Guest midge rothermel Posted January 10, 2011 at 03:24 PM Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 at 03:24 PM Our president wants to change one of our standing rules. There is no written instruction in our current set of bylaws or rules on how this should be done, except that as Parliamentarian I am charged to follow RORNR. The specific item would change the number of meetings of our group to eliminate a January meeting. This meeting is frequently cancelled due to bad weather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted January 10, 2011 at 03:27 PM Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 at 03:27 PM Our president wants to change one of our standing rules. There is no written instruction in our current set of bylaws or rules on how this should be done, except that as Parliamentarian I am charged to follow RORNR. The specific item would change the number of meetings of our group to eliminate a January meeting. This meeting is frequently cancelled due to bad weather.Is that rule actually a standing rule or is it located in the bylaws, constitution, or some other governing document? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest missmidge Posted January 10, 2011 at 03:47 PM Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 at 03:47 PM Is that rule actually a standing rule or is it located in the bylaws, constitution, or some other governing document? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest missmidge Posted January 10, 2011 at 03:49 PM Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 at 03:49 PM It is actually a standing rule and not a part of the bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest midge rothermel Posted January 10, 2011 at 03:57 PM Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 at 03:57 PM It is actually a standing rule and not a part of our bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest midge rothermel Posted January 10, 2011 at 03:58 PM Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 at 03:58 PM It is actually a standing rule and not a part of our bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted January 10, 2011 at 04:13 PM Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 at 04:13 PM It is actually a standing rule and not a part of our bylaws.Then see RONR pp. 293-299 for details how to Amend Something Previously Adopted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbpc2000 Posted January 10, 2011 at 05:24 PM Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 at 05:24 PM Our board made a standing rule that to change a standing rule it takes a 2/3 vote of the board. Is this allowable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted January 10, 2011 at 05:46 PM Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 at 05:46 PM Our board made a standing rule that to change a standing rule it takes a 2/3 vote of the board. Is this allowable?Not under Robert's Rules of Order.• Someone is confusing a STANDING RULE with a SPECIAL RULE OF ORDER.• Boards do not create or amend rules, by default.• That board's special rule of order does not match (necessariliy) the default rule in RONR Tenth Edition 2000.However, perhaps YOUR own bylaws authorize YOUR board to do exactly that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbpc2000 Posted January 10, 2011 at 06:17 PM Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 at 06:17 PM This is what is states in Standing Rules document:What are they? Standing Rules are recognized in Robert’s Rules of Order and therefore applicable to the Association (per paragraph 14 of the Bylaws). The following has been extracted from Robert’s rules.“Standing Rules should contain only such rules as may be adopted without previous notice by a majority vote at any business meeting. At any meeting they may be suspended by a majority vote, or they may be amended or rescinded by a two-thirds vote. Is this accurate?Thanks for all your help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 10, 2011 at 07:00 PM Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 at 07:00 PM It is actually a standing rule and not a part of our bylaws.Okay, Okay, Okay,Okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 10, 2011 at 07:07 PM Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 at 07:07 PM Our board made a standing rule that to change a standing rule it takes a 2/3 vote of the board. Is this allowable?Well, no, because that would be a special rule of order. But it would also be pointless, since it already takes a 2/3 vote to change a standing rule. Since that rule accomplishes nothing, it should have been ruled out of order.However, it only takes a majority vote to suspend a standing rule, so if even if it were a standing rule it would still be pointless because the 2/3 vote could be suspended by a majority.You're much better off just using the existing rules in RONR, which were very well thought out by people who know rule writing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted January 10, 2011 at 07:32 PM Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 at 07:32 PM This is what is states in Standing Rules document:What are they? Standing Rules are recognized in Robert’s Rules of Order and therefore applicable to the Association (per paragraph 14 of the Bylaws). The following has been extracted from Robert’s rules."Standing Rules should contain only such rules as may be adopted without previous notice by a majority vote at any business meeting. At any meeting they may be suspended by a majority vote, or they may be amended or rescinded by a two-thirds vote." Is this accurate?No. It is not accurate.Below is an accurate excerpt from RONR Tenth Edition 2000.(excerpt, page 256)Standing rules are adopted, as any ordinary motion, by a ma-jority vote, and are amended by a two-thirds vote withoutprevious notice or by a majority vote with such notice; theytherefore can be suspended by a majority vote as they do notinvolve the protection of a minority of a particular size.Your citation is a bad edit or bad paraphrase of the 1915 Fourth Edition of R.O.R.Below is text from the 1915 4th ed., "Robert's Rules of Order Revised".(excerpt, Article 67, 1915 R.O.R.)Standing Rules should contain only such rules as may be adopted without previous notice by a majority vote at any business meeting. The vote on their adoption, or their amendment, before or after adoption, may be reconsidered. At any meeting they may be suspended by a majority vote, or they may be amended or rescinded by a two-thirds vote. If notice of the proposed action was given at a previous meeting or in the call for this meeting, they may be amended or rescinded by a majority vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 10, 2011 at 10:00 PM Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 at 10:00 PM Well, no, because that would be a special rule of order. But it would also be pointless, since it already takes a 2/3 vote to change a standing rule. Since that rule accomplishes nothing, it should have been ruled out of order.I disagree. Such a rule would be proper as a special rule of order, and it would have the effect that a standing rule could be amended only by a 2/3 vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 11, 2011 at 06:16 AM Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 at 06:16 AM I disagree. Such a rule would be proper as a special rule of order, and it would have the effect that a standing rule could be amended only by a 2/3 vote.You can't disagree, because I agree with what you just said. It would be proper as a special rule of order, but not as a standing rule. Then it would also take a 2/3 vote to suspend, not a majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.