Rules of order/bylaws

[Guest jzad_03]

In the 10th edition on page 254, lines 28-34, or Sec. 25 "Rules that cannot be suspended", the book states:

"Rules contained in the bylaws cannot be suspended...unles the particular rule specifically provides for its own suspension OR unless the rule properly is in the nature of a rule of order as described on pg 17, lines 22-24."

My question is, how to tell if a rule in the bylaws is in the nature of a rule of order. I've researched the definition of a rule of order as well as bylaws in Robert's Rules and they are very generalized. Essentially, what I'm trying to accomplish is the suspension of a rule in the bylaws that prevents resolutions from being presented at an annual meeting if they are not filed by a certain cut-off date. In order to do so, I need to show that the aforementioned rule is "in the nature of a rule of order" and therefore could be suspended.

Any thoughts?

Thanks

[Robert B Fish]

If the purpose fo the provision in your bylaws is to provide notice to members, then it is not a rule of order and cannot be suspended.

If the purpose is to allow the secretary to prepare a handout for the meeting and have the agenda properly typed, it can be suspended.

IMO, you'd have to look at the entire bylaws to make that determination.

-Bob

[Guest jzad_03]

I am planning on doing that, but I was more wondering if there was somewhere in the rules that I was not finding that lays out a better distinction for a rule of order.

[J. J.]

1. The rule in question has to meet the definition of a rule of order on p. 15.

2. It must be a rule that could be adopted as a rule of order, if not in the bylaws.

3. Suspending the rule must not create a breach of a continuing nature as described on p. 244.

In the case you cited, the rule protects absentees, so you cannot suspend it, even if it was not in the bylaws.

[Guest jzad_03]

Good point J.J. I would need to contend with the fact that this might adversely affect the absentees from the annual meeting as they might have attended if they knew this resolution were to be on the agenda.

[Robert B Fish]

Re: "...protects absentees..."

In what way does the rule protect absentees? As stated the rule only provides that you submit the proposed motion and not that the membership be notified you have done so. For all we know, the secretary goes to the mailbox, picks up the motions, types them on an agenda and presents that at the meeting.

It might be the purpose of the rule is to allow the management to limit the business coming before the meeting. If the rule said "only budget items costing less than $500 may come before the annual meeting", that could be suspended. However, if the rule said, "notice must be given to all members of any proposal to spend more than $500", that rule protects absent members and could not be suspended.

-Bob

[Guest jzad_03]

Still trying to locate the bylaws, but if the rule DOES state that it simply must be filed by a certain date, would that be more akin to a rule of order and therefore allow its suspension?

[J. J.]

Still trying to locate the bylaws, but if the rule DOES state that it simply must be filed by a certain date, would that be more akin to a rule of order and therefore allow its suspension?

It might not meet the definition of a rule of order, but it does protect absentee right, so it cannot be suspended in any case.

[hmtcastle]

Still trying to locate the bylaws, but if the rule DOES state that it simply must be filed by a certain date, would that be more akin to a rule of order and therefore allow its suspension?

No. Deadlines can't be suspended.

As a rule of thumb, if you assume that any particular rule can't be suspended, you'll be right 99% of the time.

[Dan Honemann]

In the 10th edition on page 254, lines 28-34, or Sec. 25 "Rules that cannot be suspended", the book states:

"Rules contained in the bylaws cannot be suspended...unles the particular rule specifically provides for its own suspension OR unless the rule properly is in the nature of a rule of order as described on pg 17, lines 22-24."

My question is, how to tell if a rule in the bylaws is in the nature of a rule of order. I've researched the definition of a rule of order as well as bylaws in Robert's Rules and they are very generalized. Essentially, what I'm trying to accomplish is the suspension of a rule in the bylaws that prevents resolutions from being presented at an annual meeting if they are not filed by a certain cut-off date. In order to do so, I need to show that the aforementioned rule is "in the nature of a rule of order" and therefore could be suspended.

Any thoughts?

