Rules of order/bylaws

[Guest jzad_03]

Dan--Yes that is simply all there is. The deadline and submissions due to the Exec. Director are mentioned several times, but no more insight is offered than what I previously posted.

[Dan Honemann]

Dan--Yes that is simply all there is. The deadline and submissions due to the Exec. Director are mentioned several times, but no more insight is offered than what I previously posted.

So the Executive Director is given no guidance at all as to what to do with them? Just toss them into the trash can?

[Mr. J!]

"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."

Those sentences follow each other and that is the entire text of article XII, correct? If so, this is a bylaw amendment process, which cannot be suspended.

Of course, interpreting bylaws which one has not seen in their entirety is hazardous, and relying on such an interpretation, doubly so.

[Guest jzad_03]

Mr. J. Could you point me to the page and line number(s) that state that a bylaw amendment process cannot be suspended? Much thanks!

[Chris Harrison]

Mr. J. Could you point me to the page and line number(s) that state that a bylaw amendment process cannot be suspended? Much thanks!

RONR p. 254 lines 28-34.

[Dan Honemann]

RONR p. 254 lines 28-34.

No, that won't do it.

[Chris Harrison]

No, that won't do it.

Why not? It seems very on point to me. P. 254 lines 28-34 says:

Rules contained in the bylaws (or constitution) cannot be suspended-no matter how large the vote in favor of doing so or how inconvenient the rule in question may be - unless 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 page 17, lines 22-24.

Wouldn't the bylaw amendment process be considered a rule contained in the bylaws and is not a suspendable rule of order?

[Dan Honemann]

Why not? It seems very on point to me. P. 254 lines 28-34 says:

Wouldn't the bylaw amendment process be considered a rule contained in the bylaws and is not a suspendable rule of order?

Do we need to begin this thread all over again?

[J. J.]

Wouldn't the bylaw amendment process be considered a rule contained in the bylaws and is not a suspendable rule of order?

Well, because the meets the definition on p. 15, and could exist outside the bylaws (p. 296)

[Trina]

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

...

"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....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?

Dan--Yes that is simply all there is..

To repeat the point Mr. Honemann has made more than once, this seems to be the crux of the question, as far as determining if the rights of absentees are involved. What happens to those proposed amendments which are properly filed with the ED by February 1? Is the membership notified of the proposed amendments in some way? Or not? Are the members perhaps notified, but not by means of a process prescribed by the bylaws?

Those sentences follow each other and that is the entire text of article XII, correct? If so, this is a bylaw amendment process, which cannot be suspended....

I'm not aware of a rule that says that the entire bylaws article on amendments has an inherent immunity from suspension; the citation given by Chris H. in support of this position is simply the basic statement that bylaws cannot be suspended unless they provide for their own suspension, or are in the nature of rules of order -- the same premise the original poster started with...

[Guest jzad_03]

Dear god in heaven no Dan. Thank you Chris H. but I was hoping to hear from Mr. J on this one as his was specifically about amendment processes, not just rules in the bylaws generally, as you have cited.

[Josh Martin]

Josh, I said made that first reply to acknowledge the point that J.J. was making.

I assumed when you 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 meant that members were somehow informed of the motions which were submitted to the Executive Director prior to the annual meeting. If that is the case, then that is previous notice, which means the rule protects absentees and cannot be suspended.

If that was merely a hypothetical comment, and the members are not informed of the motions which were submitted to the Executive Director prior to the annual meeting, and the motions are simply submitted so the officers can do some planning or something, sure, the rule could be suspended by a 2/3 vote. I have been skeptical thus far because, generally, the purpose of a rule of this nature is to protect absentees, but I grant that will not always be the case.

The crux of your argument (from a parliamentary perspective) is whether the rule protects absentees. If you wish to argue that the rule can be suspended, you will need to prove that the rule offers no protection to absentees.

[Trina]

I assumed when you 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 meant that members were somehow informed of the motions which were submitted to the Executive Director prior to the annual meeting. If that is the case, then that is previous notice, which means the rule protects absentees and cannot be suspended....

A question for Mr. Martin (and for anyone else who cares to comment, of course):

If the bylaws do not require that the membership be informed in any way of proposed amendments submitted to the Executive Director, BUT it has simply been customary in the organization to inform the members when amendments have been submitted, does that create a requirement to protect the rights of absentees?

By way of example, suppose the organization newsletter always has a blurb like "the ED has received two proposed amendments to the bylaws, and will present them at the annual meeting" -- as a result, the membership, by custom, expects to be told when proposed amendments are coming up. Does this create an obligation to protect the rights of absentees by not allowing amendments to be proposed for the first time at the meeting? In other words, can custom influence the determination of whether a particular bylaw (which is in the nature of rule of order) is actually suspendable?

