Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

RONR vs general parliamentary law


Chris Harrison

Recommended Posts

Since RONR "embodies a codification of the present-day general parliamentary law (omitting provisions having no application outside legislative bodies)" that makes me wonder what differences exist between RONR and the general parliamentary law currently. If an organization hadn't adopted a parliamentary authority so the general parliamentary law is in force what sort of gap would exist between it and RONR? For example, if I remember correctly in the 4th Edition it was proper to Rescind a defeated motion (where now that defeated motion can be renewed or Reconsidered) and if my memory doesn't fail me would the general parliamentary law still permit Rescinding a defeated motion or would that now be improper?

Also, which is the dog and which is the tail in all this? In that I mean as the general parliamentary law evolves does RONR get a new Edition to match it or as RONR is updated does the general parliamentary law follow suit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since RONR "embodies a codification of the present-day general parliamentary law (omitting provisions having no application outside legislative bodies)" that makes me wonder what differences exist between RONR and the general parliamentary law currently. If an organization hadn't adopted a parliamentary authority so the general parliamentary law is in force what sort of gap would exist between it and RONR? For example, if I remember correctly in the 4th Edition it was proper to Rescind a defeated motion (where now that defeated motion can be renewed or Reconsidered) and if my memory doesn't fail me would the general parliamentary law still permit Rescinding a defeated motion or would that now be improper?

Also, which is the dog and which is the tail in all this? In that I mean as the general parliamentary law evolves does RONR get a new Edition to match it or as RONR is updated does the general parliamentary law follow suit?

From my experience reading this forum, the development of the general parliamentary law runs ahead of its codification in RONR. For example, I can see that the use of new, electronic means of communication is changing common parliamentary practice in ways not yet embodied in RONR. I'm sure the authors keep an eye out for these kinds of changes, but the changes are naturally going to outpace the development of the common law, not to mention new editions of RONR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since RONR "embodies a codification of the present-day general parliamentary law (omitting provisions having no application outside legislative bodies)" that makes me wonder what differences exist between RONR and the general parliamentary law currently. If an organization hadn't adopted a parliamentary authority so the general parliamentary law is in force what sort of gap would exist between it and RONR? For example, if I remember correctly in the 4th Edition it was proper to Rescind a defeated motion (where now that defeated motion can be renewed or Reconsidered) and if my memory doesn't fail me would the general parliamentary law still permit Rescinding a defeated motion or would that now be improper?

Also, which is the dog and which is the tail in all this? In that I mean as the general parliamentary law evolves does RONR get a new Edition to match it or as RONR is updated does the general parliamentary law follow suit?

Hopefully, there are no substantial differences or “gaps” between present-day common (“general”) parliamentary law and the rules in RONR; and no, rescinding a defeated motion is not proper procedure under present-day common parliamentary law.

I agree entirely with Mr. Elsman that common parliamentary law is the dog pulling the RONR tail, although it should be understood that changes in rules and precedents customarily followed in deliberative assemblies cannot very well outpace the development of common parliamentary law, since these practices make common parliamentary law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... that makes me wonder what differences exist between RONR and the general parliamentary law currently.

If an organization hadn't adopted a parliamentary authority so the general parliamentary law is in force what sort of gap would exist between it and RONR?

Remember, Henry M. Robert noticed way back, even prior to 1876, that there was no cohesion of the general parliamentary law.

Robert's drafted his notes, and drafted his book, to edit out all the contradictory/inconsistent practices into one cohesive whole.

His resulting book would not include any contradictory practices, even if those contradictory practices were "out there", comprising the general parliamentary law.

I doubt all the parliamentary world has suddenly turned perfectly "orthogonal" (in the mathematical sense of "exactly one function for any one specific result") since 1876. -- There are common practices out there which cannot be practiced as a unit logically unless the contradictory ones are trimmed.

Example #1:

Pre-Robert (pre-1876), nominations were closed by a chair asking three times, "Are there any further nominations."

You won't find this practice of "common parliamentary law" in ANY edition of Robert's Rules of Order.

HMR decided to trim this one, all the way out. -- It's not even the original 1876 edition.

Example #2:

Pre-Robert (pre-1876), a secretary would be instructed to cast a unanimous ballot were there was only one nominee for an office.

HMR in 1923 ("Parliamentary Law") said that this practice was already obsolete.

Example #3:

And to the contrary, a "new" practice which has become part of the common parliamentary law:

The Australian ballot (a sheet of paper which was uniform in all ways, and which had printed upon it all candidates for office) was invented in New Zealand in the 1850s. It was not part of the U.S. common parliamentary law. Is there any doubt that today's common parliamentary law does include Australian ballots? Robert's Rules of Order 3rd edition (1893) makes NO MENTION of pre-printed ballots. Was it too new for inclusion? Was it too radical an idea for inclusion?

***

"Democracy is messy."

-- quote attributed to our own JDS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...