Thanks

This rule that you say is in your bylaws would appear to be a rule in the nature of a rule of order, but, as has been noted, even if it is it cannot be suspended if it is a rule protecting absentees.

It is not possible to deal with questions of this nature without knowing exactly what the rule says and the purpose that it is intended to serve.

[Guest jzad_03]

ARTICLE XII--AMENDMENTS

These bylaws may be amended by a 2/3 vote of the members present and voting at the annual meeting. The amendment shall become effective the first day of the following fiscal year as determined by the Bylaws.

All proposed amendments shall be filed with the Executive Director not later than the first day of February prior to the date of the Annual Meeting. Such proposed amendments can only be submitted to the authorized representatives by the Board of Directors or an authorized Resolutions Committee as defined in the Policy Statements and consistent with Robert's Rules of Order.

That is the rule stating that the resolution is out of order b/c it was not filed by Feb. 1 of this year. It seems to be purely procedural in nature and would therefore be more akin to a rule of order

[Dan Honemann]

It seems to be purely procedural in nature and would therefore be more akin to a rule of order

As has been noted (more than once before), even if it is a rule in the nature of a rule of order it cannot be suspended if it protects absentees.

I'm still uncertain as to exactly what your rule is and the purpose that it is intended to serve.

[Josh Martin]

ARTICLE XII--AMENDMENTS

These bylaws may be amended by a 2/3 vote of the members present and voting at the annual meeting. The amendment shall become effective the first day of the following fiscal year as determined by the Bylaws.

All proposed amendments shall be filed with the Executive Director not later than the first day of February prior to the date of the Annual Meeting. Such proposed amendments can only be submitted to the authorized representatives by the Board of Directors or an authorized Resolutions Committee as defined in the Policy Statements and consistent with Robert's Rules of Order.

That is the rule stating that the resolution is out of order b/c it was not filed by Feb. 1 of this year. It seems to be purely procedural in nature and would therefore be more akin to a rule of order

A rule which requires previous notice for amendments to the Bylaws is a rule protecting absentees and may not be suspended. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 255, lines 13-18)

Good point J.J. I would need to contend with the fact that this might adversely affect the absentees from the annual meeting as they might have attended if they knew this resolution were to be on the agenda.

You seem to acknowledge here that the rule protects absentees. If it does, it can't be suspended.

[Guest jzad_03]

No I did not acknowledge that. The only thing I acknowledged was the fact that J.J. made a good point in stating that it might be a bylaw to protect absentees. It is not mentioned anywhere that the policy reason or the thinking behind this bylaw is to protect absentees. Either way, essentially all I was looking for in the first place was a definition, test, list of criteria, that explains when a rule in the bylaws is "in the nature of a rule of order"

[Josh Martin]

No I did not acknowledge that. The only thing I acknowledged was the fact that J.J. made a good point in stating that it might be a bylaw to protect absentees. It is not mentioned anywhere that the policy reason or the thinking behind this bylaw is to protect absentees. Either way, essentially all I was looking for in the first place was a definition, test, list of criteria, that explains when a rule in the bylaws is "in the nature of a rule of order"

If, as you say "this might adversely affect the absentees from the annual meeting as they might have attended if they knew this resolution were to be on the agenda," then the rule protects absentees. You just described the entire point of a rule prescribing "previous notice," which is a rule protecting absentees.

There is no simple definition of whether a rule in the Bylaws is in the nature of a rule of order, beyond the definition of rules of order in RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 15-17. But you can stop looking because your rule is in the nature of a rule of order. Some rules of order, however, cannot be suspended. (RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 254-256)

[Rob Elsman]

I agree with your observation that the definition of a rule of order, especially in RONR (10th ed.), p. 15, ll. 3-9, is sometimes too general and vague to make it possible to determine with sufficient certainty whether a particular bylaw is suspendable on account that it is such a rule. I have been able to clarify the definition in my mind somewhat by following this forum over the years, but I can well understand the difficulties that the casual users of the book encounter with this.

[J. J.]

No. Deadlines can't be suspended.

