Waiting for the chickens

[William Kennedy]

To all my teachers:

 

Since joining this forum in June I have received an invaluable education in the Rules. The more I know, the more I know I don’t know!

The one thing I did not expect, however, was to be enlightened as to just how important and necessary the Rules are to a society.

 

The downside for me personally, is that despite being urged to do so, I find myself finally unable to accept appointment to a special committee dealing with crucially important organizational matters because of a blatant, repeated and willful disregard for the observance of the Rules for the sake of convenience. The Rules are regularly being dismissed as mere “technicalities” in the way of “good people getting the job done” even by otherwise responsible persons.

 

My response is: “Where will it end?  It's a very slippery slope, and will likely lead to unforeseeable and possibly serious consequences.”

 

We will all inevitably breach the Rules in error at some point, but these can be remedied, most often by a further application of the Rules themselves. But to breach them intentionally is a different matter. The Rules are not a menu from which to choose what suits your purpose.

 

So here I sit (alone) on the outside and not at the table where I would much prefer to be, but nevertheless with a clear conscience about having done what I am convinced is right.

 

Question: How do you go about changing the organization’s mindset except by waiting until the chickens come home to roost?

 

 

[Josh Martin]

We will all inevitably breach the Rules in error at some point, but these can be remedied, most often by a further application of the Rules themselves. But to breach them intentionally is a different matter. The Rules are not a menu from which to choose what suits your purpose.

 

Well, in a way, they are "a menu from which to choose what suits your purpose." Many (but not all) of the rules may be suspended for a particular purpose, and the assembly may adopt special rules of order (or adopt rules in the bylaws, in some cases) to supersede Robert's Rules in particular cases. Still, I see what you mean.

 

How do you go about changing the organization’s mindset except by waiting until the chickens come home to roost?

 

It is not unusual for members to feel that following proper parliamentary procedure is an unnecessarily complicated obstacle to achieving their objectives. Understood properly, however, parliamentary procedure is a tool to help members achieve their objectives, and it offers considerably more freedom than members might imagine. In order to impress these facts on the unenlightened, I think there are several key points to emphasize:

 

With regard to following the rules generally...

• While reading and understanding Robert's Rules of Order in its entirety is a daunting task for many, understanding the basics of parliamentary procedure is readily achievable. Members should take a look at the reading plans in Robert's Rules of Order In Brief. It is written in easy to understand language, is a very quick read (an hour and a half is probably sufficient to read the entire text) and the book suggests that after reading it, members will be able to tackle about 80% of what they encounter in meetings - and if anything, I suspect this is a conservative estimate.
• Contrary to popular belief, following proper parliamentary procedure will often help a meeting get done faster.
• In addition to assisting the assembly with processing its business in an efficient manner, the rules help to ensure that the rights of members are protected. It's easy to view rules as mere "inconveniences" when they are seen as abstractions which are followed merely for the sake of following rules. Many of the rules, however, exist to protect the rights of members (or groups of members). If one views the rules from the perspective of a member whose rights might be infringed on in a particular instance, they seem a bit more important. Indeed, many of the questions we get come up when a member's rights have been infringed on - and this generally occurs because the assembly is ignorant of (or has willfully violated) certain parliamentary rules.
• Clearly and consistently following the rules helps to ensure that members know what the rules are and what their rights are in a particular instance. If the assembly just makes things up as they go along, it will be difficult for a member to know how he can accomplish his desired objective.

With regard to those "severe consequences" you mentioned...

 

More severe violations of the rules (those which cause "continuing breaches") generally involve serious violations of members' rights and/or the most basic rules of the common parliamentary law or of the organization's rules (the bylaws). As a parliamentary matter, violations of this nature open up the possibility that the action could be challenged by a Point of Order at any time during the continuance of the breach - possibly years later. Since members (and opinions) will often fluctuate over time, this means that even a nigh-unanimous decision may be in danger of a serious challenge at some point.

 

Of course, such severe violations may also have other consequences beyond the realm of parliamentary law, such as legal consequences. While you'd need to ask a lawyer for more details, I would note that legal challenges are at least a potential consequence, and it can be a very expensive consequence.

[g40]

To all my teachers:

 

Since joining this forum in June I have received an invaluable education in the Rules. The more I know, the more I know I don’t know!

The one thing I did not expect, however, was to be enlightened as to just how important and necessary the Rules are to a society.

 

The downside for me personally, is that despite being urged to do so, I find myself finally unable to accept appointment to a special committee dealing with crucially important organizational matters because of a blatant, repeated and willful disregard for the observance of the Rules for the sake of convenience. The Rules are regularly being dismissed as mere “technicalities” in the way of “good people getting the job done” even by otherwise responsible persons.

 

My response is: “Where will it end?  It's a very slippery slope, and will likely lead to unforeseeable and possibly serious consequences.”

 

We will all inevitably breach the Rules in error at some point, but these can be remedied, most often by a further application of the Rules themselves. But to breach them intentionally is a different matter. The Rules are not a menu from which to choose what suits your purpose.

 

So here I sit (alone) on the outside and not at the table where I would much prefer to be, but nevertheless with a clear conscience about having done what I am convinced is right.

