RONR as Parliamentary Authority

[Watson]

If an incorporated national organization adopts RONR as its parliamentary authority by stating, "... shall govern all meetings ...," is the state incorporated branch of the association obligated to adopt RONR as well, or may it choose otherwise?

[Chris Harrison]

If an incorporated national organization adopts RONR as its parliamentary authority by stating, "... shall govern all meetings ...," is the state incorporated branch of the association obligated to adopt RONR as well, or may it choose otherwise?

That depends on the authority the bylaws of each Association gives the National over the State.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

If an incorporated national organization adopts RONR as its parliamentary authority by stating, "... shall govern all meetings ...," is the state incorporated branch of the association obligated to adopt RONR as well, or may it choose otherwise?

Not necessarily.

Not all rules, nor all structures, of the parent organization are mandatory on the lower affiliate organizations.

E.g., just because the national organization has a board of 7 is of no consequence to the state affiliates, who might have boards of 5 to 20.

E.g., just because the national organization limits debate to 3 minutes for their agenda items, that rule of order does not necessarily cascade down to the local affiliate organizations.

The usual case is that the bylaws of the local organization are independent of the bylaws of the superior organization, with the exception of only those "requisite points" (that is the technical term), necessary for maintaining affiliation, being mandatory.

Dues may be different. Ethical standards may be different. The number, and title, of officers, may be different. The meeting hour, and the number of meetings, may be different.

Note that the "requisite points" may not even be a match. -- Whereas the national body might have X, the national organization might compel 100% of its affiliates have Y instead.

[Gary c Tesser]

[snip]

Note that the "requisite points" may not even be a match. -- Whereas the national body might have X, the national organization might compel 100% of its affiliates have Y instead.

Kim, I don't understand this.

______

Are you:

[bullet] pointing up a problem where national and state bylaws are inconsistent at (requisite) points where they need to be consistent?;

[bullet] re-casting your point about the national board having seven members, but the regional, state, or local boards don't need to have their membership at seven -- but are you doing this recasting in the context of "requisite points"? IN which case, I don't see how it applies, so kindly clarify.

[bullet; damn crikey, gotta look up bullet] (umm ... Something else entirely?)

________

And Kim, why do you figure "requisite points" is a technical term, and not just plain (if hoity-toity) English?

[Gary Novosielski]

Kim, I don't understand this.

______

Are you:

• pointing up a problem where national and state bylaws are inconsistent at (requisite) points where they need to be consistent?

It's more like a case of "do as I say, not as I do." They require local organizations to have things in their bylaws that are not necessarily present in the national's bylaws.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Are you:

Q1) ... pointing up a problem where national and state bylaws are inconsistent at (requisite) points where they need to be consistent?

Q2) ... re-casting your point about the national board having seven members, but the regional, state, or local boards don't need to have their membership at seven -- but are you doing this recasting in the context of "requisite points"? In which case, I don't see how it applies, so kindly clarify.

A1) No, it isn't the inconsistency.

There is no tie between

(a.) how NATIONAL does things;

(b.) how LOCAL does things.

They don't have to be consistent at all.

There is no cascading down from NATIONAL to the AFFILIATE.

There is only imposition. Not "matching".

It is compulsory obedience. Not "mirror-imaging."

A2) My examples were two-fold:

(a.) Board size need not match.

(b.) Rules of debate need not match.

A requisite point can be completely different from HOW the parent umbrella organization does things.

A requisite point might be:

1. "You must use this set of bylaws." But, "International HQ gets to use completely different bylaws."

(see Toastmasters International for an example of this practice.)

The requisite point? -- To maintain affiliation, you must comply and use a certain set of bylaws, even if those bylaws are not the bylaws of the International HQ.

2. "You must give us N% of the dues you collect. But, "International HQ is under no obligation, in turn, to give anyone any dues split."

(See Toastmasters International for an example of this practice.)

The requisite point? -- To maintain affiliation, you must give International HQ money, even if International HQ does not give any organization that same percentage of the dues money so collected.

Thus, a requisite point is a compliance mandate.

It need not mirror, match, or correspond, with anything the way the National or the International parent/umbrella organization does things.

If any local Toastmaster club chooses not to comply with the requisite points, then International HQ will "choose" to un-charter that club, and the club will lose affiliation.

Yet, remember, a club can choose to reject those requisite points, and thus lose affiliation, and thus choose to forego the relationship, and thus become truly independent. They can still meet and do things. They just cannot use the name of Toastmasters in what they do, any more. They are no longer a Toastmasters club, but a local self-improvement organization which practices public speaking and critical listening, in their own way, on their own dime -- and under a new name.