I disagree. Deadlines that protect absentees cannot be suspended. You could have a deadline that doesn't protect absentees.

[Robert B Fish]

However, there is no information that THIS deadlines protects absentees. I think Dan outlined the issue and noted we cannot resolve it in this forum because we don't know enough details of the orgqanization and its rules.

-Bob

[Guest jzad_03]

The bylawys of the organization that mention the deadline are listed in their entirety in the thread in one of my earlier posts. It makes no mention of absentees or their rights or any reasoning or policy behind the decision to set the deadline.

[hmtcastle]

I disagree. Deadlines that protect absentees cannot be suspended. You could have a deadline that doesn't protect absentees.

Point taken.

[Josh Martin]

However, there is no information that THIS deadlines protects absentees.

What about the part where jzad said "this might adversely affect the absentees from the annual meeting as they might have attended if they knew this resolution were to be on the agenda?" That sounds like protecting absentees to me.

The bylawys of the organization that mention the deadline are listed in their entirety in the thread in one of my earlier posts. It makes no mention of absentees or their rights or any reasoning or policy behind the decision to set the deadline.

A rule doesn't need to say it protects absentees in order for it to protect absentees.

[Guest jzad_03]

Josh, I said made that first reply to acknowledge the point that J.J. was making. The bylaws, procedures, and policies of the organization mention several times over how a resolution is to be submitted, who it must be submitted to, and when it must be filed. Yet in ever instance, there is nary a mention of absentees.

Again, a disclaimer about my statement, I am not stating any policy or reasoning for the rule, I was simply articulating the point that J.J. said to make sure I correctly understood his argument.

I also agree with you that a rule need not say it protects absentees explicitly in order to protect their voting rights. However, when numerous mention is made of said rule, yet absentees are never mentioned, I would think that it raises a presumption that it is merely a procedural rule that was instituted for order, hence, a rule of order.

[hmtcastle]

when numerous mention is made of said rule, yet absentees are never mentioned, I would think that it raises a presumption that it is merely a procedural rule that was instituted for order, hence, a rule of order.

As noted, the absence of any reference to absentees is immaterial.

Secondly, even if it is "merely" a rule of order, it is one which protects absentees (see below) and, therefore, can not be suspended.

But you seem to have made up your mind in spite of any evidence to the contrary.

A rule which requires previous notice for amendments to the Bylaws is a rule protecting absentees and may not be suspended. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 255, lines 13-18)

[Dan Honemann]

Guest_jzad_03_*, you quote the rule in your bylaws as follows:

"ARTICLE XII--AMENDMENTS

These bylaws may be amended by a 2/3 vote of the members present and voting at the annual meeting. The amendment shall become effective the first day of the following fiscal year as determined by the Bylaws.

"All proposed amendments shall be filed with the Executive Director not later than the first day of February prior to the date of the Annual Meeting. Such proposed amendments can only be submitted to the authorized representatives by the Board of Directors or an authorized Resolutions Committee as defined in the Policy Statements and consistent with Robert's Rules of Order."

You seem to be saying that this is all that there is in your rules on this subject, but this seems highly unlikely. Are you sure there is nothing at all saying what the Executive Director is to do with these proposed amendments that are submitted to him? Aren't they to be distributed to members in some fashion prior to the meeting?

[Guest jzad_03]

First off, my mind is made up because I have been told what sort of argument I am to make regarding this matter. Second, I am looking for a way to make that argument that says this rule can be suspended. Third, I am not ignoring the evidence to the contrary, I am very aware of it and appreciate it as it helps me prepare for the argument that I have been instructed to make, and would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone that has taken the time to read and comment as whether they have been for or against my position, they have helped me craft my argument.

Finally, the rule does not mention previous notice, it simply states that they must be submitted by a certain deadline, no more, no less. I am painfully aware of the fact that if it protects absentees, a rule cannot be suspended. However, simply because you feel the argument I'm attempting cannot win does not mean that I should not attempt to make it nor does it mean that I am ignoring what has previously been said.