Tackling caricatures that impede standard adoption of RONR

[Guest Jim]

Dear forum,

 

A number of incorporated societies limit their adoption of RONR to govern, for example, nothing beyond "all procedural maters at all meetings". Sometimes, they will have achieved to do so despite the bogeyman that to do so will enable individuals to

 

"use the rules for their own advantage, using tricks to get their way in an assembly"

 

except that in actual practice the above is only possible through the basic incompetence of the group and their chair.

 

But the next challenge, and one that I am facing, is where a society is contemplating standard adoption as recommended on the authority.html page but is being counselled against, on the basis that the organization might

 

"Unwittingly tie itself to whole sets of rules and requirements that it had not appreciated or anticipated, whose application lay outside of and between meetings (as may include what should be in the minutes). Rules and requirements which stand not only constrain what the organization may prefer to do but which stand, moreover, to create new liabilities for the organization. Liabilities wherein the organization's unwitting failure to have been in compliance with those requirements becomes the basis by which any member could seek to invalidate actions that had followed the apparent non-adherence."

 

Does anyone have any experience with whether the adopt RONR as recommended by its authors truly does, by such adoption, introduce real liabilities such as to warrant to postpone indefinitely any fuller commitment to RONR and if so, under what circumstances, or whether this is empty and even bogus argumentation?

 

 

[Dan Honemann]

I don't know the source of what you have quoted, but it is pure nonsense.

[Edgar Guest]

I don't know the source of what you have quoted, but it is pure nonsense.

 

I like the fact that "unwitting" is used twice. I especially like "unwitting failure". That pretty much sums it up.

[Guest Jim]

Suppose we would extract from flotsam of my "Unwittingly" paragraph the following clarifying question.

 

When the Society hires a CEO, who himself hires and oversees staff, the CEO will want to put in place a series of policies and procedures for various of the operations within the society.

 

Is he free to conduct his staff meetings, and to keep any records thereof, and to communicate with staff in any manner that his employers – the Board – may be willing to approve, unconstrained by the rules and procedures set out in RONR?

 

I would venture a "yes", that he may operate unconstrained by RONR, on the basis that we are here talking aspects of the society that do not involve the rights, duties or activities of members as members even if one or more members may happen to be employed by the society.

 

Do I have this right?

[jstackpo]

Probably, although how much latitude your CEO has could depend on the terms of his employment contract.

[Richard Brown]

I agree with Dr. Stackpole.   I would be willing to venture a guess that in a work environment a manager and his staff is not a deliberative assembly.

 

Edited to add:  At least not in the U.S. of A.  I do understand, though, that Japan has some management practices that are quite different from ours.   I'm willing to guess that that, too, is not a true deliberative assembly,

[Guest Jim]

It may be helpful to some in my organization if a forum member Registered Parliamentarian can concurs, with some confidence, that

 

In the case of all of those activities that are overseen by management and which do not consist of nor bear on assemblies of members in their capacities as members or their handling, the adoption of RONR per the first quote on the authority page does not, in and of itself, bind management by the rules and procedures therein as to how management undertakes its business processes. Even where such processes directly impact members, such as members in their capacity as possible employees, or as participants in management's meetings outside of those of the board and committees of the society.

[jstackpo]

Put me down for agreement.   When you go to work for someone you are not showing up from 9 to 5 in a "deliberative assembly" which is what RONR's rules relate to. 

 

As I recall (dim dark past) from my working days, when the boss said "jump" the proper response was not "It there a  a majority in favor of my jumping?"  If there was, it was a majority of one in a very small assembly.

[Josh Martin]

It may be helpful to some in my organization if a forum member Registered Parliamentarian can concurs, with some confidence, that

In the case of all of those activities that are overseen by management and which do not consist of nor bear on assemblies of members in their capacities as members or their handling, the adoption of RONR per the first quote on the authority page does not, in and of itself, bind management by the rules and procedures therein as to how management undertakes its business processes. Even where such processes directly impact members, such as members in their capacity as possible employees, or as participants in management's meetings outside of those of the board and committees of the society.

This is absolutely correct. The rules in RONR are solely concerned with conduct within meetings of deliberative assemblies or conduct connected to such meetings (such as rules pertaining to the minutes of those meetings). Nothing in RONR has any bearing on interactions between management and employees.

[Edgar Guest]

Nothing in RONR has any bearing on interactions between management and employees.

 

Although if someone in management, or an employee, is a member of the Society, he could be subject to the disciplinary procedures described in Chapter XX ("Offenses Elsewhere Than in a Meeting"). 

[Dan Honemann]

Although if someone in management, or an employee, is a member of the Society, he could be subject to the disciplinary procedures described in Chapter XX ("Offenses Elsewhere Than in a Meeting"). 

 

Horrors!

 

Employees of an organization, at any level, are usually subject to disciplinary proceedings much more swift and sure then those in RONR.

[Edgar Guest]

Employees of an organization, at any level, are usually subject to disciplinary proceedings much more swift and sure then those in RONR.

 

Perhaps. But it's conceivable that an employee might have done nothing wrong as an employee and yet still be subject to disciplinary sanctions as a member.

 

My point was that being an employee doesn't shield a member from Chapter XX's wrath.

[Guest jJim]

Thanks so much.

 

This thread should now, to my mind, have persuasively addressed any and all reasonable apprehensions on the part of anyone, including legal counsel, who may have worried that for a Society to adopt RONR in the manner recommended risks to overly tie the hands of their corporation in respect to how they may operate.

What this thread does not resolve is the objection by any whose resistance to full adoption (stated or unstated) is on the basis that such adoption would obligate them to adhere to, abide by, and be held accountable under a set of rules that will have been made transparently accessible to the entire membership by means of a soft-cover copy of RONR, the full edition of which costs only $15.00.

Avoiding to fully adopt RONR stands to preserve the capacity of those in charge to hide behind and to deviate – however often and severely as they may desire – from rules, policies, procedures, and bases for decision-making that may never have been
 

• accurately written down (let alone accurately remembered)

• agreed to

• approved

• indexed

• filed

• integrated or

• made accessible to general membership

 

let alone back-checked for conformity to statues, bylaws and any other rules already adopted.

[Guest Jim]

…

 

Avoiding to fully adopt RONR stands to preserve the capacity of those in charge to hide behind and to deviate – however often and severely as they may desire – from rules, policies, procedures, and bases for decision-making <see insert> that may never have been

 

insert "…of their own …"

[Shmuel Gerber]

Thanks so much.

 

This thread should now, to my mind, have persuasively addressed any and all reasonable apprehensions on the part of anyone, including legal counsel, who may have worried that for a Society to adopt RONR in the manner recommended risks to overly tie the hands of their corporation in respect to how they may operate.

What this thread does not resolve is the objection by any whose resistance to full adoption (stated or unstated) is on the basis that such adoption would obligate them to adhere to, abide by, and be held accountable under a set of rules that will have been made transparently accessible to the entire membership by means of a soft-cover copy of RONR, the full edition of which costs only $15.00.

Avoiding to fully adopt RONR stands to preserve the capacity of those in charge to hide behind and to deviate – however often and severely as they may desire – from rules, policies, procedures, and bases for decision-making that may never have been

 

• accurately written down (let alone accurately remembered)

• agreed to

• approved

• indexed

• filed

• integrated or

• made accessible to general membership

 

let alone back-checked for conformity to statues, bylaws and any other rules already adopted.

 

In all fairness, you should know that RONR itself has not been checked for conformity to any statues.