Question about Amending Something Previously Adopted

[Guest James]

Our bylaws specify that house rules/ground rules are to be recommended by a standing committee and approved by the Board.  To me, this seems very similar to the situation described in detail in RONR where a Bylaws committee recommends bylaws changes, and the whole assembly moves the recommendations for debate, amendment, and approval/rejection.  That's fine and that's the way we have handled input from the rules committee.

My question is, does the approving body (in our case, the Executive Board) still retain the ability to amend something previously adopted to update those rules without a separate recommendation from the rules committee, or does the bylaws formula of "X recommends, Y approves" eliminate the ability of the approving body to make changes?  What I am concerned about is the need to implement some clarifying language for something that has been misunderstood since the latest rules update was approved and released.  As I am part of the Board, I want to know if I can introduce the necessary clarification as an amendment to something previously adopted or if I must get the rules committee to put forth a recommendation for the desired change.

Thanks!

[Rob Elsman]

I'm afraid the answer to the question will likely have to be obtained by interpreting the relevant bylaws. RONR (12th ed.) does not authorize an executive board to adopt or amend rules of order in the manner described.

[Dan Honemann]

On 4/1/2024 at 8:55 AM, Guest James said:

Our bylaws specify that house rules/ground rules are to be recommended by a standing committee and approved by the Board. 

I think it would be helpful if you would quote exactly what your bylaws say in this connection.

[Josh Martin]

On 4/1/2024 at 7:55 AM, Guest James said:

My question is, does the approving body (in our case, the Executive Board) still retain the ability to amend something previously adopted to update those rules without a separate recommendation from the rules committee, or does the bylaws formula of "X recommends, Y approves" eliminate the ability of the approving body to make changes?  What I am concerned about is the need to implement some clarifying language for something that has been misunderstood since the latest rules update was approved and released.  As I am part of the Board, I want to know if I can introduce the necessary clarification as an amendment to something previously adopted or if I must get the rules committee to put forth a recommendation for the desired change.

I don't think it's possible to answer this question without knowing the exact language your bylaws use in this connection.

[Rob Elsman]

It might also be appropriate to get a formal definition of "...house rules/ground rules...". At first, I was just certain this is a colloquial term that is functionally equivalent to rules of order, but, upon further reflection, I am less sure about the real nature of these rules.

[Guest James]

They are not rules of order—they are rules for use of the facilities.  The specific language (not necessarily well written, but it's what we have until the bylaws are revised) is:

A Facilities Committee shall be responsible for drafting and maintaining rules for use of the Society's facilities.  The Executive Board shall be responsible for approving the usage rules as submitted by the Facilities Committee. 

[Josh Martin]

On 4/1/2024 at 9:25 AM, Guest James said:

They are not rules of order—they are rules for use of the facilities.  The specific language (not necessarily well written, but it's what we have until the bylaws are revised) is:

A Facilities Committee shall be responsible for drafting and maintaining rules for use of the Society's facilities.  The Executive Board shall be responsible for approving the usage rules as submitted by the Facilities Committee. 

Then I suppose these are in the nature of standing rules, to answer Mr. Elsman's question.

It would appear to me from the manner in which this rule is written that the board lacks the authority to adopt rules "for use of the Society's facilities" on its own initiative, and that the board is limited to considering rules "as submitted by the Facilities Committee." (Assuming, of course, that this sentence is the entirety of what the bylaws say on this subject.)

Ultimately, it will be up to the organization to interpret its own bylaws.

Edited April 1, 2024 at 02:44 PM by Josh Martin

[Guest James]

They are not rules of order—they are rules for use of the facilities.  The specific language (not necessarily well written, but it's what we have until the bylaws are revised) is:

A Facilities Committee shall be responsible for drafting and maintaining rules for use of the Society's facilities.  The Executive Board shall be responsible for approving the usage rules as submitted by the Facilities Committee. 

[Rob Elsman]

On 4/1/2024 at 9:45 AM, Guest James said:

...Executive Board shall be responsible for approving the usage rules as submitted by the Facilities Committee. 

This seems to me to be definitive.  Applying Principle of Interpretation 6, RONR (12th ed.) 56:68, I would venture that the board is limited to only approving rules for use of the Society's facilities that have been submitted by the Facilities Committee and nothing greater.

Edited April 1, 2024 at 05:44 PM by Rob Elsman

[Richard Brown]

I agree with the interpretation of my colleagues, but reiterate that it is ultimately up to your organization to interpret its bylaws.