Failure to follow RONR shall not invalidate any action taken at the meeting.

[Guest Sharon Villines]

The question is the interpretation of "Failure to follow Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised shall not invalidate any action taken at the meeting."

My reading is that this is protection against having a past action nullified because a technicality was unintentionally not followed. Another member maintains that this sentence means the group doesn't have to follow RONR if it chooses not to. RONR Is just advisory.

This involves a question concerning quorum to which I have responded that a quorum is considered present until it is determined that it isn't -- and it is the obligation of the chair to notice and other members to call it to her attention. My opposition maintains we can just ignore that because "failure to follow Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised shall not invalidate any action taken at the meeting."

[Tim Wynn]

The question is the interpretation of "Failure to follow Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised shall not invalidate any action taken at the meeting."

My reading is that this is protection against having a past action nullified because a technicality was unintentionally not followed. Another member maintains that this sentence means the group doesn't have to follow RONR if it chooses not to. RONR Is just advisory.

This involves a question concerning quorum to which I have responded that a quorum is considered present until it is determined that it isn't -- and it is the obligation of the chair to notice and other members to call it to her attention. My opposition maintains we can just ignore that because "failure to follow Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised shall not invalidate any action taken at the meeting."

If the quoted text is in your bylaws, that will allow for many nightmare-like situations.

The language is a bad idea and pointless, because RONR already provides that technicalities will not invalidate action taken.

It's up to your organization to decide the meaning of its bylaws.

Please remove this language as soon as possible... or earlier.

[Chris Harrison]

"Failure to follow Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised shall not invalidate any action taken at the meeting" is not absolute (unless it is in the bylaws). It is true that in a vast majority of the cases a Point of Order needs to be timely and if a timely one is not raised it would be too late to invalidate what was done. However, there are five cases in which a Point of Order doesn't have to be timely (and proceeding without a quorum is one of those exceptions). See RONR p. 251 for details and focus on (e) and p. 263 lines 31-32) regarding proceeding without a quorum.

[alanh49]

The question is the interpretation of "Failure to follow Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised shall not invalidate any action taken at the meeting."

My reading is that this is protection against having a past action nullified because a technicality was unintentionally not followed. Another member maintains that this sentence means the group doesn't have to follow RONR if it chooses not to. RONR Is just advisory.

This involves a question concerning quorum to which I have responded that a quorum is considered present until it is determined that it isn't -- and it is the obligation of the chair to notice and other members to call it to her attention. My opposition maintains we can just ignore that because "failure to follow Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised shall not invalidate any action taken at the meeting."

Do you have another rule/bylaw that says "failure to follow are our own rules shall not invalidate any action taken at the meeting."

Because by doing business without a quorum you are not just breaking Robert's Rules you are also breaking your own.

[Gary Novosielski]

The question is the interpretation of "Failure to follow Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised shall not invalidate any action taken at the meeting."

My reading is that this is protection against having a past action nullified because a technicality was unintentionally not followed. Another member maintains that this sentence means the group doesn't have to follow RONR if it chooses not to. RONR Is just advisory.

This involves a question concerning quorum to which I have responded that a quorum is considered present until it is determined that it isn't -- and it is the obligation of the chair to notice and other members to call it to her attention. My opposition maintains we can just ignore that because "failure to follow Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised shall not invalidate any action taken at the meeting."

Are your quorum requirements in RONR, or are they in your own bylaws? Do your bylaws provide for suspension of that bylaw? Even if you don't follow Robert's Rules, you have to follow your bylaws and common parliamentary law. Without a quorum, there is no action to invalidate in the first place.

[Burke Balch]

This involves a question concerning quorum to which I have responded that a quorum is considered present until it is determined that it isn't -- and it is the obligation of the chair to notice and other members to call it to her attention

For what it's worth -- and it may not be worth much in light of your organization's rule (in the bylaws?) concerning RONR -- while the quoted statement is (roughly) correct as far as it goes, in RONR there is an important qualification: "Because of the difficulty likely to be encountered in determining exactly how long the meeting has been without a quorum in such cases, a point of order relating to the absence of a quorum is generally not permitted to affect prior action; but upon clear and convincing proof, such a point of order can be given effect retrospectively by a ruling of the presiding officer, subject to appeal . . . ." RONR (11th ed.), p. 349, ll. 21-28.

With respect to an effort to amend the rules provision regarding RONR, you may be able to garner more support if you can first get your fellow members of the organization to read RONR In Brief. Probably the provision was adopted because members felt the rules in RONR to be too complicated and difficult -- "technicalities" that get in the way of accomplishing things. The much more accessible In Brief book -- the key parts of which can be read in 30 to 90 minutes -- may dispel a lot of that concern.

[BryanSullo]

With respect to an effort to amend the rules provision regarding RONR, you may be able to garner more support if you can first get your fellow members of the organization to read RONR In Brief.

It makes a great stocking-stuffer. (Only 51 shopping days 'til Christmas!)

[Guest Sharon Villines]

Thanks to everyone for your responses. I live in a cohousing condominium that uses consensus decision-making but RONR is our fall back when it doesn't work. It usually works but the lack of knowledge of RONR presents amazing beliefs.

[Gary Novosielski]

I live in a cohousing condominium that uses consensus decision-making but RONR is our fall back when it doesn't work.

<RANT>

Oh, jeez! No wonder you're having problems. I long ago resolved never (again) to join any group that used that nonsense.

</RANT>

[Guest Edgar]

Oh, jeez! No wonder you're having problems. I long ago resolved never (again) to join any group that used that nonsense.

Then stay away from Zuccotti Park

"At that meeting and the subsequent ones, everyone was free to talk, and a facilitator moderated the discussion, a format that has continued for Occupy’s nightly meetings. Decisions required talking until, Mr. Graeber said, a consensus that “most people like and everybody else can live with” was reached.

As the protest’s numbers swelled, this devotion to ensuring that everyone was heard resulted in unwieldy meetings lasting hours."