Bylaw providing for its own suspension

[J. J.]

On 5/19/2024 at 7:31 AM, Dan Honemann said:

What, exactly, will the point of order be?  It certainly will not be that there were not three-fifths in the affirmative when the vote to suspend was taken. That requirement of a three-fifths vote has been rendered meaningless.

And by the way, every point of order must be timely.  If the action taken is not null and void, the point of order must be raised promptly at the time of the breach.  If the action taken is null and void, the point of order must be raised while that action has continuing force and effect.

The point of order would be that motion to suspend was not properly made. 

 

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/19/2024 at 8:49 AM, J. J. said:

The point of order would be that motion to suspend was not properly made. 

 

Well, I would have thought it would be that the non-resident was not eligible to hold office.  

But I'm afraid we are losing sight of the fact that your assertion was that an erroneous announcement that a nonresident is elected effectively suspends the residence rule in the absence of a prompt point of order. This treats the residency requirement the same as if it was itself a suspendible rule.  As previously noted, this does indeed render the bylaws vote requirement for suspension completely meaningless.  The result is the same as it would be if the bylaws said "All officers shall be resident in X County during  their term. This requirement can be suspended."  

[J. J.]

On 5/19/2024 at 3:00 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Well, I would have thought it would be that the non-resident was not eligible to hold office.  

But I'm afraid we are losing sight of the fact that your assertion was that an erroneous announcement that a nonresident is elected effectively suspends the residence rule in the absence of a prompt point of order. This treats the residency requirement the same as if it was itself a suspendible rule.  As previously noted, this does indeed render the bylaws vote requirement for suspension completely meaningless.  The result is the same as it would be if the bylaws said "All officers shall be resident in X County during  their term. This requirement can be suspended."  

The residency requirement, in this case, is a suspendable rule, because the rule provides for its own suspension.

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/19/2024 at 5:58 PM, J. J. said:

The residency requirement, in this case, is a suspendable rule, because the rule provides for its own suspension.

Okay, so let me be sure that I understand what you are saying.

You say the bylaws provide that "All officers shall be resident in X County during  their term. This requirement shall be suspendable by a three-fifths vote."  You say that the President currently serving  is not a resident, and this is not discovered until several months into his term.

I understand you to be saying that, since no point of order concerning the President's ineligibility was raised promptly at the time when his election to office was announced, no point of order can be raised concerning his newly discovered ineligibility to hold office.

Have I got this right?

[J. J.]

On 5/20/2024 at 6:39 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Okay, so let me be sure that I understand what you are saying.

You say the bylaws provide that "All officers shall be resident in X County during  their term. This requirement shall be suspendable by a three-fifths vote."  You say that the President currently serving  is not a resident, and this is not discovered until several months into his term.

I understand you to be saying that, since no point of order concerning the President's ineligibility was raised promptly at the time when his election to office was announced, no point of order can be raised concerning his newly discovered ineligibility to hold office.

Have I got this right?

That is the instant example.

My broader case is that when a assembly says that some rule is subject to suspension, how could its violation be subject to a point of order some point later?  The act of suspending a rule, by the assembly, always seems to be the transaction of business within the meeting. 

 

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/21/2024 at 8:53 AM, J. J. said:

That is the instant example.

My broader case is that when a assembly says that some rule is subject to suspension, how could its violation be subject to a point of order some point later?  The act of suspending a rule, by the assembly, always seems to be the transaction of business within the meeting. 

 

Well, when your own example demonstrates, as it does here, that application of your understanding of a rule in RONR leads to an absurd result, it's a sure indication that your understanding of the rule is flawed.

[J. J.]

On 5/21/2024 at 5:54 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Well, when your own example demonstrates, as it does here, that application of your understanding of a rule in RONR leads to an absurd result, it's a sure indication that your understanding of the rule is flawed.

I am asking why making a rule suspendable, in a meeting, does not convert that into a rule in the nature of a rule of order, since it very clearly deals with "the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in that
connection."  It does not seem absurd in the least, unless that definition is absurd. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/22/2024 at 10:09 AM, J. J. said:

I am asking why making a rule suspendable, in a meeting, does not convert that into a rule in the nature of a rule of order, since it very clearly deals with "the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in that
connection."  It does not seem absurd in the least, unless that definition is absurd. 

This assertion of yours is simply incorrect.

A rule relating to the maintenance of a guest register at meetings is a suspendible rule, but its suspendibility does not make it a rule of order.  It is still a standing rule.  A point of order concerning its violation can be raised at any time during a meeting. Such a point of order is well taken unless a motion is made and adopted to suspend the rule. 

In your example, the provision in the bylaws which allows for suspension of the residency requirement by the adoption of a motion to do so does not convert the residency requirement into a rule in the nature of a rule of order.  It remains a standing rule.  Election of a nonresident in violation of this rule is null and void, giving rise to a continuing breach.  A point of order concerning its violation can be raised at any time during the time that the nonresident remains in office. Such a point of order is well taken unless a motion is made and adopted to suspend the rule in accordance with the bylaw provision permitting such suspension.

