Guest Sara Posted July 28, 2017 at 08:43 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2017 at 08:43 PM Don't mean to step on toes here....but...am on bylaws committee to revise. Current bylaws do not include a Parliamentary Authority, and I have been arguing for one (RONR of course). Members have said "no one understands RONR and it just confuses"...you know, the old argument. The two attorneys involved both are quite vocal about excluding RONR. I need some material to support my cause! Why do attorneys seem to want to reject a parliamentary authority in the bylaws? Don't they KNOW that bylaws supersede the parl authority except if silent when a question arises? Thanks for any advice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted July 28, 2017 at 09:25 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2017 at 09:25 PM I could speculate that they don't like RONR because they are not trained in it. Basically, you can tell them that RONR is used by most groups, and is incredibly flexible. It can lead to orderly meetings and will settle most of the questions about rules. Do they want to spend most of the club time arguing about what the rule is, or do they wand to conduct the business of the organization. You can also tell them that there a number books, such as Robert's Rules in Brief, that can help them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted July 28, 2017 at 09:48 PM Report Share Posted July 28, 2017 at 09:48 PM 20 minutes ago, J. J. said: I could speculate that they don't like RONR because they are trained in it. Perhaps you intended to say that they don't like RONR because they are NOT trained in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted July 29, 2017 at 12:28 AM Report Share Posted July 29, 2017 at 12:28 AM 2 hours ago, Richard Brown said: Perhaps you intended to say that they don't like RONR because they are NOT trained in it. You are correct and present company excepted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Who's Coming to Dinner Posted July 29, 2017 at 05:54 PM Report Share Posted July 29, 2017 at 05:54 PM 21 hours ago, Guest Sara said: Why do attorneys seem to want to reject a parliamentary authority in the bylaws? Perhaps because RONR's advice does not cost $300 per hour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted July 29, 2017 at 06:13 PM Report Share Posted July 29, 2017 at 06:13 PM 17 minutes ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said: Perhaps because RONR's advice does not cost $300 per hour. That's right. He says he charges $4.50 per hour, but he can deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintCad Posted July 29, 2017 at 10:31 PM Report Share Posted July 29, 2017 at 10:31 PM Or it could be that they were in organizations that (mis)used RONR, you know like voting immediately on calling the question, arbitrary adjournments when the Chair gets upset, etc. You wouldn't believe how many people blame RONR when organizations don't use it properly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts