Articles on suspending bylaws - have they fallen out of favor?

[BaileyPoo]

There used to almost always be an article in the bylaws that addressed the ability to suspend them. It generally stated that only bylaws that addressed business procedures or operations could be suspended unless the bylaw included language saying that particular bylaw could be suspended.   I have recently noticed both sample and actual bylaws that omit any reference to suspending bylaws.  Has that become the desired practice? If so, why?  I'm hoping it has... but I want support for my position.

[Joshua Katz]

I can't speak to either history or what's current en vogue, but I struggle to see the point of a provision as described. That's what RONR says, so why not just rely on that? Plus, at least per your paraphrase, it sounds like it used different language than RONR, and so could introduce confusion as to whether it was changing something or just doing the same thing. So if that was historical practice and, in fact, is no longer done, I too agree that that's a desirable change.

[BaileyPoo]

Thank you!  I'm a bit older than you look, and I remember those provisions well.  They caused significant confusion, descension, divisions of the house and heated arguments when folks could not agree.  I was able to find the references I needed after some serious perusing of the RONR index, so my work here is done... for the time being.  Thanks again!

[Joshua Katz]

On 11/1/2023 at 4:09 PM, BaileyPoo said:

I'm a bit older than you look,

Thanks, but it's an old picture. I avoid new ones.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 11/1/2023 at 2:55 PM, BaileyPoo said:

There used to almost always be an article in the bylaws that addressed the ability to suspend them. It generally stated that only bylaws that addressed business procedures or operations could be suspended unless the bylaw included language saying that particular bylaw could be suspended.   I have recently noticed both sample and actual bylaws that omit any reference to suspending bylaws.  Has that become the desired practice? If so, why?  I'm hoping it has... but I want support for my position.

There is no need for such a rule since that is the rule under RONR.

[Josh Martin]

On 11/1/2023 at 2:01 PM, Joshua Katz said:

I can't speak to either history or what's current en vogue, but I struggle to see the point of a provision as described. That's what RONR says, so why not just rely on that? Plus, at least per your paraphrase, it sounds like it used different language than RONR, and so could introduce confusion as to whether it was changing something or just doing the same thing. So if that was historical practice and, in fact, is no longer done, I too agree that that's a desirable change.

I would note that the OP described a rule which says that "only bylaws that addressed business procedures or operations could be suspended unless the bylaw included language saying that particular bylaw could be suspended." I am not entirely certain what is meant by "business procedures or operations," so I don't know that I can say for certain that this is the same thing as a rule in the nature of a rule of order.

[Richard Brown]

I agree with my colleagues.  I am quite a bit older than the young-looking Mr. Katz, and I have been working as a professional parliamentarian for 20 years or so, but I have never seen bylaw language (or suggested bylaw language) such as the language quoted by the original poster.  What I HAVE been seeing for all of those 20 years is the provision in RONR which provides that rules in the bylaws which are in the nature of rules of order may be suspended.   That has been the rule in the various editions of Robert's Rules of Order since the 4th edition (Robert's Rules of Order, Revised) which was published over 100 years ago in 1915.  I have never seen anything in any edition of Robert's Rules of Order that makes specific reference to rules in the bylaws regarding "business procedures or operations" being suspendable.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 11/2/2023 at 1:42 PM, Richard Brown said:

I agree with my colleagues.

Quite right, young man.