Rules of Order

[Guest Dr. Matt Hogendobler]

Can the Executive Board create Rules of Order to correct errors in Bylaws when an amendment to Bylaws requires 2/3 affirmative vote of the General Membership? If not, can the Rules of Order be applied specifically to the Board actions and in the interim until the Bylaws can be officially amended?

[Guest Dr. Matt Hogendobler]

I should add the verbiage from Article X of our (VBC) Bylaws:

"The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised shall govern the VBC in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these Bylaws and any special rules of order which the VBC may adopt."

[hmtcastle]

Can the Executive Board create Rules of Order to correct errors in Bylaws when an amendment to Bylaws requires 2/3 affirmative vote of the General Membership?

No. And there are no "errors" in bylaws; they say what they say.

If not, can the Rules of Order be applied specifically to the Board actions and in the interim until the Bylaws can be officially amended?

Robert's Rules of Order apply except when they conflict with the bylaws, in which case(s) the bylaws prevail.

[Guest Dr. Matt Hogendobler]

No. And there are no "errors" in bylaws; they say what they say.

There's a clear error in identifying the number of board members. The bylaws state "9" but identify 10 by position.

Robert's Rules of Order apply except when they conflict with the bylaws, in which case(s) the bylaws prevail.

Article X states "The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised, shall govern the VBC in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these Bylaws and any special rules of order which the VBC may adopt." If the Rules of Order are not to supersede the Bylaws, erroneous or not, what are the "Rules of Order" for? Can you give me an example of a typical Rule of Order? I guess I am really confused about this now.

Thank you so much Mr. Mountcastle!

[Kim Goldsworthy]

If the Rules of Order are not to supersede the Bylaws, erroneous or not, what are the "Rules of Order" for?

Can you give me an example of a typical Rule of Order?

Rules of order are the set of official practices of parliamentary procedure for an organization.

E.g.:

• Debate shall be limited to [n] minutes per speaker.

• Tertiary amendments are in order.

• Voting shall be by raised hand or by ballot.

• Adjournment is at ten o'clock.

• By a two-thirds vote, the reading aloud of minutes may be waived.

All the above rules are customizations (or can be) of the parliamentary procedure for a given organization.

Assuming they are properly adopted, the above special rules of order supersede the default rule(s) in the parliamentary authority (which we hope is RONR).

[Guest NIancy N.]

Rules of order are the set of official practices of parliamentary procedure for an organization.

E.g.:

• Debate shall be limited to [n] minutes per speaker.

• Tertiary amendments are in order.

• Voting shall be by raised hand or by ballot.

• Adjournment is at ten o'clock.

• By a two-thirds vote, the reading aloud of minutes may be waived.

All the above rules are customizations (or can be) of the parliamentary procedure for a given organization.

Assuming they are properly adopted, the above special rules of order supersede the default rule(s) in the parliamentary authority (which we hope is RONR).

Nicely done, Kim. Reading along, I was going to suggest to Guest_Dr. Matt Hogendobler_*, as an example, that RONR's rule that speeches in dabate be limited to ten minutes, is a rule of order; and that Guest_Dr. Matt Hogendobler_*'s organization, determining that ten minutes is way too long, even for doctors, might adopt a different rule, that speeches be limited to two minutes. That, too, would be a rule of order, and it would be a special rule of order because it changes the rule in the parliamentary authority.

[hmtcastle]

There's a clear error in identifying the number of board members. The bylaws state "9" but identify 10 by position.

Well, that's more in the nature of a contradiction than an "error". That is to say, it's not clear which number is "correct" and, therefore, which number is "wrong". On the other hand, there may be other instances which refer to the number of board members and those may tend to favor one number over the other.

In any case, all such ambiguities (or outright contradictions) must be resolved by your organization (not the board) by analyzing they bylaws in their entirety, something that's beyond the scope of this forum. RONR provides some Principles of Interpretation on pp. 570-573.

