Guest navan004 Posted January 18, 2011 at 01:15 AM Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 at 01:15 AM The by laws clearly state how to change the rules. Can an executive board ask for a motion to suspend the rules in order to change the by laws without doing what the by laws say? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest navan004 Posted January 18, 2011 at 01:16 AM Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 at 01:16 AM sorry it posted twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 18, 2011 at 01:25 AM Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 at 01:25 AM The by laws clearly state how to change the rules. Can an executive board ask for a motion to suspend the rules in order to change the by laws without doing what the by laws say? Thanks.No.The rules in the bylaws relating to the method of their own amendment may not be suspended. Period.In general, the bylaws is where you put things that you don't want to be suspended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted January 18, 2011 at 01:30 AM Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 at 01:30 AM No.The rules in the bylaws relating to the method of their own amendment may not be suspended. Period.In general, the bylaws is where you put things that you don't want to be suspended.Well, I think you've gone too far. For example, I would hold that Article IX of the sample bylaws, RONR (10th ed.), p. 570, ll. 1-7, can be suspended by a two-thirds vote to amend the bylaws by a three-fourths vote, instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 18, 2011 at 01:48 AM Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 at 01:48 AM Well, I think you've gone too far. For example, I would hold that Article IX of the sample bylaws, RONR (10th ed.), p. 570, ll. 1-7, can be suspended by a two-thirds vote to amend the bylaws by a three-fourths vote, instead.Well, apparently, I did not go far enough! Yes, but I would hold that such a motion, if in order, would yield to a point of personal privilege to cause the mover (and seconder) to be slapped with a flounder.And I'd accept an (unfriendly) amendment that the parliamentarian be included for good measure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest navan004 Posted January 18, 2011 at 02:42 AM Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 at 02:42 AM Thanks guys. I'll take a flounder along to the next meeting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 18, 2011 at 02:46 AM Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 at 02:46 AM Thanks guys. I'll take a flounder along to the next meeting! Couldn't hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 18, 2011 at 05:20 AM Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 at 05:20 AM Yes, but I would hold that such a motion, if in order, would yield to a point of personal privilege to cause the mover (and seconder) to be slapped with a flounder.Such a motion would be in order, although I suspect it would be unlikely to succeed. The point is that rules in the Bylaws which are in the nature of rules of order may be suspended. In my experience, however, those are not the sorts of rules people want to suspend when amending the Bylaws. It's usually something like previous notice requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 18, 2011 at 05:57 AM Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 at 05:57 AM Such a motion would be in order, although I suspect it would be unlikely to succeed. The point is that rules in the Bylaws which are in the nature of rules of order may be suspended. But you're not saying that the rule could be suspended to lower the vote requirement, are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 18, 2011 at 07:57 AM Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 at 07:57 AM But you're not saying that the rule could be suspended to lower the vote requirement, are you?It is entirely in order to use a motion to Suspend the Rules to lower a voting requirement, although there is very rarely any legitimate reason to do so. The only limitation on this is that the voting requirement may not be lowered below a majority, per RONR, 10th ed., pg. 392, lines 2-6. While this is not explicitly stated as the rationale, I suspect that the reasoning for this is that the principle that decisions in a deliberative assembly are made by majority vote is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, and thus attempting to lower the voting requirement below that threshold would violate RONR, 10th ed., pg. 255, lines 3-5. I am not aware of any rule which would prohibit suspending the rules to lower a voting requirement from 2/3 to a majority, for instance. Although it does not apply in this particular instance, great care should be paid to RONR, 10th ed., pg. 253, lines 8-10 when using the motion to Suspend the Rules for this purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 18, 2011 at 07:27 PM Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 at 07:27 PM It is entirely in order to use a motion to Suspend the Rules to lower a voting requirement, although there is very rarely any legitimate reason to do so. The only limitation on this is that the voting requirement may not be lowered below a majority, per RONR, 10th ed., pg. 392, lines 2-6. While this is not explicitly stated as the rationale, I suspect that the reasoning for this is that the principle that decisions in a deliberative assembly are made by majority vote is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, and thus attempting to lower the voting requirement below that threshold would violate RONR, 10th ed., pg. 255, lines 3-5. I am not aware of any rule which would prohibit suspending the rules to lower a voting requirement from 2/3 to a majority, for instance. Although it does not apply in this particular instance, great care should be paid to RONR, 10th ed., pg. 253, lines 8-10 when using the motion to Suspend the Rules for this purpose.But this is not just "a" voting requirement, this is the process for amending the bylaws. If that can be suspended so as to reduce the requirement, then what's the point of having one to begin with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weldon Merritt Posted January 18, 2011 at 08:54 PM Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 at 08:54 PM But this is not just "a" voting requirement, this is the process for amending the bylaws. If that can be suspended so as to reduce the requirement, then what's the point of having one to begin with?I am not convinced that the voting requirement for amending the bylaws is suspendable, but I think I can see a possible rationale. Since the vote required to Suspned the Rules is two-thirds, which also is the usual requiremnt for amending the bylaws, the vote requirement is not being "suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as the minority protected by the rule." RONR, p. 253, ll. 9-10.) Suspending the notice requirment, however, would be another matter, as would suspending a vote requirment that is higher than two-thirds (as, for example, a 90% requrment for a "no notice" amendment). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 18, 2011 at 10:26 PM Report Share Posted January 18, 2011 at 10:26 PM But this is not just "a" voting requirement, this is the process for amending the bylaws.So?If that can be suspended so as to reduce the requirement, then what's the point of having one to begin with?The point of having a vote requirement to begin with is to supersede the default requirements contained within RONR. Suspending the rule requires the same vote as amending the Bylaws, so I don't really see the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.