When Was the Bylaw Adopted? By Jonathan M. Jacobs, PRP, CPP
Have you ever encountered a provision in bylaws that left you puzzled and scratching your head? Or maybe, after reading a section, you thought you knew what to do, but then, after reading a little further, you find a passage that seems to demand the opposite? Rest assured, you are not alone. Bylaws can be confusing and even contradictory, for several reasons. And this is why the rules for interpretation are included in Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, (RONR, 12th edition). The Missing Detail of “When” The section on interpretation of bylaws, 56:68, is divided into eight subparts and continues for three pages, possibly the longest numbered section in RONR, 12 ed. The language of the section has been around, in some form, for a century; it was included by General Robert in his magnum opus, Parliamentary Law (pp. 380-83). It made it into the 6
National Parliamentarian • Winter 2024
9th edition of RONR (1990) for the first time (pp.581-4). This well-established section should tell everything about interpreting unclear and contradictory bylaws, but it does not. There is a very important detail that is not included in this section and could easily be missed by the parliamentarian (including the author). That detail may determine which of two, or more, contradictory bylaw provisions is binding on the assembly. The missing detail is when each bylaw provision was adopted. Where can we look, then, if we run into this problem? First, we can research other parliamentary situations that might be applicable. For example, there is a very important rule regarding when conflicting main motions exist. A main motion that conflicts with a previously adopted motion that is still in force is null and void; the motion that was adopted first remains in effect1. However, there is an important exception. RONR notes that the first