[Guest Jo]

Can the Executive Board create Rules of Order

The executive board cannot adopt any rules (including standing rules) unless your bylaws specifically give the board that authority. "In an organized society, the board operates under the bylaws, the parliamentary authority, and any applicable special rules of order or standing rules of the society, except as the bylaws may authorize the board to adopt its own rules." RONR p. 469, l. 12-16

[Guest Dr. Matt Hogendobler]

Rules of order are the set of official practices of parliamentary procedure for an organization.

E.g.:

• Debate shall be limited to [n] minutes per speaker.

• Tertiary amendments are in order.

• Voting shall be by raised hand or by ballot.

• Adjournment is at ten o'clock.

• By a two-thirds vote, the reading aloud of minutes may be waived.

All the above rules are customizations (or can be) of the parliamentary procedure for a given organization.

Assuming they are properly adopted, the above special rules of order supersede the default rule(s) in the parliamentary authority (which we hope is RONR).

Thank you so much Kim. Your answers have been very helpful; however, I guess I should try to rephrase my question, which is becoming more dire every day.

We will be holding an emergency meeting of the General Membership of the Organization simply to seek 2/3 affirmative vote to amend Article X of our Bylaws, which currently states "The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised shall govern the VBC in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these Bylaws and any special rules of order which the VBC may adopt."

We currently have no rules of order to help us relax these rules for the July and August Board meetings, since none of us are parliamentarians. (Incidentally, we have proposed the following wording for the new Bylaws: "The rules of order governing the VBC shall be established by the Board in accordance with these Bylaws and with guidance from the most current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised.")

What can we do during our July and August Board meetings to relax the rules which exist in the current Bylaws? The examples you provided seem to offer little in the way of freeing us up to such things as allowing non members to speak, adopting agendas in advance, dispensing with a parliamentarian and the rules which require the exact phrases to be stated (order of the day, lay on the table, etc.). We want to run our meeting effectively, but without the constraints of rules we don't even know.

What "Rules of Order" can we write and adopt at the Special 1/2 hour Meeting of the Board, which will take place immediately prior to the Regular Meeting of the Board for the sole purpose of creating rules to supersede those established in Article X? If you'll just tell me what Rules you would recommend, I'll write them down and take them to the meeting, and we'll vote on them. We're really the blind leading the blind, trying to respect the authority, which is our Bylaws (and RONR).

What is the proper way to adopt the Rules I am hoping you will write for me? :-))

Most gratefully yours,

Dr. Matt Hogendobler, Secretary

[Guest Dr. Matt Hogendobler]

Thank you so much Kim. Your answers have been very helpful; however, I guess I should try to rephrase my question, which is becoming more dire every day.

We will be holding an emergency meeting of the General Membership of the Organization simply to seek 2/3 affirmative vote to amend Article X of our Bylaws, which currently states "The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised shall govern the VBC in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these Bylaws and any special rules of order which the VBC may adopt."

We currently have no rules of order to help us relax these rules for the July and August Board meetings, since none of us are parliamentarians. (Incidentally, we have proposed the following wording for the new Bylaws: "The rules of order governing the VBC shall be established by the Board in accordance with these Bylaws and with guidance from the most current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised.")

What can we do during our July and August Board meetings to relax the rules which exist in the current Bylaws? The examples you provided seem to offer little in the way of freeing us up to such things as allowing non members to speak, adopting agendas in advance, dispensing with a parliamentarian and the rules which require the exact phrases to be stated (order of the day, lay on the table, etc.). We want to run our meeting effectively, but without the constraints of rules we don't even know.

What "Rules of Order" can we write and adopt at the Special 1/2 hour Meeting of the Board, which will take place immediately prior to the Regular Meeting of the Board for the sole purpose of creating rules to supersede those established in Article X? If you'll just tell me what Rules you would recommend, I'll write them down and take them to the meeting, and we'll vote on them. We're really the blind leading the blind, trying to respect the authority, which is our Bylaws (and RONR).

What is the proper way to adopt the Rules I am hoping you will write for me? :-))

Most gratefully yours,

Dr. Matt Hogendobler, Secretary

P.S. I should have stated we have two Board meetings (July and August) before the official Emergency General Membership Meeting on Sept 13th, during which we hope to amend the Bylaws.