[Dan Honemann]

I'll expand a bit on what I was saying in my immediately preceding response concerning a rule relating to the maintenance of a guest register at meetings. Maybe it will help,  Maybe not.

An assembly may, by the adoption of a main motion by majority vote, adopt a rule relating to the maintenance of a guest register at its meetings.  Doing so creates a standing rule which can be suspended by the adoption, by majority vote, of a motion to do so (see 2:23).  A failure to comply with this standing rule can be challenged by raising a point of order at any time during a meeting so long as the failure to comply with the rule is continuing.  The fact that this rule may be suspended does not mean that a point of order must be raised concerning its breach the moment the breach first occurs.  The suspendibility of this standing rule does not, as you seem to believe, convert it into a rule of order.  If it did, 2:23 wouldn't say what it says.

[J. J.]

On 5/23/2024 at 9:37 AM, Dan Honemann said:

I'll expand a bit on what I was saying in my immediately preceding response concerning a rule relating to the maintenance of a guest register at meetings. Maybe it will help,  Maybe not.

An assembly may, by the adoption of a main motion by majority vote, adopt a rule relating to the maintenance of a guest register at its meetings.  Doing so creates a standing rule which can be suspended by the adoption, by majority vote, of a motion to do so (see 2:23).  A failure to comply with this standing rule can be challenged by raising a point of order at any time during a meeting so long as the failure to comply with the rule is continuing.  The fact that this rule may be suspended does not mean that a point of order must be raised concerning its breach the moment the breach first occurs.  The suspendibility of this standing rule does not, as you seem to believe, convert it into a rule of order.  If it did, 2:23 wouldn't say what it says.

Okay, suppose that rule in question is suspended by less that a majority vote.  Is that violation a rule requiring a 2/3 vote subject to point of order later in the meeting? 

 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/27/2024 at 4:42 PM, J. J. said:

Okay, suppose that rule in question is suspended by less [than] a majority vote.  Is that violation [of] a rule requiring a 2/3 vote subject to point of order later in the meeting? 

 

Are you sure you don't mean at least a majority but less than two-thirds?  Nothing gets suspended by less than a majority.

[J. J.]

On 5/28/2024 at 1:12 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Are you sure you don't mean at least a majority but less than two-thirds?  Nothing gets suspended by less than a majority.

Suppose a mistake is made and not caught at the time.  The chair announces the rule is suspended by majority vote. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/28/2024 at 3:52 PM, J. J. said:

Suppose a mistake is made and not caught at the time.  The chair announces the rule is suspended by majority vote. 

 Unless you're alleging a continuing breach of some sort, then a point of order later in the meeting would not be timely.  The announcement of the chair stands, per YSYL.

 

[J. J.]

On 5/28/2024 at 10:46 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

 Unless you're alleging a continuing breach of some sort, then a point of order later in the meeting would not be timely.  The announcement of the chair stands, per YSYL.

 

Okay, why doesn't that work when there is no announcement? 

 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/29/2024 at 12:03 PM, J. J. said:

Okay, why doesn't that work when there is no announcement? 

In that case, someone should reawaken the chair.

[J. J.]

On 5/29/2024 at 2:01 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

In that case, someone should reawaken the chair.

And if they don't? 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/30/2024 at 8:39 AM, J. J. said:

And if they don't? 

If the chair does not make the announcement, then the motion is not decided. 

If the chair calls for those in favor and those opposed, and then nods off, members should start to say "Well??"

[J. J.]

On 5/30/2024 at 4:32 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

If the chair does not make the announcement, then the motion is not decided. 

If the chair calls for those in favor and those opposed, and then nods off, members should start to say "Well??"

You would doubt that the assembly when the chair does not announce the result? 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/1/2024 at 10:22 AM, J. J. said:

You would doubt that the assembly when the chair does not announce the result? 

There seem to be some words missing. 

[J. J.]

On 6/1/2024 at 10:39 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

There seem to be some words missing. 

Would you doubt that the assembly took the action is the chair did not declare the result and just took the action?

 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/2/2024 at 7:20 PM, J. J. said:

Would you doubt that the assembly took the action is the chair did not declare the result and just took the action?

 

If the relative strengths of the Ayes and Noes were similar, I'm not sure how the assembly would react.  I assume you don't mean that the chair took the action instead of announcing the result, but I can imagine different factions of the assembly taking different actions, or arguing over which action should be taken, which might fortuitously be loud enough to wake the chair from his slumber.

[J. J.]

On 6/2/2024 at 9:48 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

If the relative strengths of the Ayes and Noes were similar, I'm not sure how the assembly would react.  I assume you don't mean that the chair took the action instead of announcing the result, but I can imagine different factions of the assembly taking different actions, or arguing over which action should be taken, which might fortuitously be loud enough to wake the chair from his slumber.

No one raised a point of order. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/7/2024 at 3:50 PM, J. J. said:

No one raised a point of order. 

Then the motion was not "adopted".