Bylaw providing for its own suspension

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/16/2024 at 4:18 PM, J. J. said:

 

He calls for a voice vote and declares the motion adopted.

The rule that a 2/3 vote is required. 

I think in both cases you need a timely point of order. 

Based upon exactly what I said the chair said in making his announcement, isn't the rule that was violated the rule that says that 64 is not two-thirds of 98?

[J. J.]

On 5/16/2024 at 4:31 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Based upon exactly what I said the chair said in making his announcement, isn't the rule that was violated the rule that says that 64 is not two-thirds of 98?

I would say that the rule that is being violated is that a 2/3 vote threshold was not met.

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/16/2024 at 5:27 PM, J. J. said:

I would say that the rule that is being violated is that a 2/3 vote threshold was not met.

Can't quarrel with that.  

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/16/2024 at 1:29 AM, J. J. said:

The vote threshold is the part to which I refer. 

But it is not the threshold that is being suspended, it is the interfering rule—the one that allows for its own suspension.

The particular threshold requirement, whether majority or higher, is of no consequence.  An incorrect announcement by a chair of a result is a breach that is subject to a point of order, as long as it is timely, but no longer.  If anything, that rule at least is being observed.

Edited May 16, 2024 at 10:22 PM by Gary Novosielski
add underscored text

[J. J.]

On 5/16/2024 at 6:20 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

But it is not the threshold that is being suspended, it is the interfering rule—the one that allows for its own suspension.

The particular threshold requirement, whether majority or higher, is of no consequence.  An incorrect announcement by a chair of a result is a breach that is subject to a point of order, as long as it is timely, but no longer.  If anything, that rule at least is being observed.

It is that rule that is effectively being suspended.  It seems that there is always a vote threshold involved. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/16/2024 at 10:15 PM, J. J. said:

It is that rule that is effectively being suspended.  It seems that there is always a vote threshold involved. 

I'm not sure what you mean by "that rule".

If you mean that the rule I said was being observed is the rule that is being suspended, then we obviously disagree.

Edited May 17, 2024 at 02:24 AM by Gary Novosielski

[J. J.]

On 5/16/2024 at 10:18 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "that rule".

If you mean that the rule I said was being observed is the rule that is being suspended, then we obviously disagree.

The rule is:  "Members shall wear the official club tie at all meetings of the club and at all club functions. This rule, however, may be suspended during any meeting of the club, for all or any portion of the remainder of that meeting."  The rule itself, ""Members shall wear the official club tie at all meetings of the club and at all club functions.," is not a rule in the nature of a rule of order.  This rule is a rule in the nature of a rule of order, "This rule, however, may be suspended during any meeting of the club, for all or any portion of the remainder of that meeting."

As soon as you place a rule in the bylaws and say that it can be suspended, it creates a rule in the nature of a rule of order in the bylaws. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/17/2024 at 8:33 AM, J. J. said:

The rule is:  "Members shall wear the official club tie at all meetings of the club and at all club functions. This rule, however, may be suspended during any meeting of the club, for all or any portion of the remainder of that meeting."  The rule itself, ""Members shall wear the official club tie at all meetings of the club and at all club functions.," is not a rule in the nature of a rule of order.  This rule is a rule in the nature of a rule of order, "This rule, however, may be suspended during any meeting of the club, for all or any portion of the remainder of that meeting."

As soon as you place a rule in the bylaws and say that it can be suspended, it creates a rule in the nature of a rule of order in the bylaws. 

Yes, a rule in the bylaws that says that a standing rule created by the bylaws can be suspended is a rule in the nature of a rule of order, but it is one which cannot itself be suspended.  If any member shows up at a meeting without wearing the club tie, a point of order regarding this violation may be made at any time during the remainder of the meeting unless and until the rule is suspended or he puts on the tie.

If, as in the other example, the bylaw provision goes on to provide the vote required for such a suspension, that rule setting forth the vote required to suspend is a rule in the nature of a rule of order which can be suspended.  As a consequence, a point of order alleging violation of this vote requirement must be made promptly at the time the breach of the rule occurs.