[Dan Honemann]

A question for Mr. Martin (and for anyone else who cares to comment, of course):

If the bylaws do not require that the membership be informed in any way of proposed amendments submitted to the Executive Director, BUT it has simply been customary in the organization to inform the members when amendments have been submitted, does that create a requirement to protect the rights of absentees?

By way of example, suppose the organization newsletter always has a blurb like "the ED has received two proposed amendments to the bylaws, and will present them at the annual meeting" -- as a result, the membership, by custom, expects to be told when proposed amendments are coming up. Does this create an obligation to protect the rights of absentees by not allowing amendments to be proposed for the first time at the meeting? In other words, can custom influence the determination of whether a particular bylaw (which is in the nature of rule of order) is actually suspendable?

The problem with this question is that it doesn't tell us exactly what the bylaws do require for their amendment. Are the bylaws clear, or are they ambiguous? If the former, that is what is required. If the latter, you're on your own.

[Trina]

The problem with this question is that it doesn't tell us exactly what the bylaws do require for their amendment. Are the bylaws clear, or are they ambiguous? If the former, that is what is required. If the latter, you're on your own.

Ah well, perhaps I should 'start a new topic', to avoid any possible confusion with the facts in the original poster's situation. We still don't know if jzad_03's organization notifies its members in any manner at all (either by rule, or by custom) when a proposed bylaws amendment is to come up at the annual meeting.

[Guest jzad_03]

From what I can tell, the resolutions are passed on to the committee and they simply deem whether or not they are out of order and then they are voted on later at the annual meeting. Still researching though. But it seems as though once they are submitted they are judged whether or not they are in order, then they are voted on at the annual meeting several months later.

[Josh Martin]

From what I can tell, the resolutions are passed on to the committee and they simply deem whether or not they are out of order and then they are voted on later at the annual meeting. Still researching though. But it seems as though once they are submitted they are judged whether or not they are in order, then they are voted on at the annual meeting several months later.

If that's all that happens with the resolutions, then it would seem to me the rule could be suspended, and I question why the rule is necessary at all. Determining whether an amendment to the Bylaws is in order is generally not so complicated that a committee must be devoted to the task.

[Guest jzad_03]

I agree Josh, it isn't that complicated. Also, from what I've seen while researching, the Resolutions Committee has historically had very little power and are simply a rubber stamp for the resolutions that are proposed.

[Guest jzad_03]

Back to an original part of my question, as long ago as that was, has anyone found any examples, or any further explanation regarding when a rule/bylaw is in the nature of a rule of order? Or is it simply looking at the rule/bylaw and determining if it is simply procedural in nature? I ask because I was hoping someone had somewhere in the rules to cite to so I had some authority for my argument.

I know pg 17, lines 22-24 gives us the rule that allows their suspension, and pg 15 gives us Rules of Order, yet it is vague.

Again, I'm guessing there isn't much in the way of examples or definitions, just hoping that someone had something and if so it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

[Josh Martin]

Back to an original part of my question, as long ago as that was, has anyone found any examples, or any further explanation regarding when a rule/bylaw is in the nature of a rule of order? Or is it simply looking at the rule/bylaw and determining if it is simply procedural in nature?

It is always a bit of a judgment call. The key to remember is that rules of order "relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in that connection." (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 15, lines 5-7) So if a rule has application outside of a meeting context, it's not a rule of order. Thus, if the Bylaws state that the President presides at all meetings, that relates to the President's duties in connection with meetings. It's a rule of order and it could be suspended to allow someone else to preside. (Official Interpretation 2006-2) On the other hand, if the Bylaws give the President administrative authority outside of a meeting - such as the authority to spend money on his own - such a rule could not be suspended unless the Bylaws specifically provided for its suspension. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 12, lines 29-31) One more example that frequently comes up on this forum is a rule relating to eligibility for office. Many posters ask if such a rule can be suspended. Since officers continue to exist outside of meetings, such a rule clearly has application outside of a meeting context, and thus it is not in the nature of a rule of order and cannot be suspended unless the Bylaws provide for its suspension.

Even if a rule is determined to be a rule of order, some further scrutiny is required. The rule discussed in your situation relates to the handling of motions, which is clearly a parliamentary topic and thus a rule of order. Some rules of order, however, cannot be suspended. This is discussed in RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 254-256. Rules which protect the rights of absentees is one example. Another important point to remember is that a rule of order cannot be suspended for longer than the current session. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 85, lines 14-20) So to refer back to the President as presiding officer example, such a motion could only remove the President for the duration of the session, and would need to be moved again in the next session.