"May be conducted" part 2

[Jbwidaho]

Our bylaws vaguely state: "All meetings of the corporation may be conducted using Roberts Rules of Order". 

 

Tonight in attempt to define the who and when of  "may be", the recommended change was to add at the end of that statement: "at the discretion of the President."

 

Can you please help us understand the possible implications and challenges of such a bylaw?

[Gary c Tesser]

To start with:  I'm pretty sure RONR doesn't say.

 

... So pretty much you're asking the denizens of the world's premier Internet parliamentary forum to stray beyond its fixed prescribed official bounds.

 

That can be done with a 2/3 vote to introduce it.  I'd say that's a 2/3 vote of Dan, but it's probably past his bedtime.

I'll wait a minute.

 

... Okay, we'll start without him.

All in favor say Aye.

Aye.

 

Well!  unanimous.  How impressive.  There's a lesson to be learned:  when everybody else is asleep, I'll probably get my way this time most of the time.

 

So here goes.

...

... (Aw nuts, 2 AM, nap time.)

[Gary c Tesser]

Here's something to do:  go to the area of the website at www.robertsrules.com/authority.html .  Compare the recommended wording ("The rules contained in the current edition ...") with what you already have, and with what you will have if you adopt your proposed change.  That's a start.

 

I'll throw in this:  I don't think the proposed improvement is any improvement.

[Gary c Tesser]

After a good night's sleep, I'll try again.  Look, the supposed improvement says pretty much nothing, and is  pointless.  Sure, it rules out that your meetings might be "conducted" according to the secretary's discretion.  or the treasurer's.  Or, for that matter, the assembly's.  Is that a good idea?

 

ANd should the discretion of the President lean this way, he can "conduct" the meetings "using" Alice Sturgis's Rules of Order.  Or Demeter's or Mason.  Or, if he likes, The President's Rules of Order; or Gary's (which often might not be all that bad, but you can be confident would contain some disconcerting surprises); or Kim Jong Il's, or Josef Stalin's or the rules of your local playground's sandbox.

 

Try this:  think of the worst of the stupid ideas you've ever heard chairmen come up with, and to make it more entertaining, restrict yourself to the well-intentioned stupid ideas.  Don't worry, you can't nowhere near run out.  I've heard a presiding officer say, between speakers in debate, "I'll allow three more statements and then we'll vote."  Or, "For the sake of fairness, every debate will be closed, after all those who wished to speak have done so, by adopting The Previous Question.... Okay, now:  all in favor? ..."  Or (yes, really! really! : ) "My mother wouldn't allow that, so I won't."

 

On the other hand, with Robert's Rules of Order, the worst disconcerting surprise is probably The Wrath of Dan.  Which these days is pretty much confined to the Internet.  Or maybe most of Maryland also.

 

Turn it around, Jbwidaho [Original Poster]: how about you, or an ally of yours (I presume you have some, and this isn't your isolated personal crusade or jeremiad), propose RONR's recommended language, and see what anyone's problem with it is?  (Remember, you can come back here and ask for ideas again.  Don't worry, we can never find the billing addresses at the end of the month.  We very cleverly arrange our filing system at the discretion of the President.  For a few weeks we defined the law of gravity according to the discretion of the President, but we got tired of tying everyone down to keep the members from floating away.)

[Guest Jbwidaho]

Oh Gary, you say you took a nap in there somewhere?

In think the proposed language is terrible, perhaps worse than the original. I am not coveying that well to the assembly. They are fearful of being burdened down by RONR and glazed over at the language suggested on this website for adopting RONR into the organization.

I was hoping for words to articulate the problems with their proposal. Gary, thank you for your reply, I think you ramble more than I:)

[Josh Martin]

They are fearful of being burdened down by RONR and glazed over at the language suggested on this website for adopting RONR into the organization.

 

Since they "glazed over" that language, the short version is that the society will follow RONR except where the society's rules provide otherwise - that is, the organization's own rules are above RONR in the totem pole.

 

As for being "burdened" by RONR, copies of Robert's Rules of Order In Brief should teach them that RONR isn't as much of a "burden" as people think it is.

[David A Foulkes]

Oh Gary, you say you took a nap in there somewhere?

 

Perhaps "recess" would be a better word for it.