Paragraph on Robert's Rules

[Guest T.J.]

Can anyone suggest a concise paragraph or two that paints a convincing picture of the significance of Robert's Rules of Order in all aspects of an organization? This is for a group that isn't familiar with it and/or dismisses it as "just for debates". I don't want to be long-winded but do want to convince them of its importance and of the difference it will make down the road if we adopt it in our bylaws.

Note that the board is small enough to use the procedures for small boards in RONR (11th ed), p. 487, rarely goes beyond a main motion, board votes tend to be unanimous, so while it is true that in normal times they likely wouldn't use much of it, I'm trying to argue that it is an indispensable guide for handling anything unexpected that might come up in any aspect of the organization: nominations, elections, fair trial, etc.

Any help would be most appreciated!

[Gary c Tesser]

I myself find most appealing the discussion about the Lacedaemonians, which took place around 430 BC ("Backwards Counting"), if I recall correctly, on p. xxx - xxxi, and the one about the manner of Gouernement or policie of the realme of England, from around 1570 AD ("Advancing Dating") on p. xxxiii, but those may have less than universal appeal. Try boiling down the first page and a half of RONR - IB; would that work?

[Gary c Tesser]

(By "if I recall correctly," I don't mean to imply that I was a first-hand witness. Back then, old guys like me and Dan were way over in the Neander Valley painting aurochs on cave walls and trying to bring together our primordial rudimentary witenagemots.)

[Gary c Tesser]

(That was a legitimate afterthought. Accusations of unscrupulous post-count accretion are unfounded.)

[jstackpo]

Guest_T._J._:

"Robert's Rules is (are) nothing more than common sense and fair play codified"

Concise enough for you?

(Ignore GcT's blatant attempts at reply-count augmentation -- besides "accretion" is the wrong word choice.)

[Gary c Tesser]

Guest_T._J._:

"Robert's Rules is (are) nothing more than common sense and fair play codified"

Brilliantly said.

(Ignore GcT's blatant attempts at reply-count augmentation -- besides "accretion" is the wrong word choice.)

You got a citation, Nostril Nose?

[sMargaret]

Would you like to use this?

Have you ever been to a meeting that didn’t go well? Did people keep talking when they weren’t supposed to? Did something feel as if it as rammed through, without proper support? Did it take ages and ages to settle something that should have been very simple?

Did you arrive, wanting to do things, and leave, wanting to pound your head against the nearest wall?

I have a solution for you, and it doesn’t involve pounding heads. What it involves is parliamentary procedure, and specifically using Roberts Rules of Order in meetings where people must work together to make some decision. This isn’t something you need when it’s just 3 or 4 people – but every time you get over just a few people, you will see the need for some sort of mutually understood rules.

We’re not talking about the horrific level of rules that scare some people away from Robert’s Rules – the precedence of motions, for example, or which types of motions can be reconsidered.

As Henry Robert said: “The Assembly meets to transact business, not to have Members exploit their knowledge of parliamentary law. A business meeting is not a class of parliamentary law.”

The rules and principles are designed to expedite business; maintain order; and ensure justice, courtesy, fairness and equal treatment for all members.

[George Mervosh]

I just ask folks if they'd rather be home from their meeting in time for the start of Monday Night Football, or the start of the 11:00 news. Somehow the answer is always the same.

[Guest T.J.]

Dear sMargaret,

Thank you for writing this! Hopefully the group will understand that I'm not being difficult, just want to make sure we have an easy way to solve whatever question comes up.

T.J.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Would you like to use this?

Have you ever been to a meeting that didn’t go well? Did people keep talking when they weren’t supposed to? Did something feel as if it as rammed through, without proper support? Did it take ages and ages to settle something that should have been very simple?

Did you arrive, wanting to do things, and leave, wanting to pound your head against the nearest wall?

I have a solution for you, and it doesn’t involve pounding heads. What it involves is parliamentary procedure, and specifically using Roberts Rules of Order in meetings where people must work together to make some decision. This isn’t something you need when it’s just 3 or 4 people – but every time you get over just a few people, you will see the need for some sort of mutually understood rules.

