Selective adoption of RONR?

[wfdickjr]

Recently, I mentioned to our board that we were not in compliance with RONR with respect to our occasional teleconference meeting. Yesterday, I was called to a meeting with officials of the organization. An attorney was present. Amidst gentle hints that I might be overemphasizing the importance of RONR, the attorney said that the board could select which articles of RONR to follow or not to follow. The attorney implied that this was common practice among boards of our type, warning that said articles should be specified in the bylaws.

I was surprised to hear that selective adoption of RONR would be considered - much less common. In that regard, I am interested to hear your thoughts. Specifically:

1. Is selective adoption of RONR common (in general or with any type of organization or board)?
   
2. When, if ever, is it reasonable to selectively adopt or not adopt certain articles of RONR?
   

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

[David A Foulkes]

See page 16, lines 21-27. There are ways of getting around what's in RONR, through adoption of bylaws or special rules of order that override RONR, and on occasion even suspending the rules, but what's in the parliamentary authority is binding in its entirety on the society that adopts it in their bylaws.

[g40]

What are the qualifications of this attorney?

My "guess" is that someone in the organization is paying him to give their views as his legal advice.

If this is so common among boards of your type, perhaps he could give 2 or 3 references of boards "of your type" that do this. I'll be he can;t find three.

[Tim Wynn]

Recently, I mentioned to our board that we were not in compliance with RONR with respect to our occasional teleconference meeting. Yesterday, I was called to a meeting with officials of the organization. An attorney was present. Amidst gentle hints that I might be overemphasizing the importance of RONR, the attorney said that the board could select which articles of RONR to follow or not to follow. The attorney implied that this was common practice among boards of our type, warning that said articles should be specified in the bylaws.

I was surprised to hear that selective adoption of RONR would be considered - much less common. In that regard, I am interested to hear your thoughts. Specifically:

1. Is selective adoption of RONR common (in general or with any type of organization or board)?
   
2. When, if ever, is it reasonable to selectively adopt or not adopt certain articles of RONR?
   

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

If you know what you're doing, you adopt the whole thing and use it to adjust the rules to fit your needs. This advice to adopt only sections is absurd.

[Rob Elsman]

You might want to take a look at RONR (11th ed.), p. 486, ll. 13-19, about the powers of an executive board to adopt its own special rules of order.

[Trina]

...

I was surprised to hear that selective adoption of RONR would be considered - much less common. In that regard, I am interested to hear your thoughts. Specifically:

1. Is selective adoption of RONR common (in general or with any type of organization or board)?
   
2. When, if ever, is it reasonable to selectively adopt or not adopt certain articles of RONR?
   

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

My experience is that a fair number of organizations put a very wishy-washy adoption of RONR in the bylaws (under the article on parliamentary authority). Such as this gem (slightly paraphrased to protect the guilty) from the bylaws of an organization I belong to:

"The rules contained in Roberts’ Rules of Order Revised shall act as a guideline in governing this Society when they are in are in keeping with the stated objectives of the Board of Directors and when not in conflict with these By-Laws."

This is like saying, we'll play by the rules as long as we want to, except when we don't. What happens when the members can't agree how the current situation is specifically governed by the vaguely described "objectives of the Board" ? The majority may simply decide that their interpretation of those objectives trumps basic rules of parliamentary procedure. That amounts to not really having rules.

As Mr. Wynn said, it's absurd.

I think organizations do this because they are afraid of being tied to a rule book they don't adequately understand, so they try to leave themselves wiggle room. When there is conflict, that's when you need clear rules that everyone has agreed to abide by, which is what clear adoption of a parliamentary authority gives you.

[wfdickjr]

Thanks so much to all who responded. It would seem that the attorney's comments leave much to be desired.

Is there no one who can think of a good reason why a competent attorney would say what he said?

If not, I am left to consider the possible explanations.

[Rob Elsman]

Thanks so much to all who responded. It would seem that the attorney's comments leave much to be desired.

Is there no one who can think of a good reason why a competent attorney would say what he said?

If not, I am left to consider the possible explanations.

I have no idea why he said what he did. RONR (11th ed.), p. 15, ll. 21-28, speaks of the adoption of a parliamentary manual to be the parliamentary authority for the society. I take it to mean that the society adopts the whole work, not just selective bits and pieces of it. The sample bylaw in RONR (11th ed.), p. 588, ll. 4-8, gives the standard language that should be used to adopt RONR as the society's parliamentary authority. This language also prescribes the whole work, though not all the rules may be applicable to a particular society or a particular body in the society.

