Suspend The Rules

[David A Foulkes]

If bylaws stipulate that the Secretary shall call the roll at meetings, is that one of those rules of order that can be suspended, as referenced on page 17, lines 22-24?

[George Mervosh]

I don't think calling the roll itself can be suspended, but the Secretary doing it certainly could. It's the duty of a particular officer that can be suspended, not the rule that the roll will be called itself, in my view.

[Rob Elsman]

If bylaws stipulate that the Secretary shall call the roll at meetings, is that one of those rules of order that can be suspended, as referenced on page 17, lines 22-24?

That the roll shall be called is not a suspendable rule of order, in my view, but the rules can be suspended to call the roll out of its proper place in the established order of business.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

If bylaws stipulate that the Secretary shall call the roll at meetings,

is that one of those rules of order that can be suspended,

as referenced on page 17, lines 22-24?

Q. For what purpose?

The motion, 'Suspend the Rules', is only moved when the mover intends to do something which cannot be done without violating a rule.

If the "purpose," in your case, is that the roll call is delayed, then yes, you are free to move around the roll call to before or after (say) a special order, or a guest speaker.

Just as minutes (i.e., the reading and approval thereof) may be deferred (The Book's term is "dispensed with"), then likewise most anything done in a meeting may be deferred.

Q. Why are you suspending the rules?

[David A Foulkes]

My thinking was that, specifically in the case of a Board meeting, if all members are present there would be no need to spend the time calling the role. Without objection, the minutes could reflect that all were in attendance, and skip over the call. Just a time-saver, mostly.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

My thinking was that,

specifically in the case of a Board meeting,

if all members are present

there would be no need to spend the time calling the role.

Without objection,

the minutes could reflect that all were in attendance,

and skip over the call.

"Without objection"?

Sounds okay to me.

(a.) No absentee members' rights were violated;

(b.) RONR says that unanimous consent can achieve anything which requires a majority vote or a two-thirds vote.

If you have unanimous consent, then you have a two-thirds vote, indirectly.

So if you were looking for a two-thirds vote, then you've got it.

[Gary Novosielski]

My thinking was that, specifically in the case of a Board meeting, if all members are present there would be no need to spend the time calling the role. Without objection, the minutes could reflect that all were in attendance, and skip over the call. Just a time-saver, mostly.

Yeah, but in the time it would take to say

"If there is no objection, the calling of the role will be dispensed with, and the minutes will reflect the fact that all directors are in attendance with the exception of Mrs. Smith and Mr. Wesson. Is there objection?

<pause>

The chair hears none and it is so ordered,"

you could probably call seven or eight names of the roll call.

Add to that the weight of tradition and the fact that people love to hear their names, and you might actually get an objection. In that case, taking the vote on whether to dispense with the roll call would invariably take longer than the roll call itself--especially if someone moves for a roll-call vote on the question, and someone else calls for a rising vote on that motion.

But I digress...

[David A Foulkes]

But I digress...

Yes, well.....

So, not a suspendable rule of order? (aye or no)

[Gary Novosielski]

Yes, well.....

So, not a suspendable rule of order? (aye or no)

Actually, I'd lean toward No, at least as to its being done at all. As to who does it, sure--suspendable. As to when it's done, that's touchy. If its purpose is, in part, to confirm a quorum and record attendance, it had better be done early on before substantive business or its purpose will be partially thwarted.

And I'm not confident that the original intent of the bylaw is fully met by the proposed action of silently recording the names in the minutes, so I'd count it as more than a rule of order.

And even if it were suspendable, I'm queasy about a chair assuming, as a matter of routine, a motion to Suspend the Rules. The chair's primary duty is to enforce the rules, which suggests that a bias on the side of the status quo, or at least of the bylaws, would not be out of place.

[David A Foulkes]

Actually, I'd lean toward No, at least as to its being done at all. As to who does it, sure--suspendable.

Okay, not suspendable as a rule of order.

As to "who does it", OI #2 (and associated RONR citation there):

Rules of order "relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in that connection." RONR (10th ed.), p. 15, l. 5-7 (emphasis added). Consequently, Suspend the Rules cannot be used to remove from the [officer] (even temporarily) any of her administrative duties..."

So does that mean that only the Secretary can call the roll? Yes, OI2 refers to removing the President, but the language applies more broadly as I read it.

[Gary Novosielski]

Okay, not suspendable as a rule of order.

As to "who does it", OI #2 (and associated RONR citation there):

Rules of order "relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in that connection." RONR (10th ed.), p. 15, l. 5-7 (emphasis added). Consequently, Suspend the Rules cannot be used to remove from the [officer] (even temporarily) any of her administrative duties..."

So does that mean that only the Secretary can call the roll? Yes, OI2 refers to removing the President, but the language applies more broadly as I read it.

It does, but this is not an administrative duty, i.e., one outside the context of a meeting. It relates to the duty of the Secretary to "transact" in an orderly manner, the business of taking roll call. As long as someone else can cause it to happen in an orderly manner, the duty (but not the business) is suspendable.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

So, not a suspendable rule of order? (aye or no)

I'd say "Yes."

Anything which appears on an agenda shall be suspendable in at least one way.

We know this because the order of items on an agenda (i.e., an item of business within the order of business) are subject to being moved up/down.

So, depending on what you end up doing, if you've got "Roll Call" as Item #2 on your agenda, then you are free to move item #2 up and down, in whatever direction you wish.

Just like the reading/approval of minutes. - Up. Down. All around.

"Dispense with" it.

[J. J.]

The rule that the secretary, that person, calls the roll is the duty of an officer related to the transaction of business within the meeting and can be suspended.

The rule that the roll has to be physically called, as opposed to someone noting who is present, is a rule in the nature of a rule of order and can be suspended.

[David A Foulkes]

The rule that the secretary, that person, calls the roll is the duty of an officer related to the transaction of business within the meeting and can be suspended.

The rule that the roll has to be physically called, as opposed to someone noting who is present, is a rule in the nature of a rule of order and can be suspended.

J. J. - just to be sure you didn't fall into the not hole?

[J. J.]

J. J. - just to be sure you didn't fall into the not hole?

Can be. The rules could be suspended to permit J. J., who isn't secretary, to call the roll.

Can be. The physical calling of the roll deals with (broadly) the transaction of business within a meeting; it would be to get a record of who is present for the minutes. There be a low quorum and very few there. The secretary might know that only Dick, Jane, Sally, Pete, Dot, Jim, and J. J., are at the meeting, and might record that without reading a roll.