When RONR is adopted by motion for a meeting

[Gary Novosielski]

On 10/25/2023 at 8:40 AM, J. J. said:

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.)

Cushing's (1845) pg. 90 says as much, calling it an already established practice: 

163. When any contemplated motion or pro-
ceeding is rendered impracticable, by reason
of the existence of some special rule by which
it is prohibited, it has become an established
practice in this country, to suspend or dispense
with the rule, for the purpose of admitting the
proceeding or motion which is desired. This
can only be, done by a motion and question ;
and, where this course is taken in order to a
motion having reference to a proposition then
under consideration, a motion to suspend the
rule supersedes the original question for the
time being, and is first to be decided.

[J. J.]

On 10/25/2023 at 1:17 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Cushing's (1845) pg. 90 says as much, calling it an already established practice: 

163. When any contemplated motion or pro-
ceeding is rendered impracticable, by reason
of the existence of some special rule by which
it is prohibited, it has become an established
practice in this country, to suspend or dispense
with the rule, for the purpose of admitting the
proceeding or motion which is desired. This
can only be, done by a motion and question ;
and, where this course is taken in order to a
motion having reference to a proposition then
under consideration, a motion to suspend the
rule supersedes the original question for the
time being, and is first to be decided.

That does not deal with bylaws, but the suspension of a special rule, as stated. 

 

Even the claim that ROR indicates that a constitution should not contain rules in the nature of a rule of order is in error.  ROR clearly notes that a constitution should provide for its own amendment; that is a rule in the nature of a rule of order.  Yet Section 67 notes, "Nothing should be placed in the constitution that may be suspended, except in the case of requiring elections of officers to be by ballot, in which case the requirement may be qualified so as to allow the ballot to be dispensed with by a unanimous vote when there is but one candidate for the office."

[Dan Honemann]

On 10/26/2023 at 8:45 AM, J. J. said:

Even the claim that ROR indicates that a constitution should not contain rules in the nature of a rule of order is in error.  ROR clearly notes that a constitution should provide for its own amendment; that is a rule in the nature of a rule of order.  Yet Section 67 notes, "Nothing should be placed in the constitution that may be suspended, except in the case of requiring elections of officers to be by ballot, in which case the requirement may be qualified so as to allow the ballot to be dispensed with by a unanimous vote when there is but one candidate for the office."

But you will note that ROR, elsewhere in Section 67 and also in Section 68, says that each society should adopt rules for the amendment of its constitution or bylaws, and that such rules should always require previous notice.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 10/26/2023 at 8:45 AM, J. J. said:

That does not deal with bylaws, but the suspension of a special rule, as stated. 

It does not deal with bylaws because Cushing's does not deal with bylaws at all, at least in early editions.  Bylaws at that stage were nothing but a collection of special rules, so the suspension provision applied equally to all of them--as it does today.

Edited October 26, 2023 at 05:00 PM by Gary Novosielski

[J. J.]

On 10/26/2023 at 9:47 AM, Dan Honemann said:

But you will note that ROR, elsewhere in Section 67 and also in Section 68, says that each society should adopt rules for the amendment of its constitution or bylaws, and that such rules should always require previous notice.

Which has no bearing on the issue.   Gen. Robert gave an example of a rule of the nature of a rule of order in the constitution, and then said it could not be suspended. 

Edited October 26, 2023 at 08:30 PM by J. J.
Added text for clarity.

[J. J.]

On 10/26/2023 at 12:59 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

It does not deal with bylaws because Cushing's does not deal with bylaws at all, at least in early editions.  Bylaws at that stage were nothing but a collection of special rules, so the suspension provision applied equally to all of them--as it does today.

Since this is a question of bylaws, why then is Cushing relevant? You cited it.

Keep in mind that this is not a question of if an adopted special rule, below the level of a bylaw, can be suspended.  It is not a question of if a bylaw may provide for its own suspension. 

It is a question of if an adopted special rule can supersede a bylaw.  2:13 would indicate that it cannot.  That is the problem. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 10/26/2023 at 4:12 PM, J. J. said:

Since this is a question of bylaws, why then is Cushing relevant? You cited it.

Keep in mind that this is not a question of if an adopted special rule, below the level of a bylaw, can be suspended.  It is not a question of if a bylaw may provide for its own suspension. 

It is a question of if an adopted special rule can supersede a bylaw.  2:13 would indicate that it cannot.  That is the problem. 

I don't see anything in 2:13 that says anything about special rules.  It just says new members need a copy of the bylaws.

Regardless, it is not disputed that bylaws supersede special rules of order. They do.

But the suspensibility of rules in the nature of rules of order applies to both SROs and bylaws, and did, even before bylaws were called bylaws.  

I don't see a problem.

Edited October 26, 2023 at 08:46 PM by Gary Novosielski

[J. J.]

2:12, sorry. 

No.  By adopting a bylaw, no matter what its "nature," the assembly has agreed to be bound by that bylaw.  That bylaw may provide for its own suspension, but a lesser rule cannot.  Adopting a rule in the bylaws that permits the suspension of a certain class of rules is permissible.  Adopt a rule that is below the bylaws cannot change a rule, even for a fleeting period, in the bylaws.

You have claimed, "the suspensibility of rules in the nature of rules of order applies to both SROs and bylaws."  So far, there has been nothing to support that claim, except the canon of Robert, and even then, there is support it did not, initially, apply to rules in the nature of a rule of order in a constitution. 

[Dan Honemann]

Since we keep hearing the same things over and over again in this thread, it's time to call it quits.