[wfdickjr]

I have no idea why he said what he did.

Thank you. I am having the same problem. Laying all other possible issues, there remains the question of handling complications sure to arise from disintegrating a body of work whose structure, like that of the human body, is designed to function as a whole. I am wondering, for example, how this approach would handle cases where an "adopted" article referred to any article not adopted.

[Sean Hunt]

Thank you. I am having the same problem. Laying all other possible issues, there remains the question of handling complications sure to arise from disintegrating a body of work whose structure, like that of the human body, is designed to function as a whole. I am wondering, for example, how this approach would handle cases where an "adopted" article referred to any article not adopted.

This is one of many reasons why it is best to adopt the work as a whole, and then add any special rules of order (or, as the case may be, bylaw amendments) to change specific parts of the rules not desired. It is certainly not true that the only way an organization can use Robert's Rules is to follow all of it to the letter - in fact, this is such a bad idea that RONR provides a way to override itself in most cases.

[David A Foulkes]

Is there no one who can think of a good reason why a competent attorney would say what he said?

Have you tried asking him? Given the citations provided herein, it seems pretty clear RONR itself disagrees, never mind a handful of competent parliamentarians.

In my experience, it is "common practice" among many drivers to turn right on red at intersections where it is clearly marked "No turn on red", or to drive faster than the posted speed limit. Does that make either any less a violation of the motor vehicle laws?

Much as the only way to vote against a candidate for office is to vote for someone else, the only way to selectively ignore a rule established in the parliamentary authority is to establish an overriding rule in the bylaws or other governing rules. As noted on p. 97 (particularly ll. 9-14 and ll. 27-30), the only way to disregard the requirement that all business must be conducted in an "in-person" meeting (single official gathering in one room or area) is to authorize in the bylaws the employment of "electronic meetings."

[wfdickjr]

Have you tried asking him?

He was presented as indisputable professional proof that I was wrong. Given the circumstances, I probed a bit but did not challenge. Frankly, the whole idea caught me off guard. It was crazy enough it might have been true

.

As noted on p. 97 (particularly ll. 9-14 and ll. 27-30), the only way to disregard the requirement that all business must be conducted in an "in-person" meeting (single official gathering in one room or area) is to authorize in the bylaws the employment of "electronic meetings."

Yes, a simple one-line bylaw item would do it. I suggested the same myself on multiple occasions - with the most recent being exactly 24 hours before I was called to this meeting. Why anyone would think it simpler to make multiple complicated changes to the bylaws and/or hire an attorney to silence the person who noticed the problem is beyond me.

Again, thanks so much to all. Plainly someone is giving out wrong information. Given the nature of this forum and the number of respondents, I doubt that this forum is the offending party so that leaves the attorney. As I said, I am left to consider the reasons.

[Dan Honemann]

Plainly someone is giving out wrong information. Given the nature of this forum and the number of respondents, I doubt that this forum is the offending party so that leaves the attorney.

Maybe, but then again, maybe not.

[Chris Harrison]

Chances are the reasons are pretty simple:

1) Even though he is a lawyer that doesn't necessarily mean that he understands RONR and he is misinterpreting what RONR says,

2) He is being hired by the organization and is representing their interests (which might include shutting the rabble rouser down ),

3) All of the above.

My vote would go towards #2 or 3.

[wfdickjr]

Maybe, but then again, maybe not.

Yes, there is always that "maybe."

I believe I have seen your name in the credits of the 11th edition of RONR. Perhaps this is a good time to say what I have been thinking.

The first time I tried to read so much as a pamphlet about Robert's Rules of Order, I was totally turned off. Why on earth, I thought, would anyone go to so much trouble to complicate something so simple as a meeting? To me, RONR seemed like hundreds of pages of nothing but roadblocks. Suffice it to say, I have come to see RONR as the highway and "make up the rules as you go along" as the roadblock. To all of those who helped build that highway, even if just by discussing it here, thank you.

[Guest Thomas J. Balch]

Because RONR must seek, as nearly as possible, to provide rules that cover all the many different situations that might arise in any deliberative assembly, it is not surprising that one turning to it to get a quick understanding of meeting rules might be turned off; it really is most useful as a reference manual. It is for that very reason that "Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief" has been written by the same authors who revise RONR. As its inside front cover notes, it is possible to get a quick overview with half an hour's reading, and in 90 minutes "you'll have the basics as a member."

