Waiving By-Laws necessary for officer nominations

[Guest Ellen]

When is the proper time to vote on waiving the By-Laws necessary in order for members to be included on the election slate?

Specifically we have a few members who we would like to put on the slate, but they need waiver on By-laws. Do we vote on the waiver at the meeting at which the slate is presented or at the meeting at which the election takes place?

Thanks,

Ellen

[Rob Elsman]

When is the proper time to vote on waiving the By-Laws necessary in order for members to be included on the election slate?

Specifically we have a few members who we would like to put on the slate, but they need waiver on By-laws. Do we vote on the waiver at the meeting at which the slate is presented or at the meeting at which the election takes place?

Thanks,

Ellen

What is the nature of the applicable bylaw? Does it provide for its own suspension?

[Guest Ellen]

What is the nature of the applicable bylaw? Does it provide for its own suspension?

The by-laws needing waiver are for time served. Specifically one member who has served 4 years when 5 years are required for the position. The by-laws provide for waiver upon 2/3 vote. Just don't know when that vote should take place.

[Rob Elsman]

The by-laws needing waiver are for time served. Specifically one member who has served 4 years when 5 years are required for the position. The by-laws provide for waiver upon 2/3 vote. Just don't know when that vote should take place.

Okay. Thank you. The motion should be made at the session when the election (i.e., the voting) is to be held, since it is at this session that the breach would otherwise occur if the ineligible person were elected.

[Guest Ellen]

Thanks. NOW, if the by-laws state that the waiver should take place at the nomination meeting which takes precedence: by-laws or Roberts Rules?

[Rob Elsman]

Thanks. NOW, if the by-laws state that the waiver should take place at the nomination meeting which takes precedence: by-laws or Roberts Rules?

Well, the bylaw would control.

[Guest Ellen]

Well, the bylaw would control.

UGH. OK. Thanks. Was hoping that RR would rule. Thanks for your responses.

[Rob Elsman]

UGH. OK. Thanks. Was hoping that RR would rule. Thanks for your responses.

You're welcome. You can take a look at RONR (10th ed.), p. 14, ll. 12-20, to confirm this for yourself.

[Guest Ellen]

You're welcome. You can take a look at RONR (10th ed.), p. 14, ll. 12-20, to confirm this for yourself.

Great. I'll check that out. Thanks again.

[Weldon Merritt]

Well, the bylaw would control.

Wouldn't the rule allowing waiver (not the rule being waived) be “in the nature of a rule of order”? If so, seems to me that the requirement that it be done at the nomination meeting is suspendable, which would allow it to be done later.

[Rob Elsman]

Wouldn't the rule allowing waiver (not the rule being waived) be “in the nature of a rule of order”? If so, seems to me that the requirement that it be done at the nomination meeting is suspendable, which would allow it to be done later.

I am inclined to think of a bylaw that limits the making of certain classes of motions to certain meetings as not being in the nature of a suspendable rule of order, but I'd be interested in hearing from others about this.

[Weldon Merritt]

I am inclined to think of a bylaw that limits the making of certain classes of motions to certain meetings as not being in the nature of a suspendable rule of order, but I'd be interested in hearing from others about this.

So would I. I am not 100% sure myself, though I am inclined to think it is a suspendable rule.

[Rob Elsman]

So would I. I am not 100% sure myself, though I am inclined to think it is a suspendable rule.

Is it your opinion that a bylaw that limits the making of a motion to amend the bylaws to the annual meeting is a suspendable rule of order?

[Weldon Merritt]

Is it your opinion that a bylaw that limits the making of a motion to amend the bylaws to the annual meeting is a suspendable rule of order?

Actually, no. I have been trying to come up with a good reason why one would be suspendable and the other not, but have not been able to; so I guess I would have to say that the rule in question probably is not, either. But I do wish some others would chime in on the issue.

[jstackpo]

I'm with Rob E. on this one (!).

Remember that a suspendable rule of order relates "to the orderly transaction of business in a meeting" -- p. 15.

The rule in question deals with WHAT business (waiving a rule) may be transacted WHEN (at the nomination meeting), not its "orderly transaction". Not suspendable.

[Weldon Merritt]

The rule in question deals with WHAT business (waiving a rule) may be transacted WHEN (at the nomination meeting), not its "orderly transaction". Not suspendable.

I'm convinced!

[Rev Ed]

Actually this whole thing is outside of RONR as it deals with the By-laws and the organization's requirements for candidates. It is up to the organization to determine all this, not RONR. If the organization wants this particular By-law, then it should be enforced. If not, then repeal the By-law. However, it is up to the organization to make these decisions, not anyone on this site (including myself.)

[Tim Wynn]

I'm with Rob E. on this one (!).

Remember that a suspendable rule of order relates "to the orderly transaction of business in a meeting" -- p. 15.

The rule in question deals with WHAT business (waiving a rule) may be transacted WHEN (at the nomination meeting), not its "orderly transaction". Not suspendable.

Sounds good to me. I'd also say p. 15, l. 10-13 is pretty convincing.