Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Does the term "the most recent edition of Robert's Rules of Order" specify RONR?


Benjamin Geiger

Recommended Posts

The bylaws of a state-level organization specify that "Unless otherwise provided in the Charter or Bylaws of [organization name redacted], the most recent edition of Robert's Rules of Order shall govern."

Does this necessarily refer to RONR, or is there a risk of it being taken to mean one of the myriad knockoffs that have sprung up since the original entered the public domain?

(The county chapter's bylaws explicitly refer to RONR.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the "most recent edition" of "Robert's Rules of Order" with that exact title was published in 1893.  Kinda hard to come by.  See the frontpapers of the 11th edition for the publishing history of "The Book".

This is another "bylaw interpretation problem" but most reasonable folks will assume that your "Unless otherwise..." statement points to the current 11th  edition.

I would urge you to propose an amendment to your bylaws to make the RONR reference specific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Who's Coming to Dinner
1 hour ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

Does this necessarily refer to RONR, or is there a risk of it being taken to mean one of the myriad knockoffs that have sprung up since the original entered the public domain?

It's a bit of a petitio principii, but RONR says yes on Page vii.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

The bylaws of a state-level organization specify that "Unless otherwise provided in the Charter or Bylaws of [organization name redacted], the most recent edition of Robert's Rules of Order shall govern."

Does this necessarily refer to RONR, or is there a risk of it being taken to mean one of the myriad knockoffs that have sprung up since the original entered the public domain?

(The county chapter's bylaws explicitly refer to RONR.)

 

9 hours ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

It's a bit of a petitio principii, but RONR says yes on Page vii.

 

8 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

Well, I just have to live with it I guess, but this is one of those things in the book that really annoys me.

What is said on Page vii really annoys you? Why's that?

In any event, what is said on that page doesn't address at all the question asked by Mr. Geiger. I suppose someone might argue that "the most recent edition of Robert's Rules of Order" refers to something other than the most recent edition of the manual written by Henry M. Robert and published on February 19, 1876, but I doubt that any knowledgeable or reasonably intelligent person will do so.

In this connection, I would urge everyone to read what is said on the last eleven pages of the Introduction to the most recent edition of that manual (although reading that Introduction in its entirety is an even better idea).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

Not that page particularly, just statements along the lines of "efforts to adopt some other book mean adopting this book."  

Only if they are unsuccessful efforts.  If there's a real desire to adopt another book it can be easily accomplished.  But saying "the most recent version of Robert's Rules of Order" doesn't strike me as much of an effort along those lines..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Only if they are unsuccessful efforts.  If there's a real desire to adopt another book it can be easily accomplished.  But saying "the most recent version of Robert's Rules of Order" doesn't strike me as much of an effort along those lines..

How about if I want to adopt the 10th, or In Brief?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Joshua Katz said:

How about if I want to adopt the 10th, or In Brief?

You can do that too, if you want, but the 10th is not the "latest edition", so you'd have to specify the edition.

Adopting RONRIB would be a bad idea, since it is not comprehensive enough to serve as a parliamentary authority.  Since it references RONR for details, it would be best to adopt RONR as the authority, and use RONRIB for practical purposes, as it is does conform to the rules in RONR..  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

How about if I want to adopt the 10th, or In Brief?

Well, you can adopt the 10th edition by specifying that is the edition you are adopting.  But, adopting "In Brief" is problematic.  On page 7 of "In Brief", it says it is not suitable for adoption as a parliamentary authority and that if an organization tries to adopt it, the organization is instead adopting the latest edition of RONR.  Here are the key two paragraphs from page 7 of RONR In Brief:

"It is important to understand, though, that this introductory book is not itself the rule book. Only the complete Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised—RONR—is that. To keep to the framework of a simple guide, this book omits a great many rules, avoids certain subject areas altogether, and doesn't get into many exceptions to the rules it does include. It is the rules in RONR that govern, and nothing in this book may be cited instead of or in conflict with RONR. To help ready reference to the complete rules, each subject covered here is cross-referenced to the pages of its fuller treatment in RONR. By reading this book you will learn how to find the additional rules in RONR if you need them.


Because this book is only an introduction and guide to RONR, it is not itself suitable for adoption by any organization as its "parliamentary authority"—the book of rules the group names to govern its meeting procedure. If any organization designates this book as its parliamentary authority, it actually adopts the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

You can do that too, if you want, but the 10th is not the "latest edition", so you'd have to specify the edition.

 

I don't have the book in front of me, but doesn't the 11th edition state (as do previous editions, if I remember correctly) that it supersedes previous editions, and adoption of those previous editions is adoption of the latest?

