (RONR, 12th ed, xli).   Do not, however, think that I regard RONR's divergence from the general parliamentary law as a bad thing; I take an opposite view. 

The answer to my question is that there is no additional source, currently, that would indicate that rule within the bylaws may be suspended, except if the bylaw provides for its own suspension. 

So, could a special rule supersede something in the bylaws?  No. 

 

Putting aside all of the rest of the obvious errors in this response, the question which you ask here is not at all the question which was asked by Mr. McClintock. His question was : "When RONR is adopted by motion for a meeting (no PA specified in the bylaws), can a bylaw provision in the nature of a rule of order be suspended?" I am confident that by now he is fully convinced that the answer is yes.

I trust you understand that there is a substantial difference between adopting rules for the duration of a meeting and adopting them as special rules of order, to continue in effect from session to session.  The answer to the question which he asked is very clearly yes. 

If you want to discuss a different question, you should post it as your own topic for discussion.

[Shmuel Gerber]

I think this discussion has become a bit tangled because the OP's question included the premise shown in boldface here:

"When RONR is adopted by motion for a meeting (no PA specified in the bylaws), can a bylaw provision in the nature of a rule of order be suspended?"

Setting aside that premise, the question becomes "When no parliamentary authority is specified in the bylaws, can a bylaw provision in the nature of a rule of order be suspended?"

According to RONR:

"2:21    Rules of order—whether contained in the parliamentary authority or adopted as special rules of order—can be suspended by a two-thirds vote as explained in 25 (with the exceptions there specified). Rules clearly identifiable as in the nature of rules of order that are placed within the bylaws can (with the exceptions specified in 25) also be suspended by a two-thirds vote; but, except for such rules and for clauses that provide for their own suspension, as stated above, rules in the bylaws cannot be suspended."

This paragraph contains no caveat as to whether RONR has been adopted as the organization's parliamentary authority—whether in the bylaws, by a main motion applying to all meetings, or by a main motion applying to a single meeting—or not. So the answer is: According to RONR, yes. And, apparently, according to J. J., no.

The benefit of the assembly's having adopted RONR by motion for a meeting (where no PA has been specified in the bylaws) is not that RONR will supersede some conflicting provision in the bylaws—indeed, even when RONR is adopted in the bylaws it still does not supersede any conflicting provisions. Rather, the benefit of the assembly's having adopted RONR by motion for a meeting is that the assembly has expressed its desire to follow the rules in RONR, and so, to paraphrase RONR 2:18, what J. J. may have to say in conflict with the adopted parliamentary authority then has no bearing on the case. 🙂

[Weldon Merritt]

On 10/15/2023 at 8:12 AM, Shmuel Gerber said:

the benefit of the assembly's having adopted RONR by motion for a meeting is that the assembly has expressed its desire to follow the rules in RONR, and so, to paraphrase RONR 2:18, what J. J. may have to say in conflict with the adopted parliamentary authority then has no bearing on the case. 🙂

QED!

[J. J.]

On 10/15/2023 at 10:12 AM, Shmuel Gerber said:

I think this discussion has become a bit tangled because the OP's question included the premise shown in boldface here:

"When RONR is adopted by motion for a meeting (no PA specified in the bylaws), can a bylaw provision in the nature of a rule of order be suspended?"

Setting aside that premise, the question becomes "When no parliamentary authority is specified in the bylaws, can a bylaw provision in the nature of a rule of order be suspended?"

According to RONR:

"2:21    Rules of order—whether contained in the parliamentary authority or adopted as special rules of order—can be suspended by a two-thirds vote as explained in 25 (with the exceptions there specified). Rules clearly identifiable as in the nature of rules of order that are placed within the bylaws can (with the exceptions specified in 25) also be suspended by a two-thirds vote; but, except for such rules and for clauses that provide for their own suspension, as stated above, rules in the bylaws cannot be suspended."

This paragraph contains no caveat as to whether RONR has been adopted as the organization's parliamentary authority—whether in the bylaws, by a main motion applying to all meetings, or by a main motion applying to a single meeting—or not. So the answer is: According to RONR, yes. And, apparently, according to J. J., no.

The benefit of the assembly's having adopted RONR by motion for a meeting (where no PA has been specified in the bylaws) is not that RONR will supersede some conflicting provision in the bylaws—indeed, even when RONR is adopted in the bylaws it still does not supersede any conflicting provisions. Rather, the benefit of the assembly's having adopted RONR by motion for a meeting is that the assembly has expressed its desire to follow the rules in RONR, and so, to paraphrase RONR 2:18, what J. J. may have to say in conflict with the adopted parliamentary authority then has no bearing on the case. 🙂

 

Let's, however, be clear about this. 2:12 says that the bylaws "...supersede all other rules of the society, except the corporate charter (2:12)."  That applies to RONR as well.  If a rule of order, adopted as such, conflicts with the bylaws, the rule of order is superseded.  The assembly could not adopt a valid rule of order that would violate the bylaws, even if its effect would be ended before the end of the session. 

