legislative compared to ordinary society

[D.Llama]

Response to GN -  just  above  that of Knoll.

1  ) "I just disagree  agree with ......RONR is in any way flawed ". On this point I find myself aligned and in the same camp as  D.  Honemann  re his last post on this subject- earlier today-  that a change  in line 1-2 , page xxix  - may well be appropriate . 

2 ) As to unlikelihood  of  misunderstanding of the "following Chapters" of   RONR , arising from this asserted  " flaw "  - well - in many ( even perhaps  most )  instances absolutely not a problem  - but that does not alter the fundamental error . The reader should know as to :  " What do I have in my hand - is this a text that embodies  a codification of the present day general parliamentary law ?  And  if  not-  what is it  that I hold "? 

The answer is that   RONR  is not  what it says it  is in the very first line of Introdcution  - and I prefer the alternative suggested by Mr Honneman earlier today .

Thank-you GN . 

 

Pat Knoll  

 

 

 

 

[Josh Martin]

5 hours ago, Guest ptc122 said:

City Council and Boards do use RONR. But, they still must conform to Laws. The question becomes which procedures do not conform to Laws?

This question is not answerable. You keep speaking as if there is a single unified body of "Laws" which is applicable to every City Council, but this is not the case. A City Council will be bound not only by federal law, but also by state laws, and such laws will vary from state to state, and local laws, which will vary from city to city.

5 hours ago, Guest ptc122 said:

The balance can be difficult but certainly Previous Question could not be used by an elected body. But could be used by an ordinary society. Would that be a good example?

Not really. There is no particular reason why an elected body cannot adopt the Previous Question. It is certainly possible that, in a particular case, a law or rule will be adopted which prohibits the adoption of the Previous Question, but this will not necessarily be the case.

I also think you are confusing two different issues here. One is the distinction between a legislative body and an "ordinary society," which is a term RONR uses to refer to anything which is not a legislative body. When RONR uses the term "legislative body," however, this generally refers to a state or national legislature. Such bodies generally do not use RONR, and even if they do, RONR will be buried under extensive special rules of order and decades or centuries of precedents. City councils usually operate more like a small board than like Congress, and often use RONR. The rules of RONR apply the same to a city council as they do to any other assembly.

The other issue is the fact that in all assemblies, applicable procedural rules in federal, state, or local law are binding upon the assembly and take precedence over the rules in RONR. Public bodies, such as city councils, often have the most rules of this nature to worry about, but this is hardly exclusive to public bodies. HOAs and unions are often bound by a number of such rules as well, and incorporated societies of any kind will often find that there are at least a few applicable procedural rules in state law.

A good example of such a rule for City Councils is that state open meeting laws or "sunshine" laws will often place limitations on when the council can meet in executive session. This supersedes the rule in RONR, which places no limitations on when an assembly can meet in executive session.

 

[Dan Honemann]

10 hours ago, Pat Knoll said:

Response to GN -  just  above  that of Knoll.

1  ) "I just disagree  agree with ......RONR is in any way flawed ". On this point I find myself aligned and in the same camp as  D.  Honemann  re his last post on this subject- earlier today-  that a change  in line 1-2 , page xxix  - may well be appropriate . 

2 ) As to unlikelihood  of  misunderstanding of the "following Chapters" of   RONR , arising from this asserted  " flaw "  - well - in many ( even perhaps  most )  instances absolutely not a problem  - but that does not alter the fundamental error . The reader should know as to :  " What do I have in my hand - is this a text that embodies  a codification of the present day general parliamentary law ?  And  if  not-  what is it  that I hold "? 

The answer is that   RONR  is not  what it says it  is in the very first line of Introdcution  - and I prefer the alternative suggested by Mr Honneman earlier today .

Thank-you GN . 

 

Pat Knoll  

 

 

As I hope I have made rather clear, RONR is, in fact, exactly what it says it is in the very first sentence of its Introduction (and I did not mean to imply that I think that some change in this sentence is necessary), but I do agree that, in order to understand it, one must understand the meaning of the term "general parliamentary law." My own view of it is that the Introduction goes on to make this meaning clear, but I also recognize your concern that some may find this more difficult to grasp than others, and I thank you for expressing this concern.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 2/15/2016 at 3:49 PM, Guest ptc122 said:

The balance can be difficult but certainly Previous Question could not be used by an elected body. But could be used by an ordinary society. Would that be a good example?

No, it would not, as the Previous Question is used by legislative bodies all the time, both in the U.S. and around the world.

[D.Llama]

Mr. Honemann :

In the above last line of an entry made Feb 15 it is stated ( by you ) :    "..I accept the fact that it most likely has some merit and ought to be given serious consideration ". May I ask at the risk of wrath what was intended  by that statement - what has merit ? and what  ought to be given serious  consideration ? The impression given by this was that there was some agreement  ( by you ) that there was merit in assertions made earlier ( by Knoll) that  the first line of the Introduction  ( p. xxix) was somewhat flawed . But in a later post under this thread there seemed to be a retreat from any confirmation of "something"  having some merit, or a need for serious consideration . Perhaps this was but a mere re-consideration  on your part or simply a misunderstanding on mine . The choice of language used ( by you )  in the noted response, however, suggested "something "had "merit" and that  very  something - ought to be given "serious consideration' . 

