Suspending Rules of Order

[Wright Stuff]

There's no doubt in my mind that, at some point, I will be able to read and interpret these rules in the book as they are intended. However, in my quest to read the book cover to cover, I'm encountering things that are difficult to understand. Let me start with an easy one.

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.

The way I first read this rule is as follows:

Rules of order...can be suspended by a two-thirds vote.

[S]pecial rules of order...can be suspended by a two-thirds vote.

Rules clearly identifiable as in the nature of rules of order that are placed within the bylaws can...also be suspended by a two-thirds vote.

[R]ules in the bylaws cannot be suspended.

I immediately realized that I read something wrong. Then I went back and mentally amended the text to read as below:

Rules of order...can be suspended by a two-thirds vote.

[S]pecial rules of order...can be suspended by a two-thirds vote.

Rules clearly identifiable as in the nature of rules of order that are placed within the bylaws can...also be suspended by a two-thirds vote.

[E]xcept for [Rules clearly identifiable as in the nature of rules of order that are placed within the bylaws and for clauses that provide for their own suspension], rules in the bylaws cannot be suspended.

Did I get it right the second time?

[Gary Novosielski]

Yes, with the proviso that some rules, especially locally adopted ones, may contain some specific provisions about their own suspension, which would override the general rules.  

[J. J.]

I think so. 

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Yes but you are not incorrect it is fantastically vague, and I prefer AIPSC on this which is different from RONR in that nothing in bylaws can be suspended.  There is so much grey area on that topic.  Some things are very clearly in the nature of a rule of order but others.... not so much.

[J. J.]

On 12/31/2023 at 1:31 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

Yes but you are not incorrect it is fantastically vague, and I prefer AIPSC on this which is different from RONR in that nothing in bylaws can be suspended.  There is so much grey area on that topic.  Some things are very clearly in the nature of a rule of order but others.... not so much.

Actually, the second edition changes that to an extent. 

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Does it?  How so?  just listened to a presentation I might have misunderstood as I am less than a novice on AISCP.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Though maybe out of scope here, apologies. We can talk offline if so.

[KrisH]

Needing to jump on here, I too am having issue understanding.  If the bylaws list the order of business, can someone other than the chair ask for the order to be changed, does the chair have more input into the request, if by another individual?  I thought I found something on this issue that was more clear, but now cant find it.

[Joshua Katz]

On 1/3/2024 at 6:41 AM, KrisH said:

If the bylaws list the order of business, can someone other than the chair ask for the order to be changed,

There is no motion in RONR that may only be made by the chair. The chair has no special powers or rights in making motions. Indeed, the chair has certain disabilities in making motions, such that he usually cannot. 

 

On 1/3/2024 at 6:41 AM, KrisH said:

does the chair have more input into the request, if by another individual?

No. The chair's duty is to preside, facilitiating the body in making decisions, not to make them for it.