[Tim Wynn]

Dr. Hogendobler,

It seems to me that you're looking for a way to fix a problem, but you haven't mentioned what the problem is, yet. I'd like to slow you down, there.

You say you want to make your own rules of order, but you say you don't know what rules of order are. To me, that seems like buying a computer and deciding to get rid of the operating system and write your own, because you don't know enough about computers to work the one it came with. Let's not do that. Robert's Rules of Order will handle any parliamentary situation that will arise at your meeting, and you don't need to learn the whole book for it to be of great use.

You (and the president, and as many members as are interested) should start to learn what you can about Robert's Rules. "Robert's Rules In Brief" might be a good place to start. The wrong place to start would be trying to write your own rules of order.

Robert's Rules allows for suspension of its own rules and suspension of some rules in your bylaws... but I haven't yet seen a need for that from your posts.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

We will be holding an emergency meeting of the General Membership of the Organization simply to seek 2/3 affirmative vote to amend Article X of our Bylaws, which currently states:

"The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised shall govern the VBC in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these Bylaws and any special rules of order which the VBC may adopt."

"Yikes!"

THAT is what you want to GET RID OF???

What is wrong with that statement? - It says, "Use RONR until/unless Special Rules of Order are otherwise adopted."

If you don't like RONR's rules, then adopt your own customized rules.

What could be more flexible than that?

We currently have no rules of order to help us relax these rules for the July and August Board meetings, since none of us are parliamentarians.

RONR already holds a subset of relaxed rules! See "Procedure for Small Boards" on page 470-471, Section 49.

* Members are not required to obtain the floor before making motions or speaking, which they can do while seated.

* Motions need not be seconded.

* There is no limit to the number of times a member can speak to a question, and motions to close or limit debate (15, 16) generally should not be entertained.

* Informal discussion of a subject is permitted while no motion is pending.

* Sometimes, when a proposal is perfectly clear to all present, a vote can be taken without a motion’s having been introduced. Unless agreed to by unanimous consent, however, all proposed actions of a board must be approved by vote under the same rules as in other assemblies, except that a vote can be taken initially by a show of hands, which is often a better method in such meetings.

* The chairman need not rise while putting questions to vote.

* The chairman can speak in discussion without rising or leaving the chair; and, subject to rule or custom within the particular board (which should be uniformly followed regardless of how many members are present), he usually can make motions and usually votes on all questions.

Incidentally, we have proposed the following wording for the new Bylaws: "The rules of order governing the VBC shall be established by the Board in accordance with these Bylaws and with guidance from the most current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised."

"Holy suicide, Batman!"

That proposed language is pure crap. On stilts.

Don't do it. - You will regret it. - Guaranteed.

What can we do during our July and August Board meetings to relax the rules which exist in the current Bylaws?

See my above snippet from RONR page 470.

Don't you see anything you like on page 470?

If you do like what you see on page 470, the PLEASE DO NOTHING.

Use those rules. You've got them RIGHT NOW.

You WON'T have them if you adopt your "suicide" proposal (viz., to convert Robert's Rules to "guidelines").

What "Rules of Order" can we write and adopt at the Special 1/2 hour Meeting of the Board, which will take place immediately prior to the Regular Meeting of the Board for the sole purpose of creating rules to supersede those established in Article X?

If you'll just tell me what Rules you would recommend, I'll write them down and take them to the meeting, and we'll vote on them.

We're really the blind leading the blind, trying to respect the authority, which is our Bylaws (and RONR).

Recommendation:

1. Adopt nothing.

2. Use the rules you got.

3. You got 100% of page 470, as we speak.

4. If you want to "write down" something, write down page 470, photocopy it, and pass it out to all your board members.

5. Ask your board members (i.e. do not act unilaterally, on your own) if they like the "new" relaxed subset of rules found on page 470.

.

.

.

.

6. Accept their congratulations (e.g., "You're a friggin' genius, Hogendobler!" ) on your fine research into Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (Tenth Edition, 2000) - i.e., finding that key subset of relaxed rules.

