Suspend a bylaw in the nature of a rule of order if bylaws state they shall not be suspended?

[Guest Peter Deg]

I understand that normally the presiding officer can be removed even if the bylaws state that a duty of the presiding officer is to preside at all meetings.    Our bylaws state that. I understand that under RONR you can suspend things in the bylaws that are clearly in the nature of a rule of order.  However, the bylaws of my organization state:

"These bylaws may be amended only. They shall not be suspended."

I'm not a fan of the last sentence.  And to amend the bylaws requires 14 days notice as well as the two thirds vote.   So, with bylaws as written, can we remove the president or have our bylaws superseded RONR at this point and forbid suspension.

[Joshua Katz]

On 4/16/2024 at 5:18 PM, Guest Peter Deg said:

"These bylaws may be amended only. They shall not be suspended."

 

Suspend this rule, which is in the nature of a rule of order, then suspend the one you want to suspend. And amend this out, when you get around to it.

[Atul Kapur]

On 4/16/2024 at 8:45 PM, Joshua Katz said:

Suspend this rule, which is in the nature of a rule of order, then suspend the one you want to suspend. And amend this out, when you get around to it.

If the bylaw said that suspending any rule in the bylaw required a 9/10 vote, what vote do you say would be required to suspend that rule? 

[Joshua Katz]

On 4/16/2024 at 6:42 PM, Atul Kapur said:

If the bylaw said that suspending any rule in the bylaw required a 9/10 vote, what vote do you say would be required to suspend that rule? 

2/3. Without having thought about it much.

[Atul Kapur]

But doesn't that rule protect a minority of >10%, so wouldn't 25:2(7) apply?

[Gary Novosielski]

It is absurd to say that a bylaws provision that states it cannot be suspended can be suspended.

It would take an amendment to strike that sentence, after which other suspendible rules in the nature of rules of order would operate normallyu.

 

 

[J. J.]

On 4/16/2024 at 9:58 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

It is absurd to say that a bylaws provision that states it cannot be suspended can be suspended.

It would take an amendment to strike that sentence, after which other suspendible rules in the nature of rules of order would operate normallyu.

 

 

I agree with both Mr. Novosielski and Dr. Kapur. 

The rule prohibiting suspension is not suspendable, though it could be amended (possibly by less than a 2/3 vote). 

A rule requiring a 9/10 vote would require a greater than 9/10 vote to suspend. 

[Rob Elsman]

On 4/16/2024 at 7:18 PM, Guest Peter Deg said:

I understand that normally the presiding officer can be removed even if the bylaws state that a duty of the presiding officer is to preside at all meetings.    Our bylaws state that. I understand that under RONR you can suspend things in the bylaws that are clearly in the nature of a rule of order.  However, the bylaws of my organization state:

"These bylaws may be amended only. They shall not be suspended."

I'm not a fan of the last sentence.  And to amend the bylaws requires 14 days notice as well as the two thirds vote.   So, with bylaws as written, can we remove the president or have our bylaws superseded RONR at this point and forbid suspension

Insofar as the bylaw prohibits the suspension of a rule of order enshrined in the bylaws, such a prohibition is in the nature of a rule of order that is suspendable. 😂

[Joshua Katz]

On 4/16/2024 at 6:58 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

It is absurd to say that a bylaws provision that states it cannot be suspended can be suspended.

 

Even assuming, a safe assumption, that everyone is right and I am wrong, why in particular is that absurd? Bylaws can say false things. You can adopt a bylaw that the sky is green. More seriously, many years ago we all, I think, eventually agreed that a bylaw saying "there are no rules of order and no points of order are permitted" would be ineffective, since there would be no way to stop someone from raising a point of order that would not, itself, violate that rule. So that rule simply states something false. Why can't this rule?

[J. J.]

On 4/17/2024 at 9:17 PM, Joshua Katz said:

Even assuming, a safe assumption, that everyone is right and I am wrong, why in particular is that absurd? Bylaws can say false things. You can adopt a bylaw that the sky is green. More seriously, many years ago we all, I think, eventually agreed that a bylaw saying "there are no rules of order and no points of order are permitted" would be ineffective, since there would be no way to stop someone from raising a point of order that would not, itself, violate that rule. So that rule simply states something false. Why can't this rule?

Actually, I think that the rule you suggested, "no points of order are permitted" is quite effective, though not advisable. 

[Dan Honemann]

If a bylaw in the nature of a rule of order says that it cannot be suspended, it cannot be suspended.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 4/18/2024 at 7:48 AM, Dan Honemann said:

If a bylaw in the nature of a rule of order says that it cannot be suspended, it cannot be suspended.

Ah, sanity!

[Rob Elsman]

Rules of order are, with certain exceptions, suspendable by their very nature. A different vocabulary will have to be invented and defined to describe what the original poster is describing as rules of order enshrined in the bylaws that are not suspendable, if such a thing can even exist outside the certain exceptions I have noted.

The poster is suggesting a new universe of rules, and I would recommend that the term, rules of order, not be vandalized to describe it.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 4/18/2024 at 9:15 AM, Rob Elsman said:

Rules of order are, with certain exceptions, suspendable by their very nature.

And one of the exceptions is when the bylaws say that rules in the bylaws  are not suspendable!. I see no reason ton invent a new term to describe such rules.

[Josh Martin]

On 4/16/2024 at 7:18 PM, Guest Peter Deg said:

I understand that normally the presiding officer can be removed even if the bylaws state that a duty of the presiding officer is to preside at all meetings.    Our bylaws state that. I understand that under RONR you can suspend things in the bylaws that are clearly in the nature of a rule of order.  However, the bylaws of my organization state:

"These bylaws may be amended only. They shall not be suspended."

