Guest maggie cummings Posted August 10, 2010 at 02:02 AM Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 at 02:02 AM Our local zoning board makes a motion to dismiss Roberts Rules of order before their public meetings...is that legal or ethical? What would be the reason to do such a thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted August 10, 2010 at 02:07 AM Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 at 02:07 AM Our local zoning board makes a motion to dismiss Roberts Rules of order before their public meetings...is that legal or ethical? What would be the reason to do such a thing?A general motion to Suspend the Rules ("dismiss Robert's Rules of Order"?) is not in order. See RONR (10th ed.), §25, pp. 252ff. Note especially the subsection on form and examples on pp. 257, 258. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted August 10, 2010 at 04:18 PM Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 at 04:18 PM What would be the reason to do such a thing?Misunderstanding how the motion to Suspend the Rules works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted August 10, 2010 at 04:36 PM Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 at 04:36 PM Misunderstanding how the motion to Suspend the Rules works.Yet another instance of how an archaic term (see also "reconsider", "executive session") can mislead even the most well-intentioned member. Simply dropping the "s" in "Rules" would be a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted August 10, 2010 at 04:57 PM Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 at 04:57 PM Yet another instance of how an archaic term (see also "reconsider", "executive session") can mislead even the most well-intentioned member. Simply dropping the "s" in "Rules" would be a start.But then you'd make members think they have to suspend each rule individually. Sometimes, the only answer is for people to read the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted August 10, 2010 at 05:02 PM Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 at 05:02 PM But then you'd make members think they have to suspend each rule individually.I see nothing wrong with knowing just which rule(s) needs to be suspended. Right now it's a sort of "ends justify the means approach" in that you know what you want to do so you suspend whatever rules need to be suspended to do. Whichever rules they are. No one cares.I would assume that, in most cases, only one rule would need to be suspended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted August 10, 2010 at 05:08 PM Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 at 05:08 PM I see nothing wrong with knowing just which rule(s) needs to be suspended. Right now it's a sort of "ends justify the means approach" in that you know what you want to do so you suspend whatever rules need to be suspended to do. Whichever rules they are. No one cares.I would assume that, in most cases, only one rule would need to be suspended.I suspect such a process would be needlessly time-consuming and many applications of Suspend the Rules would require multiple rules to be suspended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.