Hierarchy of Governing Documents

[Tomm]

Can someone please clarify the terms used in the hierarchy of governing documents?

RONRIB states:

1. Law

2 Corporate charter

3. Bylaws or Constitution

4 Rules of Order

       -Special rules of order

       - Parliamentary authority

5. Standing rules

6. Custom

 

C. Alan Jennings book (4th Ed. pg. 28) has a tie position for both special rules of order and standing rules and places RONR just above Custom?

Question: I'm confused about where the actual RONR falls into place? Are the "4 Rules of Order" simply intended to be a generic "heading" covering Special rules of order and parliamentary authority?

And why is Parliamentary authority above Standing rules, when Standing rules are handled in the same manner as special rules of order (i.e. separate heading in same book as bylaws?)

HELP!

   

 

[Josh Martin]

On 2/3/2024 at 10:47 PM, Tomm said:

RONRIB states:

1. Law

2 Corporate charter

3. Bylaws or Constitution

4 Rules of Order

       -Special rules of order

       - Parliamentary authority

5. Standing rules

6. Custom

 

C. Alan Jennings book (4th Ed. pg. 28) has a tie position for both special rules of order and standing rules and places RONR just above Custom?

I think this is really a distinction without a difference, because standing rules, by their nature will not conflict with the parliamentary authority. So whether they're placed above or below RONR will not make any practical difference.

With that said, strictly speaking, the order in RONR is correct.

On 2/3/2024 at 10:47 PM, Tomm said:

Question: I'm confused about where the actual RONR falls into place? Are the "4 Rules of Order" simply intended to be a generic "heading" covering Special rules of order and parliamentary authority?

Yes, that's correct. "Rules of Order" is a general category which includes both special rules of order and the parliamentary authority. Special rules of order take precedence over the parliamentary authority.

On 2/3/2024 at 10:47 PM, Tomm said:

And why is Parliamentary authority above Standing rules, when Standing rules are handled in the same manner as special rules of order (i.e. separate heading in same book as bylaws?)

Rules of order and standing rules deal with different subject matters and, by their nature, will not come into conflict. As a result, I ultimately do not think it makes any practical difference whether the standing rules or parliamentary authority is considered to be higher in precedence.

I also would note that I am not certain it is entirely correct to say that standing rules "are handled in the same manner as special rules of order." The requirements for adopting a special rule of order are higher than for adopting a standing rule.

Edited February 4, 2024 at 03:24 PM by Josh Martin

[Joshua Katz]

On 2/3/2024 at 11:47 PM, Tomm said:

And why is Parliamentary authority above Standing rules, when Standing rules are handled in the same manner as special rules of order (i.e. separate heading in same book as bylaws?)

 

This strikes me as irrelevant. The reason these documents are put in the same book (in some organizations) but not the parliamentary authority is that the parliamentary authority is already a book, and is very long. I think this is unrelated to the hierarchy of rules. 

[Tomm]

On 2/4/2024 at 8:23 AM, Josh Martin said:

I also would note that I am not certain it is entirely correct to say that standing rules "are handled in the same manner as special rules of order."

Thanks, but I was only referring to the manner in which they should properly be maintained.