Creating a rule that removes the right of a single member that a motion be read

[Gregory Carlson]

A society wishes to adopt the following rule:

“If the text of a main motion or proposed meeting standing rules was included with the call of the meeting, then the motion shall not be read at the meeting.  This rule may not be suspended.”

In my opinion, even though this is in the nature of a rule of order (2:14), the only way practical way to accomplish this is with a Bylaws Amendment and not as a Special Rule of Order for two reasons:

1)      Because 33:21 states: “When any paper is laid before the assembly or action, it is a right of every member that it be read once…”

2)      25:2(7) states: “No rules protecting a minority of a particular size can be suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as the minority protected by the rule.”

Would it require a unanimous vote to make this a special rule of order, given what is said in 33:21 and 25:2(7)?

It is possible I am mixing up the rules of "Suspend the rules" with the rules for "Creating a special rule of order."  I am always cautious when a rule is being considered that affects the rights of a minority of one member.  Thanks.

[Atul Kapur]

Special rules of order supercede RONR, so this could be adopted as a special rule using the standard vote threshold that applies. 

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 10/18/2023 at 6:56 AM, Atul Kapur said:

Special rules of order supercede RONR, so this could be adopted as a special rule using the standard vote threshold that applies. 

I agree. 

On 10/17/2023 at 11:38 PM, Gregory Carlson said:

“If the text of a main motion or proposed meeting standing rules was included with the call of the meeting, then the motion shall not be read at the meeting.  This rule may not be suspended.”

This seems like an exceptionally unwise rule. First of all, if you're simply trying to remove the right of an individual member to demand that the motion be read, then that is what the rule should say. There is probably no reason to forbid the text from being read, and there's almost certainly no reason to forbid suspension of the rule. 

[Josh Martin]

On 10/17/2023 at 10:38 PM, Gregory Carlson said:

A society wishes to adopt the following rule:

“If the text of a main motion or proposed meeting standing rules was included with the call of the meeting, then the motion shall not be read at the meeting.  This rule may not be suspended.”

To the extent an organization wishes to adopt this rule, I would suggest instead using the wording "If the text of a main motion or proposed meeting standing rules was included with the call of the meeting, then the motion shall not be read at the meeting, unless otherwise ordered by the assembly."

If the assembly has some sort of issue with people demanding things to be read for dilatory purposes, it may well be reasonable to remove the right of a single member to demand that a motion be read, provided that the text of the motion has been provided. But it doesn't seem to make much sense to provide that the motion shall not be read even if the assembly wants it to be read - and in fact, even if every member present wants it to be read.

On 10/17/2023 at 10:38 PM, Gregory Carlson said:

In my opinion, even though this is in the nature of a rule of order (2:14), the only way practical way to accomplish this is with a Bylaws Amendment and not as a Special Rule of Order for two reasons:

1)      Because 33:21 states: “When any paper is laid before the assembly or action, it is a right of every member that it be read once…”

2)      25:2(7) states: “No rules protecting a minority of a particular size can be suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as the minority protected by the rule.”

I disagree. Special rules of order supersede what is said in RONR, so what is said in 33:21 has no relevance to this question. And the rule in 25:2 only applies to suspending rules, not adopting special rules of order.

The only circumstances in which a rule in RONR may only be superseded by a rule in the bylaws is when the text says so. As a general matter, an organization is free to adopt whatever special rules of order it wishes, even dumb ones.

"Special rules of order supersede any rules in the parliamentary authority with which they may conflict...

However, when the parliamentary authority is prescribed in the bylaws, and that authority states that a certain rule can be altered only by a provision in the bylaws, no special rule of order can supersede that rule." RONR (12th ed.) 2:16, 2:16n5

"Within this framework under the general parliamentary law, an assembly or society is free to adopt any rules it may wish (even rules deviating from parliamentary law) provided that, in the procedure of adopting them, it conforms to parliamentary law or its own existing rules." RONR (12th ed.) 2:2

On 10/17/2023 at 10:38 PM, Gregory Carlson said:

Would it require a unanimous vote to make this a special rule of order, given what is said in 33:21 and 25:2(7)?

No.

On 10/17/2023 at 10:38 PM, Gregory Carlson said:

It is possible I am mixing up the rules of "Suspend the rules" with the rules for "Creating a special rule of order."  I am always cautious when a rule is being considered that affects the rights of a minority of one member.  Thanks.

Yes, I believe you are mixing up the rules relating to Suspend the Rules with the rules for creating a special rule of order. I think you are right to be cautious about a rule that affects the rights of a minority of one member (especially when the rule is poorly written), but the rule in question may nonetheless be adopted by a special rule of order, provided that the requirements for adoption of a special rule of order are met.

Edited October 18, 2023 at 05:32 PM by Josh Martin