... why do you figure "requisite points" is a technical term, and not just plain (if hoity-toity) English?

Why? Because that very term which appears within RONR.

It isn't a paraphrase. It isn't a plain-English description of a parliamentary rule or a parliamentary practice.

It is LINE 30 on page 550. -- "... the bylaws of a subordinate unit need to conform to those of a superior body ONLY ON CLEARLY REQUISITE POINTS."

Thus, it is a term used by RONR. Thus it is a parliamentary term.

[George Mervosh]

If an incorporated national organization adopts RONR as its parliamentary authority by stating, "... shall govern all meetings ...," is the state incorporated branch of the association obligated to adopt RONR as well, or may it choose otherwise?

I wonder why this, of all things, would be an issue. What rules would your state branch care to follow, assuming it actually had a choice?

Oh and simply ask the national organization if you're compelled to adopt RONR......they're the only one who knows the answer.....we sure don't.

[Watson]

I wonder why this, of all things, would be an issue. What rules would your state branch care to follow, assuming it actually had a choice?

Oh and simply ask the national organization if you're compelled to adopt RONR......they're the only one who knows the answer.....we sure don't.

[Watson]

Regarding the phrase "clearly requisite points" in RONR, p. 550, l. 30:

The official rules and regulations of the [National Association] state that: "State by-laws must be in compliance, and are subordinate to any rule, regulation, or by-law of the [National Organization]."

Woould the above statement, therefore, meet RONR's definition of a "clearly requisite point?"

Thank you.

[Josh Martin]

The official rules and regulations of the [National Association] state that: "State by-laws must be in compliance, and are subordinate to any rule, regulation, or by-law of the [National Organization]."

Woould the above statement, therefore, meet RONR's definition of a "clearly requisite point?"

The above statement simply states the obvious. The rules of the state organizations may not conflict with the rules of the national organization. It is not clear from that statement alone whether the adoption of RONR as parliamentary authority is a "clearly requisite point." I think you'll be better off asking someone from the national organization about this, although I would personally recommend that your society adopt RONR as its parliamentary authority whether or not you are required to.

See How Your Organization Can Adopt Robert's Rules for more information. Is there a reason this is a sticking point for your organization? Is there another parliamentary authority you would prefer?

[Shmuel Gerber]

See How Your Organization Can Adopt Robert's Rules for more information. Is there a reason this is a sticking point for your organization? Is there another parliamentary authority you would prefer?

What difference does it make whether they have some silly reason or other for preferring another parliamentary authority?

They ought to adopt RONR regardless. :-)

[Gary Novosielski]

What difference does it make whether they have some silly reason or other for preferring another parliamentary authority?

They ought to adopt RONR regardless. :-)

Clearly. Those books that are not the Right Book must be the Wrong Books, ne c'est pas?.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Regarding the phrase "clearly requisite points" in RONR, p. 550, l. 30:

The official rules and regulations of the [National Association] state that: "State by-laws must be in compliance, and are subordinate to any rule, regulation, or by-law of the [National Organization]."

Would the above statement, therefore, meet RONR's definition of a "clearly requisite point?"

Don't mis-read the rule as implying that "all rules within the lower-level bylaws must match all rules in the upper-level rule, regulation, bylaw."

The "compliance" must match with the given requisite point. -- Not just any rule. -- Only those rules which truly are requisite points.

The upper-level bylaws might have, for instance, officers and duties which are NOT meant to be mirrored by the lower-level affiliates.

Look in your upper-level bylaws for rules imposed on the lower-level affiliates.

Mere existence of a rule is not enough.

Something must be imposed on the lower-level affiliate organization(s).

***

To repeat an early answer. -- Just because the upper-level organization uses Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised 10th edition as its parliamentary authority does not necessarily mean that all lower level organizations lose affiliation, or that all lower level organizations are penalized, for being out of compliance, by using a parliamentary authority other than Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised 10th edition. -- It probably is not a requisite point. -- It probably isn't one of the criteria being imposed by the superior party onto the inferior party.

Q. What are the mandatory obligations which the inferior organization must sustain to maintain compliance (i.e., maintain affiliation) with the superior organization? -- THOSE are the requisite points.

[alanh49]

If an incorporated national organization adopts RONR as its parliamentary authority by stating, "... shall govern all meetings ...," is the state incorporated branch of the association obligated to adopt RONR as well, or may it choose otherwise?

When it says all meeting does it refer to just meeting the National or to all meetings of the entire organization?

If the former they clearly don't have adopt RONR and if the latter there's no need for a state or local club to adopt RONR because it already their PA