It is not a question of if the assembly can adopt a rule of order or a parliamentary authority by motion.  It is a question of if that motion can violate the bylaws. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 10/16/2023 at 7:12 AM, J. J. said:

 

Let's, however, be clear about this. 2:12 says that the bylaws "...supersede all other rules of the society, except the corporate charter (2:12)."  That applies to RONR as well.  If a rule of order, adopted as such, conflicts with the bylaws, the rule of order is superseded.  The assembly could not adopt a valid rule of order that would violate the bylaws, even if its effect would be ended before the end of the session. 

It is not a question of if the assembly can adopt a rule of order or a parliamentary authority by motion.  It is a question of if that motion can violate the bylaws. 

I think, based upon some of your prior postings, that you may have an interesting question to raise, but you keep hiding it by this sort of assertion regarding the suspendibility of rules of order.

What RONR says, and what Cushing's Manual* and ROR said, is that rules in bylaws which are in the nature of rules of order can be suspended. This is common parliamentary law in this country. If an organization's bylaws contain a rule such as, let's say, "motions to postpone indefinitely may not be entertained during any general convention", and nothing else of relevance, such a rule may be suspended, either for a single instance or for the duration of an entire general convention.

If you do want to raise a different question, you should, as I said before, do so by posting it as a new topic.

----------------------

*As you have previously noted, some argument may be raised as to whether or not Cushing"s Manual actually says this, but it doesn't really matter. Every edition of ROR and RONR clearly does.

 

 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 10/16/2023 at 7:12 AM, J. J. said:

Let's, however, be clear about this. 2:12 says that the bylaws "...supersede all other rules of the society, except the corporate charter (2:12)."  That applies to RONR as well.  If a rule of order, adopted as such, conflicts with the bylaws, the rule of order is superseded.  The assembly could not adopt a valid rule of order that would violate the bylaws, even if its effect would be ended before the end of the session. 

It is not a question of if the assembly can adopt a rule of order or a parliamentary authority by motion.  It is a question of if that motion can violate the bylaws. 

If the bylaws do not prohibit the suspension of rules of order contained therein, then such suspension is not prohibited by anything else.  Paragraph 2:12 is generally true, but it is a general rule, and subject to supersedure by more specific provisions such as those that apply to rules in the nature of rules of order.  Since these provisions date back to early Cushing's and beyond, I have no trouble considering them to be part of the common parliamentary law.

While this reply does not attempt to address the question of angels dancing on pins, I think it does address the original question.

[J. J.]

On 10/16/2023 at 9:37 AM, Dan Honemann said:

I think, based upon some of your prior postings, that you may have an interesting question to raise, but you keep hiding it by this sort of assertion regarding the suspendibility of rules of order.

What RONR says, and what Cushing's Manual* and ROR said, is that rules in bylaws which are in the nature of rules of order can be suspended. This is common parliamentary law in this country. If an organization's bylaws contain a rule such as, let's say, "motions to postpone indefinitely may not be entertained during any general convention", and nothing else of relevance, such a rule may be suspended, either for a single instance or for the duration of an entire general convention.

If you do want to raise a different question, you should, as I said before, do so by posting it as a new topic.

----------------------

*As you have previously noted, some argument may be raised as to whether or not Cushing"s Manual actually says this, but it doesn't really matter. Every edition of ROR and RONR clearly does.

 

 

I do not agree that RONR is the "common parliamentary law" is US, as pp.  xxix-xxx indicates.  RONR, correctly, does not make that claim.  RONR may correspond to the "common parliamentary law" on some points and certainly contributes to it. 

That said, it is a function of a bylaw that some of its provisions may provide for the own suspension by the assembly.  By incorporating RONR into the bylaws provides for that self suspension of rules considered to be "in the nature of rules of order."  The incorporation makes RONR part of the bylaws. 

When a society does not incorporate RONR into the bylaws, there is no self suspension in the bylaws, except for any that the society has placed in the bylaws. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 10/24/2023 at 9:57 AM, J. J. said:

I do not agree that RONR is the "common parliamentary law" is US, as pp.  xxix-xxx indicates.  RONR, correctly, does not make that claim.  RONR may correspond to the "common parliamentary law" on some points and certainly contributes to it. 

