Applicable statutes

[Guest]

956807686"

[Guest Rob Elsman]

The main motion is an improper main motion under the rule of RONR (10th ed.), p. 106, ll. 20-25. The chair is obliged to rule the motion out of order and not admit it. "

[Guest Rob Elsman]

You seem to know this already, but I want to make sure you understand that what is said on pp. 106 and 244 applies only to ***procedural rules***."

[Guest Kim Goldsworthy]

Fred,

>>While the statute is clear and applicable, we wish to adopt a motion violating it and, when the municipality fines us, we will sue to have the law declared void.<<

kg: Yes, this *is* allowed under Robert's Rules. You CAN a"

[Guest Nancy N.]

Kim and Rob (et al):

Fred says the statute is procedural. Is there a way to do what they want to?"

[Guest H.Wm.Mountcastle]

>>we wish to adopt a motion violating it and, when the municipality fines us, we will sue to have the law declared void<<

Go right ahead.

RONR won't stop you."

[Guest J. J.]

If the statute is a procedural rule of law, you could adopt a special, which supersedes RONR, to permit you to adopt a motion on this particular subject. That is the absolute, "correct" way to do it.

I suspect that the statute is not a"

[Guest Fred]

The statute says we may not vote by ballot. Procedural? I think so."

[Guest J. J.]

>>The statute says we may not vote by ballot. Procedural? I think so.<<

You are right. Wow!

A special rule might be to permit a vote be taken by ballot. The vote by ballot would be the violation of the procedural rule of la"

[Guest Dan Honemann]

Fred, if your group is prepared, as you say it is, to violate the statute and, when the municipality fines you, sue to have the law declared void, why in the world would you let some rule in RONR stand in your way? :-)

"

[Guest J. J.]

To make sure that it cannot be attacked on other grounds?

I hope Fred will tell me how this one turns out.

J. J."

[Guest Gary c Tesser]

Me too, J. J. My bank-robbing and orchid-fanciers' society might be dead in the water. Suppose the applicable procedural law says our required previous notice includes letting the sheriff's office know the time, date, and place of the intended robbery, "

[Guest J. J.]

>>-- And therefore null and void. Not to be remotely construed as practicing law, but, as a hypothesizing citizen simply hypothesizing as a matter of free speech not remotely construable as practicing law ... I hypothesize that a court could throw o"

[Guest Gary c Tesser]

(A two-hour or so phone conversation leaves me unconvinced, but in doubt of my previous assumptions.)"

[Guest Dan Honemann]

>>A rule stating that motions violating procedural rules of law (PROL) is valid procedurally.<<

I'm not at all sure what this is getting at, but (in Fred's situation) a motion to create a rule that votes shall be taken by ballot is cl"

[Guest J. J.]

Dan, what I would suggest is a rule that would permit a motion/action not to be subject to a point of order on the ground that it violates p. 244 c.

That is a bit different than a special rule stating that ballots should be taken.

J"

[Guest Dan Honemann]

So if an assembly is prohibited by applicable law from taking a ballot vote it may adopt a rule saying that no one can raise a point of order that any vote thus taken will be (or is) null and void?

Nah. :-) "

[Guest J. J.]

I think such a rule something like this could be adopted:

"Motions to require that a vote be taken by ballot shall be in order, even if the requirement that the vote be taken by ballot violates a applicable procedural rule or rules prescribe"

[Guest J. J.]

I didn't say that the assembly could take an action violating prohibited by applicable law, only that they could deny themselves the power to decide the issue via a special rule.

So, yes.

J. J."

[Guest Dan Honemann]

I respectfully disagree. Any motion to create such a rule would be out of order, and if adopted, would be null and void.

"Motions that conflict with ... procedural rules prescribed by national, state, or local laws, are out of order, and if "

[Guest J. J.]

>>Any motion to create such a rule would be out of order, and if adopted, would be null and void.<<

Why? And is not rhetorical question.

The rule itself does not violate a procedural rule of law. The rule could be adopted a"

[Guest H.Wm.Mountcastle]

>>If the statute is a procedural rule of law, you could adopt a special, which supersedes RONR, to permit you to adopt a motion on this particular subject. That is the absolute, "correct" way to do it.<<

If the intent is to "

[Guest Dan Honemann]

J.J., here is the rule you suggested:

"Motions to require that a vote be taken by ballot shall be in order, even if the requirement that the vote be taken by ballot violates a applicable procedural rule or rules prescribed by federal, state "

[Guest Shmuel Gerber]

If Fred's group sincerely believes (and has valid grounds for the belief) that the law itself is not valid as applied to this organization -- for example, because it conflicts with some applicable provision of a greater law, such as the Constitution -- th"

[Guest J. J.]

>>A statute or ordinance which says that ballot votes are prohibited precludes the adoption of any rule saying otherwise. <<

Dan, for the rule in p. 244 c. does not say that. It refers to "any action taken in violation." T"