[Guest Dr. Matt Hogendobler]

Dr. Hogendobler,

It seems to me that you're looking for a way to fix a problem, but you haven't mentioned what the problem is, yet. I'd like to slow you down, there.

You say you want to make your own rules of order, but you say you don't know what rules of order are. To me, that seems like buying a computer and deciding to get rid of the operating system and write your own, because you don't know enough about computers to work the one it came with. Let's not do that. Robert's Rules of Order will handle any parliamentary situation that will arise at your meeting, and you don't need to learn the whole book for it to be of great use.

You (and the president, and as many members as are interested) should start to learn what you can about Robert's Rules. "Robert's Rules In Brief" might be a good place to start. The wrong place to start would be trying to write your own rules of order.

Robert's Rules allows for suspension of its own rules and suspension of some rules in your bylaws... but I haven't yet seen a need for that from your posts.

Unfortunately, the link you provided for Roberts Rules in Brief actually took me to http://www.robertsrules.com/book.html, which is the complete version. I did not see any links on the page for a "brief" version, though I would like to have.

Admittedly (and as you have recognized), I am in a bit of a quandary not knowing how to write rules my President has asked me to write, pursuant to our Article X, to temporarily circumvent rules we don't know how to follow in the first place. We wish merely to relax Robert's Rules enough so we may get the business at hand done and not disrespect our bylaws or RONR.

For example, what would the wording be for a Rule of Order to permit adoption of an Agenda by email dissemination without dissenting replies, since "silence means assent?"... to permit electronic voting (via email)... to permit non-members an opportunity to speak at meetings? These identify problems we are facing and for which we do not even know if we have a solution.

What cases might permit us to suspend RONR's rules or those of some rules in our bylaws? Can you provide one or two examples? Does ignorance qualify?

Our President called me tonight to let me know he'd stopped by the library and picked up "An Idiot's Guide to 'Robert's Rules of Order,'" since his first meeting is next Tuesday. I didn't know whether to laugh or be insulted, but I am on a time crunch to distribute the Agendas soon, and I've no idea what to instruct the unknowing membership on how to proceed. (An Evelyn Wood graduate I am not.)

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Admittedly (and as you have recognized), I am in a bit of a quandary not knowing how to write rules my President has asked me to write, pursuant to our Article X, to temporarily circumvent rules we don't know how to follow in the first place.

Okay, I'll bite:

Q. What did your president ask you to write?

We wish merely to relax Robert's Rules enough so we may get the business at hand done and not disrespect our bylaws or RONR.

Okay, I'll dare to ask the obvious question:

Q. Which rule do you wish to relax?

For example, what would be the wording ...

1.) ... to permit adoption of an Agenda by email dissemination without dissenting replies, since "silence means assent?"

2.) ... to permit electronic voting (via email)

3.) ... to permit non-members an opportunity to speak at meetings?

Easy.

1.) Do nothing.

Okay, here the the something you can do ,which is nothing but Robert's Rules:

• Allow all members to add to the agenda before the meeting via email. - Allow all members to email, fax, carrier-pigeon, pony-express, etc., anything and everything they wish to appear on the agenda to the DRAFTER of the agenda, who may be a president, or a secretary, or a third party. It makes no difference who does this job, since the drafter is 100% free to jot down anything and everything. - Note: No extra rule is required, here!

• Then, at the meeting, PRESENT THE FULLY STUFFED AGENDA, as everybody wanted in on it. - And have the assembly, in a properly-called quorate meeting, ADOPT THE AGENDA, after the option of editing down, (or editing up, i.e., adding still more stuff to it) the agenda.

• Thus, there is no need to customize. - If your problem is "adding to the agenda", then just allow outside-of-meeting "adding" to your heart's content. The agenda need not be official until the meeting hour.

• I have a hunch you think an agenda must be approved BEFORE THE MEETING BEGINS. - That's hogwash, if Robert's Rules applies. That is a waste of time, i.e., to adopt a list of business items before the meeting hour. Do the adopting of your agenda AT the meeting and not BEFORE the meeting. That will maximize the ADDITION of items, and yet leave you the option to freely DELETE items.