We’re not talking about the horrific level of rules that scare some people away from Robert’s Rules – the precedence of motions, for example, or which types of motions can be reconsidered.

As Henry Robert said: “The Assembly meets to transact business, not to have Members exploit their knowledge of parliamentary law. A business meeting is not a class of parliamentary law.”

The rules and principles are designed to expedite business; maintain order; and ensure justice, courtesy, fairness and equal treatment for all members.

If the precedence of motions is up there among "the horrific level of rules that scare some people away from Robert’s Rules" in this group, then I suspect they would find little use in adopting it (or any other parliamentary authority). With no precedence of motions, the chair couldn't handle even the simplest thing, such as a point of order or request for information, while a motion is pending. So, whether horrified by it or not, it's something that every meeting-goer needs to learn something about.

[George Mervosh]

If the precedence of motions is up there among "the horrific level of rules that scare some people away from Robert’s Rules" in this group, then I suspect they would find little use in adopting it (or any other parliamentary authority). With no precedence of motions, the chair couldn't handle even the simplest thing, such as a point of order or request for information, while a motion is pending. So, whether horrified by it or not, it's something that every meeting-goer needs to learn something about.

Or the 11:00 news will be kaput too

[sMargaret]

If the precedence of motions is up there among "the horrific level of rules that scare some people away from Robert’s Rules" in this group, then I suspect they would find little use in adopting it (or any other parliamentary authority). With no precedence of motions, the chair couldn't handle even the simplest thing, such as a point of order or request for information, while a motion is pending. So, whether horrified by it or not, it's something that every meeting-goer needs to learn something about.

True - but they don't have to have the whole chart committed to memory, in order to hold a meeting.

It's all about the 20% regularly needed portion. Don't make people think they need to know the 80% before they start using the 20%. Know where to look it up, yes - but for heavens sakes, one can "expedite business; maintain order; and ensure justice, courtesy, fairness and equal treatment for all members" without committing to memory motions that not amendable but are debatable, and other areas in the charts at the back.

[Shmuel Gerber]

True - but they don't have to have the whole chart committed to memory, in order to hold a meeting.

It's all about the 20% regularly needed portion. Don't make people think they need to know the 80% before they start using the 20%. Know where to look it up, yes - but for heavens sakes, one can "expedite business; maintain order; and ensure justice, courtesy, fairness and equal treatment for all members" without committing to memory motions that not amendable but are debatable, and other areas in the charts at the back.

My point is that the order of precedence of motions is part of the 20% regularly needed portion. See RONR In Brief, pages 103-106.

Also, I think it helps to simply follow the rules, and then justice, fairness, and equal treatment for all members (to the extent that these attributes are desirable or even possible) tend to follow automatically.

[sMargaret]

My point is that the order of precedence of motions is part of the 20% regularly needed portion. See RONR In Brief, pages 103-106.

Well, then, shhhh - because my article snippet was meant to pull in those who are scared of the concept, and convince them that it really isn't that scary.

[Chris Harrison]

Well, then, shhhh - because my article snippet was meant to pull in those who are scared of the concept, and convince them that it really isn't that scary.

Well out of everyone the Chair/presiding officer is the one who needs to be familiar with everything in RONR and as long as the Chair knows what he is doing and doesn't abuse his power the members pretty much can leave the other 80% (the fun stuff) to him. However, the precedence of motions is something they need to know (if nothing else then so they won't have to risk the Chair having to rule the motion out of order because it is lower ranking than one already pending) and there is a handy dandy chart on tinted pages 4-5 to explain it to them.

[Guest T. J.]

I should have explained that the group thinks that the only use of Robert's Rules are as rules for debates - 15 pages out of the over 700 of the current edition! Naturally our cultural association almost never holds debates, so why bother adopting it in the bylaws? It is a small board so informal discussion and voting on motions aren't that much of a problem. What instead potentially is a problem is if we ever have a question regarding board roles, elections, or god forbid, they ever needed the chapter on Disciplinary Procedures and hadn't adopted a parliamentary authority...

T.J.,