Do ignored/violated bylaws set a precedent

[Clyde Gibson]

I am currently  a member of a condominium board.  At our most recent meeting the President announced that she had already selected a Nominations committee and each selectee had accepted the position.  When I made a point of order that our bylaw stated that the nominations committee is selected by the board,  the President stated that the president had selected the nominations committee for the last 3 years and that a precedent had been set.  I thought that breaking bylaws did not set a precedent, but I was not able to find that section in Roberts Rules.  Can someone direct me to that section of RONR?

Edited October 18, 2023 at 08:36 PM by Clyde Gibson
Correcting Grammar

[Josh Martin]

On 10/18/2023 at 3:31 PM, Clyde Gibson said:

I am currently  a member of a condominium board.  At our most recent meeting the President announced that she had already selected a Nominations committee and each selectee had accepted the position.  When I made a point of order that our bylaw stated that the nominations committee is selected by the board,  the President stated that the president had selected the nominations committee for the last 3 years and that a precedent had been set.  I thought that breaking bylaws did not set a precedent, but I was not able to find that section in Roberts Rules.  Can someone direct me to that section of RONR?

I concur.

First, the term "precedent" means something different in RONR than its colloquial usage. The fact that something has historically been done a certain way does not make a "precedent." Rather, a precedent is created by a ruling of the chair and any subsequent appeal. Precedent is discussed in RONR (12th ed.) 23:10-23:11.

It does not seem to me, from the facts presented, that any precedent has been set in this matter. Rather, this is a custom. And RONR is clear that if a custom conflicts with a written rule, the rule wins.

"In some organizations, a particular practice may sometimes come to be followed as a matter of established custom so that it is treated practically as if it were prescribed by a rule. If there is no contrary provision in the parliamentary authority or written rules of the organization, such an established custom is adhered to unless the assembly, by a majority vote, agrees in a particular instance to do otherwise. However, if a customary practice is or becomes in conflict with the parliamentary authority or any written rule, and a Point of Order (23) citing the conflict is raised at any time, the custom falls to the ground, and the conflicting provision in the parliamentary authority or written rule must thereafter be complied with. If it is then desired to follow the former practice, a special rule of order (or, in appropriate circumstances, a standing rule or a bylaw provision) can be added or amended to incorporate it." RONR (12th ed.) 2:25

So the organization is obliged to have the board appoint the Nominating Committee, as required by the bylaws, notwithstanding the organization's failure to follow its bylaws for the past three years.

To be clear, even if a precedent had been set on this matter, a precedent which is wrong can and should still be overruled. If the organization wishes to change the manner in which the nominating committee is selected, the only way to do so would be to amend the bylaws.

For what it is worth, RONR also strongly advises against giving the President the authority to appoint the Nominating Committee. See RONR (12th ed.) 46:10.

Edited October 18, 2023 at 09:01 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

No, the parliamentary term for this is "rubbish".   

 

On 10/18/2023 at 5:00 PM, Josh Martin said:

I concur.

First, the term "precedent" means something different in RONR than its colloquial usage. The fact that something has historically been done a certain way does not make a "precedent." Rather, a precedent is created by a ruling of the chair and any subsequent appeal. Precedent is discussed in RONR (12th ed.) 23:10-23:11.

It does not seem to me, from the facts presented, that any precedent has been set in this matter. Rather, this is a custom. And RONR is clear that if a custom conflicts with a written rule, the rule wins.

"In some organizations, a particular practice may sometimes come to be followed as a matter of established custom so that it is treated practically as if it were prescribed by a rule. If there is no contrary provision in the parliamentary authority or written rules of the organization, such an established custom is adhered to unless the assembly, by a majority vote, agrees in a particular instance to do otherwise. However, if a customary practice is or becomes in conflict with the parliamentary authority or any written rule, and a Point of Order (23) citing the conflict is raised at any time, the custom falls to the ground, and the conflicting provision in the parliamentary authority or written rule must thereafter be complied with. If it is then desired to follow the former practice, a special rule of order (or, in appropriate circumstances, a standing rule or a bylaw provision) can be added or amended to incorporate it." RONR (12th ed.) 2:25

To be clear, even if a precedent had been set on this matter, a precedent which is wrong can and should still be overruled. If the organization wishes to change the manner in which the nominating committee is selected, the only way to do so would be to amend the bylaws.

For what it is worth, RONR also strongly advises against giving the President the authority to appoint the Nominating Committee. See RONR (12th ed.) 46:10.

LOL, you beat me by mere seconds.  My reply would have been nearly a word-for-word duplicate, with the exception of the first line, which I have preserved above.

Edited October 18, 2023 at 09:05 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Clyde Gibson]

Thank you all.  That answered my question.  Custom was the word that I should have been   I was looking for breaking bylaws, precedents, etc.