Rules

[robert conway]

When a motion on rules is made from the floor to have the members vote to change the rule (in question).

Where the out come would (if voted in the affirmative),be in conflict with standard rules. And challenge the rules committee authority on rules making and policing violations of the rules.

How can this rule be kept from coming to the floor at every Quarterly meeting?

Can the Chair say the rule is out of order and explain it has been gone over many times it cannot be implemented because it conflicts with current law?.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

When a motion on rules is made from the floor to have the members vote to change the rule (in question).

Where the outcome would (if voted in the affirmative), be in conflict with standard rules.

And challenge the rules committee authority on rules making and policing violations of the rules.

How can this rule be kept from coming to the floor at every Quarterly meeting?

I don't know. Why would you not want it coming up, if the change is a popularly-demanded change, obviously, per the countless times the motion has been moved? Why are you fighting what your membership wants?

Can the Chair say the rule is out of order and explain it has been gone over many times it cannot be implemented because it conflicts with current law?

The chair may rule a given motion as being out of order. That is one job of a chair - to make rulings on motions.

But if the membership wishes to implement the rule, then your real goal ought to the answer to the question, "How can we implement this change, properly?"

What is preventing your chair from informing the maker of the motion, "The motion is out of order because [insert reason here]. If the member wishes to change the rule, then the proper steps would be [insert steps here]."

[Gary Novosielski]

When a motion on rules is made from the floor to have the members vote to change the rule (in question).

Where the out come would (if voted in the affirmative),be in conflict with standard rules. And challenge the rules committee authority on rules making and policing violations of the rules.

How can this rule be kept from coming to the floor at every Quarterly meeting?

Can the Chair say the rule is out of order and explain it has been gone over many times it cannot be implemented because it conflicts with current law?.

In one place you say it conflicts with "standard rules" and in another place with the "law".

That's a big difference.

You can certainly pass a rule that conflicts with "standard rules" if by standard you mean Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR). If you do, then RONR is overruled, and your new rule becomes the rule, as long as nothing in your bylaws prohibits it.

If the law you refer to is an actual statute or case law that imposes certain parliamentary rules of order on organizations of your type, then that law supersedes your bylaws, any rules you may adopt, and RONR as well.

Your chair can and should rule that a motion to enact such a rule, or any rule that would be in conflict with your bylaws (unless properly offered as an amendment), is not in order.

If the "law" is simply a general law making certain actions illegal for everyone (i.e., not a parliamentary rule of order) then you can, in theory move to do something that would violate it. While you would not run afoul of RONR in so doing, nobody here can guarantee you won't run afoul of those charged with enforcing that law.

Keep an ear out for the sirens.

[robert conway]

I don't know. Why would you not want it coming up, if the change is a popularly-demanded change, obviously, per the countless times the motion has been moved? Why are you fighting what your membership wants?

The chair may rule a given motion as being out of order. That is one job of a chair - to make rulings on motions.

But if the membership wishes to implement the rule, then your real goal ought to the answer to the question, "How can we implement this change, properly?"

What is preventing your chair from informing the maker of the motion, "The motion is out of order because [insert reason here]. If the member wishes to change the rule, then the proper steps would be [insert steps here]."

[robert conway]

I don't know. Why would you not want it coming up, if the change is a popularly-demanded change, obviously, per the countless times the motion has been moved? Why are you fighting what your membership wants?

The chair may rule a given motion as being out of order. That is one job of a chair - to make rulings on motions.

But if the membership wishes to implement the rule, then your real goal ought to the answer to the question, "How can we implement this change, properly?"

What is preventing your chair from informing the maker of the motion, "The motion is out of order because [insert reason here]. If the member wishes to change the rule, then the proper steps would be [insert steps here]."

Kim,

The Majority has voted the motion down each time. It is but a few that want a change of rule.

The Chair should explain that this rule change motion is out of order. The whys are in the past minutes and anyone of them could be used to not let motion on the floor.

The rules committee has asked that normal procedure of written request to chair about reason and request for change be followed. The Chair in turn would refer to the Chair of rule committee for action and response back to board. This procedure is used most often. Bylaws state what rules we are to follow and this request would be in conflict with those rules.

[Gary c Tesser]

Kim,

The Majority has voted the motion down each time. It is but a few that want a change of rule.

The Chair should explain that this rule change motion is out of order. The whys are in the past minutes and anyone of them could be used to not let motion on the floor.

The rules committee has asked that normal procedure of written request to chair about reason and request for change be followed. The Chair in turn would refer to the Chair of rule committee for action and response back to board. This procedure is used most often. Bylaws state what rules we are to follow and this request would be in conflict with those rules.

Kim, please stop.

"I don't know. Why would you not want it coming up, if the change is a popularly-demanded change, obviously, per the countless times the motion has been moved? Why are you fighting what your membership wants?"

Stop asserting nonsense as established fact.

______

Your "Obviously" is the key.

What is obvious is that this is NOT a popularly-demanded change.

This kind of assumption is not just nonsensical, it becomes tedious.

Please stop.

I notice that you have, indeed, stopped flatly stating on this forum that boards don't exist, &c &c. Please follow through.

-- GcT

[Josh Martin]

How can this rule be kept from coming to the floor at every Quarterly meeting?

Can the Chair say the rule is out of order and explain it has been gone over many times it cannot be implemented because it conflicts with current law?.

The Majority has voted the motion down each time. It is but a few that want a change of rule.

The Chair should explain that this rule change motion is out of order. The whys are in the past minutes and anyone of them could be used to not let motion on the floor.

The rules committee has asked that normal procedure of written request to chair about reason and request for change be followed. The Chair in turn would refer to the Chair of rule committee for action and response back to board. This procedure is used most often. Bylaws state what rules we are to follow and this request would be in conflict with those rules.

Since you say the motion conflicts with the Bylaws, the motion should be ruled out of order (unless, of course, it is a motion to amend the Bylaws, and it follows the procedure in the Bylaws for doing so).

[robert conway]

The request to change is personal from a small group (like last vote was 40-12 against)...oh poor me I am going to be penalized for some stupid thing I did. And I may continue to do so I need help here please change the rules.

No Can do thanks for your perspectives...??? RONR

Now must talk to President about RONR

[Josh Martin]

The request to change is personal from a small group (like last vote was 40-12 against)...oh poor me I am going to be penalized for some stupid thing I did. And I may continue to do so I need help here please change the rules.

A motion is not out of order simply because it has been overwhelmingly defeated at a previous session. If the membership is as lopsided on this as you say, however, the motion may be quickly disposed of if made again. The motion for the Previous Question will immediately bring the motion to a vote. It is undebatable and requires a 2/3 vote.

[Gary c Tesser]

A motion is not out of order simply because it has been overwhelmingly defeated at a previous session. If the membership is as lopsided on this as you say, however, the motion may be quickly disposed of if made again. The motion for the Previous Question will immediately bring the motion to a vote. It is undebatable and requires a 2/3 vote.

Any reason (that's not occurring to me) that Objection to Consideration might not work as well, maybe better, for marly?

[George Mervosh]

Any reason (that's not occurring to me) that Objection to Consideration might not work as well, maybe better, for marly?

Gary, it sounds like a motion to rescind/amend something previously adopted, which cannot be objected to, since it's not an original main motion.