past practice

[Guest sammy]

our organization has had a past practice in place for 15 years, this pricatice does not conflict with any bylaws or written rules. Several member wanted to make a change in this practice with a bylaw, when this change was presented to other members, it was voted down by a 2/3 vote. The negatives are now saying that this past practice does not excist as they tried to change it, but it did not pass. I would say that the past practice is still a valid practice?

[jstackpo]

It would seem so to me since there is no (as you say) conflict with the bylaws or other rules.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

our organization has had a past practice in place for 15 years, this pricatice does not conflict with any bylaws or written rules.

Interesting.

I am laying odd that your "practice" (whatever it is) is indeed in conflict with a rule in Robert's Rules of Order.

Several members wanted to make a change in this practice with a bylaw, when this change was presented to other members, it was voted down by a 2/3 vote.

Snapshot:

Proposed bylaw is defeated.

Therefore, the status quo (whatever it happens to be) remains in place.

The negatives are now saying that this past practice does not exist as they tried to change it, but it did not pass.

False.

A defeated motion changes NOTHING.

Even a defeated proposed bylaw amendment.

I would say that the past practice is still a valid practice?

Well, I am laying odds that it isn't "valid."

But, given the circumstances so far, it is clear that your mysterious, unsaid precedent has yet to be overturned or altered.

Q. What is this so-called 'practice'?

I am betting that Robert's Rules of Order already covers it.

"Spin the wheel! I'm feeling lucky!"

[Josh Martin]

our organization has had a past practice in place for 15 years, this pricatice does not conflict with any bylaws or written rules. Several member wanted to make a change in this practice with a bylaw, when this change was presented to other members, it was voted down by a 2/3 vote. The negatives are now saying that this past practice does not excist as they tried to change it, but it did not pass. I would say that the past practice is still a valid practice?

If it is accurate that the assembly's custom does not conflict with the assembly's rules or the parliamentary authority, it should be followed unless the assembly, by majority vote, decides to do otherwise. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 17, lines 15-18)

[Rob Elsman]

our organization has had a past practice in place for 15 years, this pricatice does not conflict with any bylaws or written rules. Several member wanted to make a change in this practice with a bylaw, when this change was presented to other members, it was voted down by a 2/3 vote. The negatives are now saying that this past practice does not excist as they tried to change it, but it did not pass. I would say that the past practice is still a valid practice?

The rejection of a motion means only that the assembly expressly decides against doing what the motion proposes--nothing more. I agree that the customary practice should still be followed. See RONR (10th ed.), p. 31, ll. 31-34.

[Tim Wynn]

our organization has had a past practice in place for 15 years, this pricatice does not conflict with any bylaws or written rules. Several member wanted to make a change in this practice with a bylaw, when this change was presented to other members, it was voted down by a 2/3 vote. The negatives are now saying that this past practice does not excist as they tried to change it, but it did not pass. I would say that the past practice is still a valid practice?

A bylaw amendment is probably not necessary. As Mr. Martin's reference suggests, one of the "negatives" can simply make a motion to do things a different way, and a majority will decide.

[Guest Neil]

Our organization had a past practice where some bylaw amendments were sent out to the general membership for approval.  This was last applied in 2006.  In 2012 the bylaws were overhauled stating that the bylaws were amendable by a 2/3 vote of the assembly and that is the only option.  Is past practice therefore out of order since the bylaws were completely overhauled?

[Richard Brown]

This is the same question that this poster asked in a new thread. I suggest we respond only in the new thread search this thread is 7 years old.

Here is a link to the new thread : 

 

Edited February 19, 2018 at 09:28 PM by Richard Brown
Added link to new thread

[J. J.]

On 11/1/2010 at 7:19 PM, Guest sammy said:

our organization has had a past practice in place for 15 years, this pricatice does not conflict with any bylaws or written rules. Several member wanted to make a change in this practice with a bylaw, when this change was presented to other members, it was voted down by a 2/3 vote. The negatives are now saying that this past practice does not excist as they tried to change it, but it did not pass. I would say that the past practice is still a valid practice?

If the past practice, a custom, violates no adopted written rule it is still in effect.  It may be changed by a majority vote.

In some cases, most of which are not applicable using RONR, I would permit a point of order "that ____ is no longer this society's custom," to be raised when the custom involves something that is pending.  However the chair rules on the point of order, it would be subject to appeal.