But frankly, I don't really know if any of this has anything to do with the debate that you are having with Mr. Novosielski.

[J. J.]

On 5/17/2024 at 10:05 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Yes, a rule in the bylaws that says that a standing rule created by the bylaws can be suspended is a rule in the nature of a rule of order, but it is one which cannot itself be suspended.  If any member shows up at a meeting without wearing the club tie, a point of order regarding this violation may be made at any time during the remainder of the meeting unless and until the rule is suspended or he puts on the tie.

If, as in the other example, the bylaw provision goes on to provide the vote required for such a suspension, that rule setting forth the vote required to suspend is a rule in the nature of a rule of order which can be suspended.  As a consequence, a point of order alleging violation of this vote requirement must be made promptly at the time the breach of the rule occurs.

But frankly, I don't really know if any of this has anything to do with the debate that you are having with Mr. Novosielski.

What I am looking at the possibility something that would normally be a continuing breach that may not be.

A rule in the bylaws that "All officers shall be resident in X County during  their term," is not suspendable.  If the President is not a resident, and this is not discovered until several months into his term, a point of order could raised at any point. 

A different rule was adopted: "All officers shall be resident in X County during  their term. This requirement shall be suspendable by a three-fifths vote."  The President is not a resident, and this is not discovered until several months into his term.  Would this be subject to a point of order? 

 

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/17/2024 at 10:40 AM, J. J. said:

What I am looking at the possibility something that would normally be a continuing breach that may not be.

A rule in the bylaws that "All officers shall be resident in X County during  their term," is not suspendable.  If the President is not a resident, and this is not discovered until several months into his term, a point of order could raised at any point. 

A different rule was adopted: "All officers shall be resident in X County during  their term. This requirement shall be suspendable by a three-fifths vote."  The President is not a resident, and this is not discovered until several months into his term.  Would this be subject to a point of order? 

 

Yes.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/17/2024 at 8:33 AM, J. J. said:

As soon as you place a rule in the bylaws and say that it can be suspended, it creates a rule in the nature of a rule of order in the bylaws. 

No it doesn't.  The club tie rule says that it can be suspended.  This creates no new rule of order.  Any motion to suspend it is handled in the way that suspension of the rules normally occurs as laid out in RONR, and adopting the club tie rule adds nothing to that existing procedure.  If a threshold other than the standard for suspension is given, that supersedes the provisions in RONR but nothing else about the mechanics of holding the vote changes.

If you are trying to say that the rules in Suspend the Rules (§25) can be suspended, that is a limb out upon which I decline to follow you.

 

[J. J.]

On 5/17/2024 at 12:12 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Yes.

Interesting, why? 

 

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/17/2024 at 10:40 AM, J. J. said:

A different rule was adopted: "All officers shall be resident in X County during  their term. This requirement shall be suspendable by a three-fifths vote."  The President is not a resident, and this is not discovered until several months into his term.  Would this be subject to a point of order?

 

On 5/17/2024 at 12:12 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Yes.

 

On 5/17/2024 at 2:41 PM, J. J. said:

Interesting, why? 

 

The fact that the President is not a resident constitutes a continuing breach of the rule in the bylaws that says he must be a resident to be eligible to hold office.

[J. J.]

On 5/17/2024 at 4:19 PM, Dan Honemann said:

 

 

The fact that the President is not a resident constitutes a continuing breach of the rule in the bylaws that says he must be a resident to be eligible to hold office.

But the rule could be suspended, because it provides for its own suspension. 

 

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/17/2024 at 5:46 PM, J. J. said:

But the rule could be suspended, because it provides for its own suspension. 

 

Could be, but hasn't been.

[J. J.]

On 5/17/2024 at 6:03 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Could be, but hasn't been.

Why wouldn't be able to say the same thing about the vote total?

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/17/2024 at 8:43 PM, J. J. said:

Why wouldn't be able to say the same thing about the vote total?

You mean you really are saying that the rules for Suspend the Rules are suspendible?

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/17/2024 at 8:43 PM, J. J. said:

Why wouldn't be able to say the same thing about the vote total?

I have no idea what you mean by this.

[J. J.]