Particularly if you are trying to persuade others on your board of the advantages of following Robert's Rule's, I'd suggest getting -- and sharing -- some copies of the relatively inexpensive "In Brief" book. They can be ordered from the home page of www.robertsrules.com . They're also available in many bookstores (but be sure you get the just-released "Fully Updated 2nd Edition" which corresponds to the new 11th edition of RONR.)

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Is selective adoption of RONR common (in general or with any type of organization or board)?

When, if ever, is it reasonable to selectively adopt or not adopt certain articles of RONR

1.) Yes, a "selection" occurs whenever an organization overrides the default rule in The Book by adopting a Special Rule of Order, or by a Suspension of the Rules.

RONR is not like the Frank Sinatra song, "All Or Nothing At All."

2.) Customization is allowed, and encouraged, since every organization has its own style, and there is an infinite number of mixes of (a.) formality vs. (b.) casualness.

Thus, one organization may recognize friendly amendments, and another organization may not, or may do so in such a way as to be vastly different from the way the other organization had applied the rule.

Thus, one organization may find it unfair that a member may speak in debate and end his own debate with a motion to close debate (see "Previous Question") and may seek to adopt a Special Rule of Order to prevent such a squelching of debate, while another organization blindly follows the default rule in RONR about the permissibleness of a member moving the Previous Question as the member ends his debate, and never even consider overriding the rule in RONR.

"All, or nothing at all.

Half the book never appealed to me."

attributed to Henry Martyn Sinata

[Trina]

1.) Yes, a "selection" occurs whenever an organization overrides the default rule in The Book by adopting a Special Rule of Order, or by a Suspension of the Rules.

...

2.) Customization is allowed, and encouraged, since every organization has its own style, and there is an infinite number of mixes of (a.) formality vs. (b.) casualness.

...

None of this would imply, of course, that the attorney was correct in the situation described by the original poster:

>>

Recently, I mentioned to our board that we were not in compliance with RONR with respect to our occasional teleconference meeting. Yesterday, I was called to a meeting with officials of the organization. An attorney was present. Amidst gentle hints that I might be overemphasizing the importance of RONR, the attorney said that the board could select which articles of RONR to follow or not to follow.

<<

Customization to allow absentee voting is possible also, of course, but it has to be done via explicit language in the bylaws.

No suspension of the rules, no special rules of order, and no 'selection' by the board can make a teleconference meeting valid.

The mellifluously renamed gebegb knows this, of course, but I think it's worth pointing out that the general truth of the poster's response does not actually apply in the very specific situation described by the OP.

[Dan Honemann]

None of this would imply, of course, that the attorney was correct in the situation described by the original poster:

>>

Recently, I mentioned to our board that we were not in compliance with RONR with respect to our occasional teleconference meeting. Yesterday, I was called to a meeting with officials of the organization. An attorney was present. Amidst gentle hints that I might be overemphasizing the importance of RONR, the attorney said that the board could select which articles of RONR to follow or not to follow.

<<

Customization to allow absentee voting is possible also, of course, but it has to be done via explicit language in the bylaws.

No suspension of the rules, no special rules of order, and no 'selection' by the board can make a teleconference meeting valid.

The mellifluously renamed gebegb knows this, of course, but I think it's worth pointing out that the general truth of the poster's response does not actually apply in the very specific situation described by the OP.

Since we were not present at the meeting to which reference is made, we have only a second-hand description of the advice given by the attorney at that meeting. Long experience has taught me that, particularly in circumstances such as this, what is reported as having been said is very likely to be substantially distorted, although (as I'm sure is the case here) such distortion is unintentional.

For all we know, this is the same organization referred to in http://robertsrules....__fromsearch__1, and we don't want to go all through that again.

[Trina]

Since we were not present at the meeting to which reference is made, we have only a second-hand description of the advice given by the attorney at that meeting. Long experience has taught me that, particularly in circumstances such as this, what is reported as having been said is very likely to be substantially distorted, although (as I'm sure is the case here) such distortion is unintentional.

For all we know, this is the same organization referred to in http://robertsrules....__fromsearch__1, and we don't want to go all through that again.

Maybe one should say, "if the situation was accurately and completely described in the original post, then..." It is almost always true that there may be distortions or missing information (perhaps information unknown to the poster).

Thanks for linking that other thread... I think . I need more caffeine before approaching it again, though.

[g40]

Chances are the reasons are pretty simple:

1) Even though he is a lawyer that doesn't necessarily mean that he understands RONR and he is misinterpreting what RONR says,

2) He is being hired by the organization and is representing their interests (which might include shutting the rabble rouser down ),

3) All of the above.

My vote would go towards #2 or 3.

I vote #2 - especially since the original poster says "called to a meeting".