The only claim that I am making is that which RONR itself makes in the very first sentence of its Introduction (RONR, 12th ed., p. xxix):

"This book embodies a codification of the present-day general parliamentary law (omitting provisions having no application outside legislative bodies)." 

In the second paragraph on that same page, RONR makes it clear that the terms "general parliamentary law" and "common parliamentary law" refer to the same thing.

On 10/24/2023 at 9:57 AM, J. J. said:

That said, it is a function of a bylaw that some of its provisions may provide for the own suspension by the assembly.  By incorporating RONR into the bylaws provides for that self suspension of rules considered to be "in the nature of rules of order."  The incorporation makes RONR part of the bylaws. 

I have no quarrel with this.

On 10/24/2023 at 9:57 AM, J. J. said:

When a society does not incorporate RONR into the bylaws, there is no self suspension in the bylaws, except for any that the society has placed in the bylaws. 

This depends upon whether or not the society has adopted a different parliamentary authority or set of rules of order, and if it has, what that authority or those rules say.  If has not done so, then common parliamentary law is applicable, and the best evidence of what that law is is found in RONR.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 10/24/2023 at 9:57 AM, J. J. said:

When a society does not incorporate RONR into the bylaws, there is no self suspension in the bylaws, except for any that the society has placed in the bylaws. 

The default suspensibility of rules of order in a society's adopted code of rules (bylaws) goes back far earlier than ROR. 

It seems to me that what ROR and RONR did was to define the threshold required to suspend them at the two-thirds level.  Absent this or some another authority, the threshold(s) set by local rules and customs might be all over the place, somewhere between a spare majority and unanimous consent.

[J. J.]

On 10/24/2023 at 10:37 AM, Dan Honemann said:

The only claim that I am making is that which RONR itself makes in the very first sentence of its Introduction (RONR, 12th ed., p. xxix):

"This book embodies a codification of the present-day general parliamentary law (omitting provisions having no application outside legislative bodies)." 

In the second paragraph on that same page, RONR makes it clear that the terms "general parliamentary law" and "common parliamentary law" refer to the same thing.

I have no quarrel with this.

This depends upon whether or not the society has adopted a different parliamentary authority or set of rules of order, and if it has, what that authority or those rules say.  If has not done so, then common parliamentary law is applicable, and the best evidence of what that law is is found in RONR.

"A codification," not "the codification."   There are variations and this may be one of them.

I prefer the term "general parliamentary law," as "common parliamentary law" is too easily confused with "common law."

RONR provides that the bylaws supersede all lower ranking rules (2:12); that is probably an embodiment of the general parliamentary law.  An adopted rule, outside of those bylaws, cannot supersede, even for a few seconds, those bylaws.  A rule stating that a bylaw can be suspended cannot be a rule superseded by the bylaws; it would have to be one incorporated in the bylaws.

An adopted rule, outside of the bylaws, could possibly be suspended; that is consistent with Cushing.  That, however, is not the issue. 

[J. J.]

On 10/24/2023 at 10:41 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

The default suspensibility of rules of order in a society's adopted code of rules (bylaws) goes back far earlier than ROR. 

It seems to me that what ROR and RONR did was to define the threshold required to suspend them at the two-thirds level.  Absent this or some another authority, the threshold(s) set by local rules and customs might be all over the place, somewhere between a spare majority and unanimous consent.

Would you care to cite where that is.

I have not found any that says that prior RO (1876) nor any in works that have been published in the last 60 years.  (There is one that was published after 1915, but it was not published within the last 70 years.)

[Dan Honemann]

On 10/25/2023 at 8:36 AM, J. J. said:

"A codification," not "the codification."

Yes, that is exactly what I said.

On 10/25/2023 at 8:36 AM, J. J. said:

There are variations and this may be one of them.

RONR is the only authoritative codification of common parliamentary law in this country today (other than those relating exclusively to legislative bodies).

On 10/25/2023 at 8:36 AM, J. J. said:

I prefer the term "general parliamentary law," as "common parliamentary law" is too easily confused with "common law."

This is understandable.

On 10/25/2023 at 8:36 AM, J. J. said:

RONR provides that the bylaws supersede all lower ranking rules (2:12); that is probably an embodiment of the general parliamentary law.  An adopted rule, outside of those bylaws, cannot supersede, even for a few seconds, those bylaws.  A rule stating that a bylaw can be suspended cannot be a rule superseded by the bylaws; it would have to be one incorporated in the bylaws.

It is simply a matter of properly construing what the bylaws say.

On 10/25/2023 at 8:36 AM, J. J. said:

An adopted rule, outside of the bylaws, could possibly be suspended; that is consistent with Cushing.  That, however, is not the issue. 

This is correct, it isn't the issue.