 

Question: How do you go about changing the organization’s mindset except by waiting until the chickens come home to roost?

I know how you feel In my experience, people who believe the rules don't apply to them or those of us who cite rules are just troublemakers are very common. They often get way with doing what you describe -- and those chickens may never come home to roost. If they have the power, and can convince the right people to let them keep doing it - they will sty in power.

[Rockp2]

I've served on three Boards and several committees over the years, and I've also observed other Boards and I have to tell you...the majority of those deal with your same problems.  From my experience I would say it is more the norm than not...unfortunately.  There was only one Board that I've ever witnessed that I can say followed RONR as perfect as it probably gets.  But, it was an organization that had a 25 Member Board and had a hired Professional Parliamentarian sitting at the right hand of the President.  During the meeting I witnessed several times when the President leaned over to the PP to get some guidance.  The amazing thing is the Board meeting ran so smoothly and efficiently...even with 25 Board Members.

 

What I usually find is two things.  First, you have the people that have just enough RONR info to be dangerous.   They will speak with authority and tweak some part of RONR to suit their needs (though they will be wrong in its application).  Then they'll ignore anything RONR that doesn't work for them.  Most people are ignorant of RONR so they just accept when someone says "By Robert's Rules...." that they must know what they're talking about.

 

Here is my advice to you.  Accept the position on the committee

 

I found myself in a similar situation just over two years ago when I ran for the BOD at my HOA.  Upon being elected, I was nominated by the BOD to be Secretary.  I did not know at the time that they were supposed to ask me if I accepted the nomination.  If I had been asked, I would have declined.  Now I am thankful for my ignorance.  Because I was responsible for minutes, etc...and by nature I like my work to be as close to perfect as I can make it...I bought RONR and about a half dozen other books on Robert's Rules.  As the meetings progressed thru the year I became a little more knowledgeable every meeting.  I started small and initiated changes little by little.  With my little brown book tabbed and ready at hand, I would respond to emails or support my comments at the Board meetings with citations.

 

I believe in leaving something better than I found it.  After two years I can safely say I left the Secretary position better than I found it.  I was elected President this year, not because I'm popular or people agree with my opinions, but because they knew I would Chair the meetings with RONR as my base.  I'm not a Dictator President and after already two months I've received complements from Board Members that they actually feel like they are being heard fairly now and are not being steam-rolled.  People like structure, they hate ambiguity, they need to know that they can pick up a set a rules and everyone is following the same rules...and those rules will be fully applied and not cherry picked for someone's personal agenda.  I'm definitely not a perfect President...I still have a lot to learn.  I'm on here just about daily and sometimes I'll read something and say to myself...."Whoops".  But then I go back to my Board and let them know that I was incorrect and here is how you call me out on it.

 

Granted, I have a strong personality and from my life experience I speak very confidently...but still, when you show someone something in black and white, unless they counter with something of equal authority, its hard for them to argue their point.  In my communications with the Board Members I am continually citing and referencing RONR to show that it is just not me pulling parliamentary rule out my ass.  The Board Members know as far as I'm concerned, when you make a statement be prepared to show me in our governing documents or RONR, because otherwise it's a fairy tale.  That rule applies to me also.

 

So, remember...you can't do ANYTHING from the sidelines...join the committee and just by you properly following RONR with your actions and citing passages when making a Point of Order...I think you'll be surprised how others will gravitate to your points.

 

In the words of Dennis Miller however...."That's just my opinion...I...could...be...wrong."

[Josh Martin]

I did not know at the time that they were supposed to ask me if I accepted the nomination.

 

Actually, RONR does not require that.

 

Here is my advice to you.  Accept the position on the committee

 

To be clear, I don't think Bill's objection to serving on the committee is based on the society's general disregard for the rules, but is instead based on some specific concerns about the validity of the committee itself, which are discussed in this thread. (I assume this is the same committee.) I'm not sure whether this changes your advice or not, but it's good to have all the facts.

[Rockp2]

Actually, RONR does not require that.

 

"Whoops" 

[William Kennedy]

 

To be clear, I don't think Bill's objection to serving on the committee is based on the society's general disregard for the rules, but is instead based on some specific concerns about the validity of the committee itself, which are discussed in this thread. (I assume this is the same committee.) I'm not sure whether this changes your advice or not, but it's good to have all the facts.

 

Yes. You are correct.

 

 

[J. J.]

 

Question: How do you go about changing the organization’s mindset except by waiting until the chickens come home to roost?

 

 

Other than pointing out that what the chickens will look like, I cannot think of any way.

[William Kennedy]

The irony is that it would be very easy to use the Rules to one's advantage, like taking candy from a baby, but soon realize that it's a short term gain.

[Rev Ed]

I have been a Secretary in a couple of different cases.  Each time I have tweeked the Minutes for the specific group so that all the required information was contained in the Minutes, but so that they are produced in a way that was beneficial to the group.

 

For one group, the Minutes were point form because each item was generally dealt with by unanimous consent, it was operating under the relaxed rules of RONR (very relaxed actually), and the organization was very small and too much formality would have worked against the organization.

 

For other groups, I add the seconder and/or have a much more formal approach to the Minutes.

 

So each organization is different and you need to consider this as well.