2.) Amend the bylaws.

You cannot adopt a special rule of order for this one. You MUST amend your bylaws or constitution to allow any kind of form of absentee voting, because it violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law.

So, there is nothing to be done. - It is impossible to allow this at a board meeting (unless your board is empowered to amend bylaws, too).

3.) Have the chair use unanimous consent for any nonmember to speak.

Example: In a board meeting, If Col. Mustard is not a board member but is in attendence and wishes the speak, the chair should say: "If there is no objection, we will allow Col. Mustard the floor to speak on the subject."

Note that you don't have to adopt any new parliamentary rule. - You can do this RIGHT NOW.

Bottom line:

In your three examples, you don't have to change Robert's Rules one iota.

Everything can be done within the 700+ pages of RONR.

My recommendation:

Consult (i.e., hire!) a parliamentarian for a pre-meeting consultation. He/She will give you countless alternatives and countless pointers on how to achieve a given end.

You are trying to RE-INVENT THE WHEEL - to draft special rules of order, when you don't need to change a thing.

(This isn't the 1930s Depression-era "Works Progress Administration" (WPA) - there is no need to MAKE WORK out of thin air.)

[Guest of]

You're good people. I like this forum.

[Guest Dr. Matt Hogendobler]

"Yikes!"

THAT is what you want to GET RID OF???

What is wrong with that statement? - It says, "Use RONR until/unless Special Rules of Order are otherwise adopted."

If you don't like RONR's rules, then adopt your own customized rules.

What could be more flexible than that?

RONR already holds a subset of relaxed rules! See "Procedure for Small Boards" on page 470-471, Section 49.

"Holy suicide, Batman!"

That proposed language is pure crap. On stilts.

Don't do it. - You will regret it. - Guaranteed.

See my above snippet from RONR page 470.

Don't you see anything you like on page 470?

If you do like what you see on page 470, the PLEASE DO NOTHING.

Use those rules. You've got them RIGHT NOW.

You WON'T have them if you adopt your "suicide" proposal (viz., to convert Robert's Rules to "guidelines").

Recommendation:

1. Adopt nothing.

2. Use the rules you got.

3. You got 100% of page 470, as we speak.

4. If you want to "write down" something, write down page 470, photocopy it, and pass it out to all your board members.

5. Ask your board members (i.e. do not act unilaterally, on your own) if they like the "new" relaxed subset of rules found on page 470.

.

.

.

.

6. Accept their congratulations (e.g., "You're a friggin' genius, Hogendobler!" ) on your fine research into Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (Tenth Edition, 2000) - i.e., finding that key subset of relaxed rules.

For some reason, I don't feel like a genius. I need to get that book! Then I might not have to bother you any further. You've been a terrrrrific help Kim... How cool is all this?

Cheers for now...

Matt

[Guest Dr. Matt Hogendobler]

Okay, I'll bite:

Q. What did your president ask you to write?

Okay, I'll dare to ask the obvious question:

Q. Which rule do you wish to relax?

Easy.

1.) Do nothing.

Okay, here the the something you can do ,which is nothing but Robert's Rules:

• Allow all members to add to the agenda before the meeting via email. - Allow all members to email, fax, carrier-pigeon, pony-express, etc., anything and everything they wish to appear on the agenda to the DRAFTER of the agenda, who may be a president, or a secretary, or a third party. It makes no difference who does this job, since the drafter is 100% free to jot down anything and everything. - Note: No extra rule is required, here!

• Then, at the meeting, PRESENT THE FULLY STUFFED AGENDA, as everybody wanted in on it. - And have the assembly, in a properly-called quorate meeting, ADOPT THE AGENDA, after the option of editing down, (or editing up, i.e., adding still more stuff to it) the agenda.

OK.. what is the proper percentage of affirmative votes required to adopt the agenda? We have 12 board members; 9 of which with voting privileges. A quorum is established in the Bylaws at 6 voting members. How many need to raise their hands for the Agenda (amended, edited, etc.) to be considered adopted? 2/3 of voting members (quorum) or unanimous?

