Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

p. 17 line 25 not clear - suspending rules of order placed within bylaws


loose

Recommended Posts

p. 17 line 25 "Rules clearly identifiable as in the nature of rules of order that are placed within the bylaws can [also] be suspended by a 2/3 vote; but, except for such rules and for clauses that provide for their own suspension[, as stated above,] bylaws cannot be suspended."

In other words, you can't suspend rules of order imbedded in the bylaws unless the bylaws provide for their suspension specifically and to do so always requires a 2/3 vote? With previous notice presumably? or majority of entire assembly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

p. 17 line 25 "Rules clearly identifiable as in the nature of rules of order that are placed within the bylaws can [also] be suspended by a 2/3 vote; but, except for such rules and for clauses that provide for their own suspension[, as stated above,] bylaws cannot be suspended."

In other words, you can't suspend rules of order imbedded in the bylaws unless the bylaws provide for their suspension specifically and to do so always requires a 2/3 vote? With previous notice presumably? or majority of entire assembly?

No, rules that are in the bylaws, but happen to be 'in the nature of rules of order' can be suspended, just like any other rule of order -- using the motion 'suspend the rules' (hence the reference to section 25 on line 21 of the page you cite). Rules of order embedded in the bylaws do not require additional language to provide for their own suspension. However, in practice it can sometimes be difficult to be certain whether a particular rule is 'in the nature of a rule of order.'

Other bylaws (the ones not in the nature of a rule of order) can only be suspended if they incorporate provisions for their own suspension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, in practice it can sometimes be difficult to be certain whether a particular rule is 'in the nature of a rule of order.'

And, if I recall correctly, there may be rules in bylaws that, even though they are clearly in the nature of rules of order, still can't be suspended. In other words, it's a necessary but not a sufficient condition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compound sentences are always tricky... The one you quote has three parts:

A "rule of order" (see top of p.15 for that they are) in bylaws can be suspended - 2/3 vote (no notice, no "self-suspension" qualification) required.

Any rule (no matter what type of rule) with a "self-suspension" qualification may be suspended.

All other rules in bylaws may not be suspended.

Aside: A self-suspension qualification when written for a rule of order is redundant, but it does finesse arguments as to whether the rule actually is (or is not) a suspendable rule of order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, if I recall correctly, there may be rules in bylaws that, even though they are clearly in the nature of rules of order, still can't be suspended. In other words, it's a necessary but not a sufficient condition.

Yes, thanks for pointing that out. I was just uneasily coming back to edit my earlier response, along those lines :) . To the OP, see p. 255 ll. 3-28.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

p. 17 line 25 "Rules clearly identifiable as in the nature of rules of order that are placed within the bylaws can [also] be suspended by a 2/3 vote; but, except for such rules and for clauses that provide for their own suspension[, as stated above,] bylaws cannot be suspended."

In other words, you can't suspend rules of order imbedded in the bylaws unless the bylaws provide for their suspension specifically and to do so always requires a 2/3 vote? With previous notice presumably? or majority of entire assembly?

No, that is not an accurate reading of the sentence.

Rules of order, whether they are in the Bylaws are not, are generally suspendable by a 2/3 vote without notice. In some cases, rules of order require a higher voting threshold to suspend or may not be suspended at all. See RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 252-258 for more information on the incidental motion to Suspend the Rules.

Rules in the Bylaws which are not in the nature of a rule of order, or are in the nature of the sort of rule of order which is normally unsuspendable, may only be suspended if the Bylaws specifically provide for their suspension. The clause in the Bylaws which provides for the rule's suspension should also specify the requirements for suspending the rule.

Aside: A self-suspension qualification when written for a rule of order is redundant

...unless the qualification provides for different conditions for suspending the rule (such as a higher voting threshold).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, rules that are in the bylaws, but happen to be 'in the nature of rules of order' can be suspended, just like any other rule of order -- using the motion 'suspend the rules' (hence the reference to section 25 on line 21 of the page you cite). Rules of order embedded in the bylaws do not require additional language to provide for their own suspension. However, in practice it can sometimes be difficult to be certain whether a particular rule is 'in the nature of a rule of order.'

Other bylaws (the ones not in the nature of a rule of order) can only be suspended if they incorporate provisions for their own suspension.

Thank you very much for your very articulate explanation and for your effort on my behalf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that is not an accurate reading of the sentence.

Rules of order, whether they are in the Bylaws are not, are generally suspendable by a 2/3 vote without notice. In some cases, rules of order require a higher voting threshold to suspend or may not be suspended at all. See RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 252-258 for more information on the incidental motion to Suspend the Rules.

Rules in the Bylaws which are not in the nature of a rule of order, or are in the nature of the sort of rule of order which is normally unsuspendable, may only be suspended if the Bylaws specifically provide for their suspension. The clause in the Bylaws which provides for the rule's suspension should also specify the requirements for suspending the rule.

...unless the qualification provides for different conditions for suspending the rule (such as a higher voting threshold).

Thank you very much for your very articulate explanation and for your effort on my behalf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compound sentences are always tricky... The one you quote has three parts:

A "rule of order" (see top of p.15 for that they are) in bylaws can be suspended - 2/3 vote (no notice, no "self-suspension" qualification) required.

Any rule (no matter what type of rule) with a "self-suspension" qualification may be suspended.

All other rules in bylaws may not be suspended.

Aside: A self-suspension qualification when written for a rule of order is redundant, but it does finesse arguments as to whether the rule actually is (or is not) a suspendable rule of order.

Thank you very much for your very articulate explanation and for your effort on my behalf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Compound sentences are always tricky... The one you quote has three parts:

A "rule of order" (see top of p.15 for that they are) in bylaws can be suspended - 2/3 vote (no notice, no "self-suspension" qualification) required.

Any rule (no matter what type of rule) with a "self-suspension" qualification may be suspended.

All other rules in bylaws may not be suspended.

Aside: A self-suspension qualification when written for a rule of order is redundant, but it does finesse arguments as to whether the rule actually is (or is not) a suspendable rule of order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...