I'm not a fan of the last sentence.  And to amend the bylaws requires 14 days notice as well as the two thirds vote.   So, with bylaws as written, can we remove the president or have our bylaws superseded RONR at this point and forbid suspension.

Well, then I think you have your answer. If the bylaws provide they cannot be suspended, period, then I would assume the bylaws mean what they say.

This is an extremely ill-advised rule, but nonetheless, the organization is obliged to follow this rule unless and until it is amended.

On 4/16/2024 at 7:45 PM, Joshua Katz said:

Suspend this rule, which is in the nature of a rule of order, then suspend the one you want to suspend. And amend this out, when you get around to it.

So to be clear, your suggestion is to just ignore what the bylaws say?

On 4/17/2024 at 9:51 AM, Rob Elsman said:

Insofar as the bylaw prohibits the suspension of a rule of order enshrined in the bylaws, such a prohibition is in the nature of a rule of order that is suspendable. 😂

If the bylaws, however, provide that the bylaws cannot be suspended, period, without the rule of order exception contained within RONR, the rule in the bylaws takes precedence over RONR.

On 4/17/2024 at 8:17 PM, Joshua Katz said:

Even assuming, a safe assumption, that everyone is right and I am wrong, why in particular is that absurd? Bylaws can say false things. You can adopt a bylaw that the sky is green. More seriously, many years ago we all, I think, eventually agreed that a bylaw saying "there are no rules of order and no points of order are permitted" would be ineffective, since there would be no way to stop someone from raising a point of order that would not, itself, violate that rule. So that rule simply states something false. Why can't this rule?

But I do not agree that these rules are "false." They're stupid, but they're not false. A society is entirely free to adopt rules doing all sorts of stupid things, including prohibiting suspending any rules, prohibiting any points of order, and so forth.

This seems to be similar to the long-running debate we have had on this forum over whether a society can adopt rules saying the bylaws cannot be amended, and we tended to fall into two camps of "Yes, you can do that, but it's stupid" and "No, you can't do that, because it's stupid."

[Rob Elsman]

On 4/18/2024 at 2:26 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

...one of the exceptions is when the bylaws say that rules in the bylaws  are not suspendable

The exceptions I am referring to are found in RONR (12th ed.) 25:7ff, which do not include rules that are "...clearly identifiable as in the nature of rules of order that are placed in the bylaws...", RONR (12th ed.) 2:21.  Such unexcepted rules of order that are enshrined in the bylaws are clearly suspendable by a two-thirds vote.  If a society is going to create a different species of unsuspendable rules that would otherwise be suspendable (2:21), then using the term of art, rules of order, to describe them is not proper, because rules of order are, with certain exceptions (25:7ff), inherently suspendable.  Outside the set of the certain exceptions (25:7ff), no unsuspendabe rule can be properly called a rule of order.

The present case raises other very serious difficulties: for example, does even the smallest violation of one of these "unsuspendable rules of order" that results in the adoption of a main motion constitute a continuing breach per the exception found at RONR (12th ed.) 23:6, item (a)?  It sure sounds like it.  But, this is just silly.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 4/18/2024 at 9:27 PM, Rob Elsman said:

The present case raises other very serious difficulties: for example, does even the smallest violation of one of these "unsuspendable rules of order" that results in the adoption of a main motion constitute a continuing breach per the exception found at RONR (12th ed.) 23:6, item (a)?  It sure sounds like it.  But, this is just silly.

I agree that the rule raises "serious difficulties," but I disagree that violation of one of teh rules of order would be a continuing breach as described in 23"6(a). That provision applies to adoption of a main motion that conflicts with the bylaws, not to a procedural error in the process of adopting the motion.

[Josh Martin]

On 4/18/2024 at 9:27 PM, Rob Elsman said:

The exceptions I am referring to are found in RONR (12th ed.) 25:7ff, which do not include rules that are "...clearly identifiable as in the nature of rules of order that are placed in the bylaws...", RONR (12th ed.) 2:21.  Such unexcepted rules of order that are enshrined in the bylaws are clearly suspendable by a two-thirds vote.  If a society is going to create a different species of unsuspendable rules that would otherwise be suspendable (2:21), then using the term of art, rules of order, to describe them is not proper, because rules of order are, with certain exceptions (25:7ff), inherently suspendable.  Outside the set of the certain exceptions (25:7ff), no unsuspendabe rule can be properly called a rule of order.

The present case raises other very serious difficulties: for example, does even the smallest violation of one of these "unsuspendable rules of order" that results in the adoption of a main motion constitute a continuing breach per the exception found at RONR (12th ed.) 23:6, item (a)?  It sure sounds like it.  But, this is just silly.

No one disagrees that it's silly. But notwithstanding this, the bylaws take precedence over Robert's Rules of Order, and if the bylaws provide that no rules in the bylaws can be suspended, full stop, it seems to me the bylaws mean what they say.

Now, I will of course add that it is ultimately up to the organization to amend its own bylaws, but the facts presented at this time are that the bylaws say "These bylaws may be amended only. They shall not be suspended," which seems pretty clear to me.

[Rob Elsman]

I am of the opinion that the bylaw is incomprehensible and uninterpretable.

[Atul Kapur]

It's plain English.

In a recent thread, the response is that a main motion is not out of order just because it proposes a bad idea.

Similarly, your disagreement with what a bylaws article says (or the fact that it isn't a good idea) doesn't render it "incomprehensible and uninterpretable."

[Gary Novosielski]

On 4/19/2024 at 9:33 AM, Rob Elsman said:

I am of the opinion that the bylaw is incomprehensible and uninterpretable.

It is no more incomprehensible than to say that a motion is amendable but not debatable.  The meaning is clear and concise.  A rule may be amended, but it may not be suspended.  There are many rules in most any set of bylaws that fall into this category.