• Thus, there is no need to customize. - If your problem is "adding to the agenda", then just allow outside-of-meeting "adding" to your heart's content. The agenda need not be official until the meeting hour.

• I have a hunch you think an agenda must be approved BEFORE THE MEETING BEGINS. - That's hogwash, if Robert's Rules applies. That is a waste of time, i.e., to adopt a list of business items before the meeting hour. Do the adopting of your agenda AT the meeting and not BEFORE the meeting. That will maximize the ADDITION of items, and yet leave you the option to freely DELETE items.

2.) Amend the bylaws.

You cannot adopt a special rule of order for this one. You MUST amend your bylaws or constitution to allow any kind of form of absentee voting, because it violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law.

So, there is nothing to be done. - It is impossible to allow this at a board meeting (unless your board is empowered to amend bylaws, too).

3.) Have the chair use unanimous consent for any nonmember to speak.

Example: In a board meeting, If Col. Mustard is not a board member but is in attendence and wishes the speak, the chair should say: "If there is no objection, we will allow Col. Mustard the floor to speak on the subject."

Note that you don't have to adopt any new parliamentary rule. - You can do this RIGHT NOW.

Bottom line:

In your three examples, you don't have to change Robert's Rules one iota.

Everything can be done within the 700+ pages of RONR.

My recommendation:

Consult (i.e., hire!) a parliamentarian for a pre-meeting consultation. He/She will give you countless alternatives and countless pointers on how to achieve a given end.

You are trying to RE-INVENT THE WHEEL - to draft special rules of order, when you don't need to change a thing.

(This isn't the 1930s Depression-era "Works Progress Administration" (WPA) - there is no need to MAKE WORK out of thin air.)

[Guest Dr. Matt Hogendobler]

OK.. what is the proper percentage of affirmative votes required to adopt the agenda? We have 12 board members; 9 of which with voting privileges. A quorum is established in the Bylaws at 6 voting members. How many need to raise their hands for the Agenda (amended, edited, etc.) to be considered adopted? 2/3 of voting members (quorum) or unanimous?

[Gary c Tesser]

OK.. what is the proper percentage of affirmative votes required to adopt the agenda? We have 12 board members; 9 of which with voting privileges. A quorum is established in the Bylaws at 6 voting members. How many need to raise their hands for the Agenda (amended, edited, etc.) to be considered adopted? 2/3 of voting members (quorum) or unanimous?

A majority vote, that's all. It means more Yes (in favor) votes than No (opposed) votes. When one or a few members can vote, the rest sit on their hands, and out of that, more in favor than opposed, then that's a majority vote. (Almost certainly the non-voters don't count: check your bylaws. Robert's Rules says a member is a member, and everyone else isn't; this non-voting hybrid animal is your wild card.)

And Doctor, yes, Mr Wynn provided the wrong link. Go back to robertsrules.com and scroll down. Or if you must, look at robertsrules.com/inbrief.html . Don't wait to order it. Phone around or get your receptionist or nurse, to find a bookstore that has RONR-IB, get it THIS AFTERNOON and read the whole thing while you stand there and you'll finish it (The First Time) befpre your feet hurt. I want you posting back here Wednesday afternoon with questions about p. 23 and p. 122.

Sure, go ahead and order a copy for your hapless president. Go and order a bunch, maybe they'll give you a discount.

[hmtcastle]

And Doctor, yes, Mr Wynn provided the wrong link. Go back to robertsrules.com and scroll down. Or if you must, look at robertsrules.com/inbrief.html.

Or click here.

[Josh Martin]

The examples you provided seem to offer little in the way of... dispensing with a parliamentarian and the rules which require the exact phrases to be stated (order of the day, lay on the table, etc.). We want to run our meeting effectively, but without the constraints of rules we don't even know.

Go ahead and dispense with the parliamentarian. And it's not the end of the world if you don't use the "exact phrases" in the book, so long as everyone knows what you're talking about. (Lay on the Table may actually be one you want to be careful about, though, as it's often confused with other motions - see FAQ #12 and FAQ #13, elsewhere on this site.