On 5/18/2024 at 6:21 AM, Dan Honemann said:

I have no idea what you mean by this.

Your initial answer compared to this one.

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/18/2024 at 10:39 AM, J. J. said:

Your initial answer compared to this one.

Here is my original answer:

"The rule which was violated was the rule requiring a two-thirds vote for adoption.  Such a rule in the bylaws is clearly a rule in the nature of a rule of order, and may be suspended.  As a consequence, a point of order regarding its violation must be  raised promptly at the time the breach occurred, which did not happen."

You then post this question:

"A different rule was adopted: "All officers shall be resident in X County during  their term. This requirement shall be suspendable by a three-fifths vote."  The President is not a resident, and this is not discovered until several months into his term.  Would this be subject to a point of order?"

I answered "Yes" because the rule that was violated in this instance was not a rule in the nature of a rule of order but instead was a rule that could not be suspended unless its suspension was authorized by a three-fifths vote, which didn't happen.  In your initial question the rule that was violated was a rule in the nature of a rule of order (the vote requirement) which could be suspended.

In short:

A rule in the bylaws requiring a two-third vote for adoption of a motion is a rule in the nature of a rule of order and is inherently suspendible.

A rule in the bylaws saying that "All officers shall be resident in X County during  their term" is not a rule in the nature of a rule of order and is not inherently suspendible.

 

[J. J.]

On 5/18/2024 at 11:29 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Here is my original answer:

"The rule which was violated was the rule requiring a two-thirds vote for adoption.  Such a rule in the bylaws is clearly a rule in the nature of a rule of order, and may be suspended.  As a consequence, a point of order regarding its violation must be  raised promptly at the time the breach occurred, which did not happen."

You then post this question:

"A different rule was adopted: "All officers shall be resident in X County during  their term. This requirement shall be suspendable by a three-fifths vote."  The President is not a resident, and this is not discovered until several months into his term.  Would this be subject to a point of order?"

I answered "Yes" because the rule that was violated in this instance was not a rule in the nature of a rule of order but instead was a rule that could not be suspended unless its suspension was authorized by a three-fifths vote, which didn't happen.  In your initial question the rule that was violated was a rule in the nature of a rule of order (the vote requirement) which could be suspended.

In short:

A rule in the bylaws requiring a two-third vote for adoption of a motion is a rule in the nature of a rule of order and is inherently suspendible.

A rule in the bylaws saying that "All officers shall be resident in X County during  their term" is not a rule in the nature of a rule of order and is not inherently suspendible.

 

Because the bylaws provide that the "All officers shall be resident in X County during  their term" can be suspended, it certainly becomes suspendable, in the instance.

Why hasn't the act of electing the president suspended that rule that a motion is needed to suspend that rule?  It is not a rhetorical question.  I am not seeing a delineation between a rule suspendable in the in the instance and one inherently suspendable. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/18/2024 at 1:46 PM, J. J. said:

Because the bylaws provide that the "All officers shall be resident in X County during  their term" can be suspended, it certainly becomes suspendable, in the instance.

No, it can only be suspended by the adoption of a motion to do so.

On 5/18/2024 at 1:46 PM, J. J. said:

Why hasn't the act of electing the president suspended that rule that a motion is needed to suspend that rule?  

Because the rule that a motion needs to be adopted to suspend it cannot be suspended. 

[Dan Honemann]

To put it another way, to say that an erroneous announcement that a nonresident is elected effectively suspends the residence rule in the absence of a prompt point of order is treating the residency requirement as being itself a suspendible rule, thus rendering the vote requirement for suspension completely meaningless.

[J. J.]

On 5/18/2024 at 6:21 PM, Dan Honemann said:

To put it another way, to say that an erroneous announcement that a nonresident is elected effectively suspends the residence rule in the absence of a prompt point of order is treating the residency requirement as being itself a suspendible rule, thus rendering the vote requirement for suspension completely meaningless.

It is not meaningless. The rule would be subject to a timely point of order, like most rules. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/19/2024 at 12:59 AM, J. J. said:

It is not meaningless. The rule would be subject to a timely point of order, like most rules. 

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.