 

23 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Because this book is only an introduction and guide to RONR, it is not itself suitable for adoption by any organization as its "parliamentary authority"—the book of rules the group names to govern its meeting procedure. If any organization designates this book as its parliamentary authority, it actually adopts the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. "

Yes, it says that.  I like having my actions reinterpreted by a book about as much as I like my computer instructing me that it's busy updating Windows and I'm not allowed to turn it off.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Yes, it says that.  I like having my actions reinterpreted by a book about as much as I like my computer instructing me that it's busy updating Windows and I'm not allowed to turn it off.  

😉. I know the feeling. I'm a bit bothered, too, by a book telling me I can't adopt it even if I want to and that if I do it anyway I have actually adopted something else that I had absolutely no intention of adopting! :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

I don't have the book in front of me, but doesn't the 11th edition state (as do previous editions, if I remember correctly) that it supersedes previous editions, and adoption of those previous editions is adoption of the latest?  

It says:  <emphasis added>

Quote

This Eleventh Edition supersedes all previous editions and is intended automatically to become the parliamentary authority in organizations whose bylaws prescribe “Robert’s Rules of Order,” “Robert’s Rules of Order Revised,” “Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised,” or “the current edition of” any of these titles, or the like, without specifying a particular edition. If the bylaws specifically identify one of the ten previous editions of the work as parliamentary authority, the bylaws should be amended to prescribe “the current edition of ‘Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised’” (see p. 588).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

How about if I want to adopt the 10th, or In Brief?

If you want to adopt the 10th, then just specify that you are adopting the 10th. The 10th and 11th editions say that if a society provides for Robert’s Rules of Order, Robert’s Rules of Order Revised, or Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, then this is understood to mean the most recent edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, unless a specific edition is specified.

Adopting In Brief would be trickier. I suppose you would have to say that “The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief shall govern the Society in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the Society may adopt. This rule shall be understood to refer to Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief, not to Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, notwithstanding what Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief says on this subject.”

I don’t advise doing either of these things.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Josh Martin said:

Adopting In Brief would be trickier. I suppose you would have to say that “The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief shall govern the Society in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the Society may adopt. This rule shall be understood to refer to Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief, not to Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, notwithstanding what Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief says on this subject.”

 

If the bylaws said that, I can't say I'm sure how I'd rule on a conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. Part of me is sorry I brought it up. I don't think it's a legitimate issue right now, since I'm pretty sure everyone involved accepts that the bylaws effectively refer to RONR. (I was hesitant to specify which organization, but since they make their bylaws public, I figure it's not too big a deal to point out that I'm referring to the Florida Democratic Party's bylaws; since it's a state chapter of a national political party, amending the bylaws is a massive undertaking.)

That said, I'm a programmer by trade, so I have a habit of looking at things like rules and bylaws and finding edge cases that may be exploited.

Edited by Benjamin Geiger
Added link to applicable bylaws.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

If the bylaws said that, I can't say I'm sure how I'd rule on a conflict.

Oh, I am. I would take the position that RONR "In Brief" is the parliamentary authority. I've been thinking about this since the NAP convention in September. Josh suggested just about the same language I have been contemplating.

To be safe, though, I suppose even stronger language could be used, such as saying "except for the next to last paragraph on page 7". :angry:

Edited to change "last paragraph" to "next to last paragraph" on page 7.  Sigh. . .

Edited by Richard Brown
Added last sentence of 1st paragraph and changed "last paragraph" to "next to last paragraph"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is undeniably true that RONRIB, being nothing but an introduction and guide to RONR, is not itself at all suitable for adoption by any organization as its "parliamentary authority", and it is to be commended for saying so and for attempting, as strongly as possible, to prevent such a thing from happening (perhaps by inadvertence). 

But it is also undeniably true that if an organization is made up of people stupid enough to insist on doing so, they can. So far, I haven't heard of any.

And it is also undeniably true that none of this has any relevance at all to the question originally asked by Mr. Geiger. RONRIB is definitely not one of the myriad knockoffs that have sprung up since the original edition of Robert's Rules Of Order entered the public domain.  :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

But it is also undeniably true that if an organization is made up of people stupid enough to insist on doing so, they can. So far, I haven't heard of any.

I wonder why an organization with enough smarts to recognize the value of RONR and for that matter RONRIB in the first place would intentionally adopt RONRIB in the face of its explicit statement that it is not suitable for that purpose.  That's got to be a mighty fine gradation of stupid, lying between "too stupid" and "just barely stupid enough".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

I wonder why an organization with enough smarts to recognize the value of RONR and for that matter RONRIB in the first place would intentionally adopt RONRIB in the face of its explicit statement that it is not suitable for that purpose.  That's got to be a mighty fine gradation of stupid, lying between "too stupid" and "just barely stupid enough".

Possibly because its members think the authors of RONRIB got that wrong, and only that wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...