What cases might permit us to suspend RONR's rules or those of some rules in our bylaws? Can you provide one or two examples? Does ignorance qualify?

It's not the reason that matters when suspending rules, it's the type of rule you wish to suspend. Most rules in RONR may be suspended by a 2/3 vote or unanimous consent. Certain types of rules may not be suspended, such as rules which protect the rights of absentees. (RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 254-256) Rules in the Bylaws may not be suspended unless the rule provides for its own suspension or if the rule is in the nature of a rule of order. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 254, lines 28-34)

Some examples of suspending rules in RONR:

• The rules may be suspended to permit non-members to speak in debate.
• The rules may be suspended to take up an item before it is called for in the order of business or agenda.

Some examples of rules in RONR that cannot be suspended:

• Rules requiring previous notice.
• The rules could not be suspended to deprive an individual member of the right to vote, make motions, or speak in debate.

Some examples of rules in Bylaws that could be suspended:

• A rule setting a time limit for debate.
• A rule "That the President shall preside at all meetings," to allow for someone else to preside at a meeting if the President becomes insufferable.

Some examples of rules in Bylaws that could not be suspended (unless the Bylaws say you can):

• A rule which gave the Treasurer the authority to make certain expenditures. (Not a rule of order)
• A rule which required 30 days of notice for Bylaw amendments. (Protects absentees)

Our President called me tonight to let me know he'd stopped by the library and picked up "An Idiot's Guide to 'Robert's Rules of Order,'" since his first meeting is next Tuesday. I didn't know whether to laugh or be insulted

I think you mean "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Robert's Rules." I haven't read it personally, but it's written by a professional parliamentarian (the current Parliamentarian for the National Association of Parliamentarians, in fact), so I wouldn't feel insulted. I probably would still advise RONR In Brief. It's written by the RONR authorship team, so you can't beat that.

[Guest Dr. Matt Hogendobler]

Go ahead and dispense with the parliamentarian. And it's not the end of the world if you don't use the "exact phrases" in the book, so long as everyone knows what you're talking about. (Lay on the Table may actually be one you want to be careful about, though, as it's often confused with other motions - see FAQ #12 and FAQ #13, elsewhere on this site.

It's not the reason that matters when suspending rules, it's the type of rule you wish to suspend. Most rules in RONR may be suspended by a 2/3 vote or unanimous consent. Certain types of rules may not be suspended, such as rules which protect the rights of absentees. (RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 254-256) Rules in the Bylaws may not be suspended unless the rule provides for its own suspension or if the rule is in the nature of a rule of order. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 254, lines 28-34)

Some examples of suspending rules in RONR:

• The rules may be suspended to permit non-members to speak in debate.
• The rules may be suspended to take up an item before it is called for in the order of business or agenda.

Some examples of rules in RONR that cannot be suspended:

• Rules requiring previous notice.
• The rules could not be suspended to deprive an individual member of the right to vote, make motions, or speak in debate.

Some examples of rules in Bylaws that could be suspended:

• A rule setting a time limit for debate.
• A rule "That the President shall preside at all meetings," to allow for someone else to preside at a meeting if the President becomes insufferable.

Some examples of rules in Bylaws that could not be suspended (unless the Bylaws say you can):

• A rule which gave the Treasurer the authority to make certain expenditures. (Not a rule of order)
• A rule which required 30 days of notice for Bylaw amendments. (Protects absentees)

I think you mean "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Robert's Rules." I haven't read it personally, but it's written by a professional parliamentarian (the current Parliamentarian for the National Association of Parliamentarians, in fact), so I wouldn't feel insulted. I probably would still advise RONR In Brief. It's written by the RONR authorship team, so you can't beat that.

