Small Assemblies

[DrEntropy]

One of the changes in the new 11th edition is the "recognition that a small assembly may wish to employ these less formal procedures" (from the preface) that are used by small boards. RONR (11th) states on page 16, ll. 12-16 that the society may wish to adopt a special rule of order to accomplish this. However, none of the less formal procedures on page 487-488 would in my opinion lead to a continuing breach, so I presume that any society (with a small assembly) could just use these procedures (as a matter of custom) without adopting a special rule, as long as no one objects (by raising a point of order for example, see RONR pg 19). My question: Is this a bad idea? Should I recommend a special rule be adopted? Several small clubs I work with seem to (by custom) use these less formal procedures, and no one objects or would think to do so (see also RONR pg. 250 ll. 11-15). So it seems to me that the formal adoption would be perhaps a waste of time.

[Burke Balch]

If all the members are in agreement, why wouldn't they unanimously adopt the necessary special rule of order? The problem with operating under a custom that conflicts with the written rules is that at any time it may be brought to an end by raising a point of order, as noted. The ideal time to formalize desired procedures is while they are uncontroversial, not when disputes arise. It's the same principle under which it is best to adopt clear rules governing elections BEFORE the votes are cast, since in a contested election, once the votes are cast the procedural disputes will be tainted by each candidate's desired outcome.

Bottom line -- in my opinion it's rarely a good idea to let things "float" in the expectation that no controversy will arise, because controversies can arise when you least expect them.

[Gary Novosielski]

Well, letting things "float" (i.e., relying only on RONR and not passing a special rule) may actually imply a more complete recognition of the fact that controversies can arise unexpectedly.

When controversy arises, it is usually advisable to switch to more formal procedures, which can have the effect of preventing tempers from rising at the same time. If a special rule is passed allowing informal procedures as a routine way of conducting business, it will take a 2/3 vote to suspend that rule and institute stricter procedures. But if tempers have already begun to flare, it may be more difficult to achieve a 2/3 vote on that or any other matter.

By intentionally avoiding such a rule, stricter procedures can be triggered, when needed, on the demand of a single member, presumably in the form of a point of order. Yet custom, in the form of more relaxed procedures, can be allowed to prevail whenever there is general consent to do so.

[Burke Balch]

Interesting perspective. There is indeed validity to the view that when division and controversy arise, and tempers flare, in a group theretofore characterized by sweetness and light, a stricter enforcement of the rules providing for the formality that seeks to prevent debate over issues from turning into controversy over personality is often advisable.

In the circumstances described by Dr. Entropy, however, I get the impression -- which may be wrong -- that the members take for granted the less formal method of procedure and may not even be aware of the more formal rules generally applicable to an assembly. If that is the case, a member raising a point of order, entirely justified by the rules, that the assembly ought now proceed in accordance with the more formal rules is likely to spark outrage and consternation, leading to more divisiveness rather than less. If that prediction is plausible, then I remain of the opinion that the safest course is to establish the preferred mode of procedure solidly and safely through adoption of a special rule of order while the matter is not the subject of controversy. My own experience is that when the "expert" parliamentarian says, in effect, "here are the formal hoops you should jump through to accomplish what you want to do," most members tend to go along without too much questioning or balking.

[DrEntropy]

I get the impression -- which may be wrong -- that the members take for granted the less formal method of procedure and may not even be aware of the more formal rules generally applicable to an assembly.

Your impression is correct, and your argument persuasive about adopting the special rule. I like the Mr. Novoseilsky's idea however and might suggest not adopting the "informal discussion without a motion" part. The assembly could (and likely will) continue to have informal discussion without a motion, but only so long as it is tolerated by unanimous consent. Probably would also not adopt the "vote without a motion's having been introduced" clause either.

[Rev Ed]

I would recommend the special rule. My main reasons are:

1) It makes life easier for all concerned - the decision is formally made and written (in the Minutes of the meeting when the special rule was created, and afterwards in other documents for example.)

2) New member of the organization, used to the formal rules may raise a point of order which leads into a long debate about which set of rules to use - formal or informal. There is no point creating an issue when the issue can be dealt with easily.