Governing with Robert Rules

[Henry]

Once Roberts Rules have been adopted for an association, can an association simply decide to stop using Roberts Rules?

[tctheatc]

If you properly undo whatever made RONR your parliamentary authority....yes.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Once Roberts Rules have been adopted for an association, can an association simply decide to stop using Roberts Rules?

Unclear as to your end result.

Do you mean:

(a.) stop using all parliamentary rules of all kinds?

(b.) stop using a specific parliamentary manual, and use some other parliamentary manual?

I don't think #a is even possible. It boggles the mind.

Achieving #b is rather straightforward.

[Tim Wynn]

Once Roberts Rules have been adopted for an association, can an association simply decide to stop using Roberts Rules?

If RONR is properly adopted as the parliamentary authority in the bylaws, a bylaw amendment would be required to remove its governance. However, certain rules in RONR can be suspended.

[David A Foulkes]

If RONR is properly adopted as the parliamentary authority in the bylaws, a bylaw amendment would be required to remove its governance. However, certain rules in RONR can be suspended.

Could RONR be adopted by a special rule of order? And if so, could that be Rescinded?

[jstackpo]

But a question back to Henry: If you stop using Robert's rules, whose rules are you going to use?

[Tim Wynn]

Could RONR be adopted by a special rule of order? And if so, could that be Rescinded?

See p. 15, l. 25-27. Then, see p. 294, l. 24-27.

[Henry]

But a question back to Henry: If you stop using Robert's rules, whose rules are you going to use?

The challenge we have is that Roberts Rules have been adopted within our Bylaws many years ago but they are being treated as "suggestions" rather than rules by the chairman. We do not have many members of the board who wish to contest the conduct of meetings or deviations from Roberts Rules. The present state is as if we did not have Robert's Rules in place at all.

[David A Foulkes]

The challenge we have is that Roberts Rules have been adopted within our Bylaws many years ago but they are being treated as "suggestions" rather than rules by the chairman. We do not have many members of the board who wish to contest the conduct of meetings or deviations from Roberts Rules. The present state is as if we did not have Robert's Rules in place at all.

Ahh.... if only it were titled "Robert's Suggestions of Order." If the bylaws include RONR as the parliamentary authority, then the rules included therein are binding, barring any contrary rules in the bylaws (which supercede RONR) and any other higher governing rules. It sounds like this group is treating the bylaws as suggestions as well. After all, they're not called bysuggestions, right?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

The challenge we have is that

Roberts Rules have been adopted within our Bylaws many years ago

but they are being treated as "suggestions" rather than rules by the chairman.

We do not have many members of the board who wish to contest the conduct of meetings or deviations from Roberts Rules.

The present state is as if we did not have Robert's Rules in place at all.

Ah!

Your problem is with an ignorant CHAIRMAN and a passive acquiescent ORGANIZATION.

Once Roberts Rules have been adopted for an association, can an association simply decide to stop using Roberts Rules?

Bad news.

Since parliamentary rules (with some exceptions) are suspendable, then YES, an organization can, by inertia or ignorance, effectively stop using Robert's Rules of Order.

But the question remains:

If not "Robert's Rules of Order", then "Whose Rules of Order"?

I mean, have you really "stopped"

(a.) using motions; (b.) using voting; (c.) using elections;

in their entirety?!?

[Henry]

Ah!

Your problem is with an ignorant CHAIRMAN and a passive acquiescent ORGANIZATION.

Once Roberts Rules have been adopted for an association, can an association simply decide to stop using Roberts Rules?

Bad news.

Since parliamentary rules (with some exceptions) are suspendable, then YES, an organization can, by inertia or ignorance, effectively stop using Robert's Rules of Order.

But the question remains:

If not "Robert's Rules of Order", then "Whose Rules of Order"?

I mean, have you really "stopped"

(a.) using motions; (b.) using voting; (c.) using elections;

in their entirety?!?

No. We have not "stopped" but we have rules that are not being endorced and actions on the part of the chair do not result in sanctions against the chair. The constitution itself is not being followed as it should but voting and electons are proceeding although with significant "issues". There is a minority on this board that is advocating order but it is as challenging as herding cats.

[Tim Wynn]

There is a minority on this board that is advocating order but it is as challenging as herding cats.

That's a perfect analogy. Tell them to try leading, instead of chasing.