Not enforcing rules ever a good thing?

[Guest Curious]

Is there anyone here that thinks not enforcing the Robert's Rules in a meeting is ever a good idea?

[jstackpo]

Bite your tongue!

 

Actually...  sure.  When everybody agrees on what you, collectively, want to do, you hardly need "da rools" at all.

[Tom Coronite]

I can't see why folks would be here if they thought it a good idea, generally,  to disregard the rules.

 

But I can only speak for myself and say that there is excellent advice on page 8 of RONRIB:

 

"A chairman should never be stricter than is necessary for the good of the meeting. But, within that pattern, parliamentary procedure should normally be followed as a matter of course if it is to work well."

[Edgar Guest]

Ever?

 

RONR notes (p.456) that "the president should never be technical or more strict than is necessary for the good of the meeting" and that, sometimes, "the assembly may be of such a nature, through its unfamiliarity with parliamentary usage and its peaceable disposition, that strict enforcement of the rules, instead of assisting, would greatly hinder business".

[Guest Curious]

What about when many many violations are taking place during debate and the rules of decorum are not being followed (everyone usus first names, they address each other, the speak without obtaining the floor, people besides the chair give others permission to speak, personal remarks or attacks are being made, even to the chair...like a few nights ago one member kept saying out loud how 'rude' the chair was, and made snide remarks about a member they do not like)

I believe the chair is afraid of making people angry by insisting that the rules be more closely followed. There is one person who is in violation almost continually in debate unless reigned in by the chair, and then she treats any formality as a big joke...jokes are made aloud at other's expense...

[jstackpo]

Time to elect a new chairman?  Or hire a professional to preside over the agitated meeting, at least until the members see the advantage in behaving themselves.

 

RONR can be viewed as a book of etiquette, for people to use to see how to behave, but only if they WANT to behave.  If they don't want to behave, the book isn't going to help (with the possible exception of Chapter XX).

[Richard Brown]

You or any other member can always raise a point of order that a member's comments are out of order and ask the chair to call the member to order.  You can also call the member to order yourself.  RONR devotes several pages to how to handle breaches of decorum.  Here is what it says on pages 645-646 about calling a member to order:

 

"Calling a Member to Order. If the offense is more serious than in the case above—as when a member repeatedly questions the motives of other members whom he mentions [page 646] by name, or persists in speaking on completely irrelevant matters in debate—the chair normally should first warn the member; but with or without such a warning, the chair or any other member can "call the member to order." If the chair does this, he says, "The member is out of order and will be seated." Another member making the call rises and, without waiting to be recognized, says, "Mr. President, I call the member to order," then resumes his seat. If the chair finds this point of order (23) well taken, he declares the offender out of order and directs him to be seated, just as above. If the offender had the floor, then (irrespective of who originated the proceeding) the chair should clearly state the breach involved and put the question to the assembly: "Shall the member be allowed to continue speaking?" This question is undebatable."

 

If the chairman is unable or unwilling to enforce the rules of decorum, you can always remove him from presiding at a particular meeting.  See Official Interpretation 2006-2 for more information on how to do that.  http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_2

 

If there is no hope for the chairman, you might have to consider removing him from office.  See FAQ # 20  http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#20

[Shmuel Gerber]

What about when many many violations are taking place during debate and the rules of decorum are not being followed (everyone usus first names, they address each other, . . .

 

The rule (pp. 23-24) is that "In the parliamentary transaction of business—within a latitude appropriate to the conditions of the particular body—members generally should try to avoid mentioning another member's name whenever the person involved can be described in some other way" (and correct examples are given; this doesn't mean that members should be referred to as "that bum" or "that schlemazel.") However, I am not aware of any specific rule that using first names is any worse than using last names.