My apologies for not getting back to you sooner. I am happy to report it is because I am still reading RONR in Brief, which I began standing in the office, between patient visits. :-)

[Guest Dr. Matt Hogendobler]

My apologies for not getting back to you sooner. I am happy to report it is because I am still reading RONR in Brief, which I began standing in the office, between patient visits. :-)

OK I now have a couple of questions:

1. If we adopt the Parliamentary Procedure for Small Boards on pps 470-471, and realizing twelve as the magic number, can we create a rule of order which permits discussion? (ie. “Suspend rule in RONR in order to permit Chair to ‘open the floor to discussion’ on matters presented for debate with or without a motion.”)

2. Would that require a 2/3 vote of the voting members?

2. Do written reports from members and officers need to be voted on (approved) if there is no issue contained therein requiring a motion and/or a vote? I realize (having read it somewhere) that they must be presented in writing in order to be "filed."

3. What is the difference between a rule of order and a standing rule of order?

Thanks all...

Dr. Matt

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Q.2. Do written reports from members and officers need to be voted on (approved) if there is no issue contained therein requiring a motion and/or a vote?

No.

• A treasurer's report is the classic example. - The treasurer gives his monthly report, the chair says thank you, and moves on with the agenda. No motion ("to receive the report") is necessary. The report is automatically (we hope!) filed by the secretary in the appropriate file.

• Classic example #2: Often, a committee will give an interim report. For example, the Xmas Party Committee will report on the hotel chosen, the meal choices, the entertainment, and mention what is left to settle/negotiate. No motion is appropriate here, since the committee needs no extra input, and the assembly need not "act" on anything.

Q.3. What is the difference between:

(a.) a rule of order

(b.) a standing rule of order?

There is NO SUCH THING as #b. - You have melded a hodge-podge of two terms, "standing rule" and "rule of order."

RONR mentions:

(1.) "special rules of order" which are parliamentary rules customized by the organization to supersede or enhance whatever rule (or lack thereof) the parliamentary authority (RONR, we hope) fails to address in a satisfactory manner.

(2.) standing rules are non-parliamentary rules of administration, usually applicable OUTSIDE of a meeting.

(But see RONR for an example where an administrative rule can exist/apply WITHIN a rule: namely, the rule requiring the wearing of badges during a meeting.)

Really, you must get a copy of The Book. - Section 2 ("Rules of an assembly or organization") clearly lays out what kinds of rules there can be.

[Josh Martin]

1. If we adopt the Parliamentary Procedure for Small Boards on pps 470-471, and realizing twelve as the magic number, can we create a rule of order which permits discussion? (ie. “Suspend rule in RONR in order to permit Chair to ‘open the floor to discussion’ on matters presented for debate with or without a motion.”)

2. Would that require a 2/3 vote of the voting members?

Well, I don't think it's accurate to call twelve "the magic number." RONR says "not more than about a dozen." (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 470, lines 17-20) So there's some leeway. Anyway, if your board chooses to use the small board rules, there's no need to create a special rule of order to allow the board to debate topics without a motion, as that is already permitted under the small board rules. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 470, lines 31-32)

2. Do written reports from members and officers need to be voted on (approved) if there is no issue contained therein requiring a motion and/or a vote? I realize (having read it somewhere) that they must be presented in writing in order to be "filed."

If a report is for information only, no motion should be made. The report should simply be filed. Voting to approve the report would imply that the assembly supported every word within the report, and thus should very rarely be used. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 507, lines 28-30; pg. 491, lines 8-15; pg. 490, lines 10-21; pg. 459, lines 20-22) Additionally, while reports should generally be in writing, brief reports may be given orally. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 507, lines 24-28)

3. What is the difference between a rule of order and a standing rule of order?

It's simply "standing rule" not "standing rule of order." Rules of order relate to parliamentary procedure. Thus, they relate to the conduct of business in meetings. Standing rules relate to administrative details. Special rules of order (rules of order adopted by the assembly to supersede the parliamentary authority) require a 2/3 vote with previous notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership for adoption, amendment, or rescission. Standing rules can be adopted, amended, and rescinded by the same voting requirements as an ordinary motion. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 15, lines 3-9; pg. 17, lines 28-31; pg. 18, lines 3-8)

An example of a special rule of order would be a rule related to how long members may speak in debate. An example of a standing rule would be a rule related to smoking in the gazebo.