 

Returning one  final time to the sentence under consideration , p. xxix . line 1-2  RONR :

" This book embodies a codification  of the present day general parliamentary  law ( omitting ....) ". If indeed RONR is  primarily a  codification of  present-day "parliamentary  law" of the U.S.  House of Representatives in the United States , perhaps that  would be useful to note on that very same page . If it is primarily  a melange of parliamentary  rules  of various legislative bodies in the USA - notice of that  would likewise  better inform the reader . But I respectfully submit that  - the  present wording    leaves the reader somewhat mystified as to what exactly this claim is , and the subsequent paragraphs on p. xxix, do not assist or  provide  actual clarification . To many this may seem unimportant -but to those who place great  value on this iconic and important contribution to society  - it is not  .   

Thank-you :

Pat Knoll

[Dan Honemann]

The concern (or at least an aspect of it) which I understand you to be expressing, and which I think most likely has some merit, is that the meaning of the term "general parliamentary law", as used in the first sentence of the Introduction to RONR, is frequently misunderstood, and I do think that consideration might well be given to making the ensuing explanation of its meaning somewhat clearer and easier to understand. I do not think that any change in the first sentence itself is called for.

Interestingly enough, the most frequently encountered misunderstanding is the notion that common parliamentary law is law generated by court decisions. This misunderstanding arises from the fact that, although most people do correctly understand what is meant by "common law", many do not really understand what is meant by "parliamentary law", and therefore misunderstand the meaning of the term "common parliamentary law."

[D.Llama]

Much Obliged for the effort made in this connection . Michael  Malamut  (?) has written in connection with "common parliamentary  law " and you may be well aware of that article ( see Michael Malamut  (?)  personal web site ). 

I just reviewed  the   "Rules of the House of Representatives ) ( 114 th sitting -2015- USA  ). It is 45 pages in length -of Rules  ( 3 panels  per  page - arguably about 135 pages- were all panels counted a page  ). It defaults to Jefferson's Maunal where  House Rules are not applicable - and  all of that you no doubt, well know . I assume this must be  what is  "codified  as the present -day general parliamentary law (omitting... ) " in RONR . And that RONR draws  primarily  from that source - at least for the " legislative "content  . But absent a confirmation of that-  some uncertainty remains . But I will not seek any further response on this point given the generous time  you have already provided respecting this subject  . 

Thank-you .

Pat Knoll

[D.Llama]

In search for clarity re  the above noted - " uncertainty remains "  ( my own question ) further review of the Preface and  Introduction to RONR (11ed. ) allows  ( perhaps ) for an  answer to  the meaning of line  1-2 of  p. XXiX of RONR  ( applying that  to the United States  only  ):

"This book embodies a codification of the present-day general parliamentary law ( omitting ,etc .) ". 

The present-day  codification referred to ( above)   ,draws  from two  identified sources :

1) A codification  ( circa 1876 ) of the  rules and practices of the  U.S.  House of Representatives (RONR p.XLiX ) ;

2) Additions ,modifications ,and supplements added  to the First Edition of   Robert's Rules of Order (1876 ) , by General Robert , the Trustees of General Robert, and the Robert's Rules Association- from  1877 to 2011.( RONR - XXiX to L). 

 General Robert, and the sucessors of General Robert ( editions following the Fourth ), have thereby become something of   modern-day " quasi -law givers " for the codification  of rules of order  for carrying on the  business of deliberative assemblies in the USA . Not traditional "common law " ( USA Courts of Law ) but nevertheless an actual source that traditional " common law " has, and will recognize- on occasion .  

 Any  corrections to this comment  on the "sources"- grounding RONR  - very welcome .Thank-you . 

Pat Knoll

[Dan Honemann]

15 hours ago, D.Llama said:

In search for clarity re  the above noted - " uncertainty remains "  ( my own question ) further review of the Preface and  Introduction to RONR (11ed. ) allows  ( perhaps ) for an  answer to  the meaning of line  1-2 of  p. XXiX of RONR  ( applying that  to the United States  only  ):

"This book embodies a codification of the present-day general parliamentary law ( omitting ,etc .) ". 

The present-day  codification referred to ( above)   ,draws  from two  identified sources :

1) A codification  ( circa 1876 ) of the  rules and practices of the  U.S.  House of Representatives (RONR p.XLiX ) ;

2) Additions ,modifications ,and supplements added  to the First Edition of   Robert's Rules of Order (1876 ) , by General Robert , the Trustees of General Robert, and the Robert's Rules Association- from  1877 to 2011.( RONR - XXiX to L). 

 General Robert, and the sucessors of General Robert ( editions following the Fourth ), have thereby become something of   modern-day " quasi -law givers " for the codification  of rules of order  for carrying on the  business of deliberative assemblies in the USA . Not traditional "common law " ( USA Courts of Law ) but nevertheless an actual source that traditional " common law " has, and will recognize- on occasion .  

 Any  corrections to this comment  on the "sources"- grounding RONR  - very welcome .Thank-you . 

Pat Knoll

Try as I might, Mr. Knoll, I can find almost nothing in this last post of yours which I would regard as being correctly stated.

As previously noted, General Robert did give us, in the first editions of Robert's Rules of Order, a codification of the rules and practices of the U.S. House of Representatives, adapted for use by ordinary societies. Those rules and practices appear to be the "source" to which you refer in 1) above, and I would agree that the rules in the current edition are therefore also drawn in large measure from the same source. I have no idea what the second source is to which you refer in 2) above, nor can I make any sense out of the paragraph that follows.

There may be one thing, however, upon which we can agree, and that is that lower-case roman numerals are difficult to deal with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[D.Llama]

Thank you Mr. Honemann - very good of you to write more on this-  and correction is  certainly what I seek :

Permit me to better  explain ,if I might - ( what I have concluded-and perhaps wrongly  ) as to  the "second source" - although I do not see much that is unclear on that  score  :

After 1876 (according to the Introduction ) General Robert received feedback from readers of the 1st Edition of  Robert's Rules, and this  feedback ( as well as his own conclusions for improvements )  were subsequently used to enhance and add to the first edition - the third edition  coming out in 1915 .  And that is what has basically been the approach and building model since that time for all subsequent editions  .This includes   ( the successors of General Robert ) right up to the 11th edition, and the current team of editorial writers (Robert's Rules Association ). The successors  ( post 4th edition ) on  subsequent publications have done much the same as did General Robert  after the first edition  - consideration of additions , modifications , alterations and changes, based on reader responses and requests, and other developments . This is  clearly suggested in the Preface to the 11th edition and  in the Introduction .Nothing  otherwise  seems suggested ? 

But , Mr. Honemann , certainly  no one knows better than you- given the many years  service you have devoted to this enterprise . I have respectfully sought correction on this  conclusion - therefore  please do advise what error exits in the above paragraph ?Does it not accurately reflect what in fact has been the model and approach taken to grow the first edition into the current 11th ? If not - where does the error exist   ?

Much Obliged :

Pat Knoll

  

 

[Dan Honemann]

49 minutes ago, D.Llama said:

Thank you Mr. Honemann - very good of you to write more on this-  and correction is  certainly what I seek :

Permit me to better  explain ,if I might - ( what I have concluded-and perhaps wrongly  ) as to  the "second source" - although I do not see much that is unclear on that  score  :

After 1876 (according to the Introduction ) General Robert received feedback from readers of the 1st Edition of  Robert's Rules, and this  feedback ( as well as his own conclusions for improvements )  were subsequently used to enhance and add to the first edition - the third edition  coming out in 1915 .  And that is what has basically been the approach and building model since that time for all subsequent editions  .This includes   ( the successors of General Robert ) right up to the 11th edition, and the current team of editorial writers (Robert's Rules Association ). The successors  ( post 4th edition ) on  subsequent publications have done much the same as did General Robert  after the first edition  - consideration of additions , modifications , alterations and changes, based on reader responses and requests, and other developments . This is  clearly suggested in the Preface to the 11th edition and  in the Introduction .Nothing  otherwise  seems suggested ? 

But , Mr. Honemann , certainly  no one knows better than you- given the many years  service you have devoted to this enterprise . I have respectfully sought correction on this  conclusion - therefore  please do advise what error exits in the above paragraph ?Does it not accurately reflect what in fact has been the model and approach taken to grow the first edition into the current 11th ? If not - where does the error exist   ?

Much Obliged :

Pat Knoll

  

 

It seems to me that what you have said in the third paragraph of this last post of yours is essentially correct, except for the fact that the Robert's Rules Association is an entity separate and apart from the persons who have been and are currently involved in the authorship of the editions of Robert's Rules of Order published after the death of General Robert. In this connection, you may wish to refer to About the Authors, although I might mention that a few months ago I decided that I will no longer be involved in the authorship of future editions.

[D.Llama]

Thank-you Mr. Honemann:

I will understand this post, by you ,of "essentially correct " as confirmation re  the second source  for RONR. And that the earlier statement :

".. Mr Knoll , I can find almost nothing in this last post of yours  which I would regard as being correctly stated " ( emphasis added ),  no longer stands ( for RONR-  source #2) give the explanation  I subsequently  provided .

Indeed ,it is  found  by you ( in context )  to be accurate save for  the reference  re  the Robert's Rules Association . 

---------------------

I have, earlier on,  reviewed  " About the Authors " and  regret  to have read as to this  change re your involvement  . 

 

Best Regards and Obliged as Always : 

Pat Knoll

[Dan Honemann]

1 hour ago, D.Llama said:

Thank-you Mr. Honemann:

I will understand this post, by you ,of "essentially correct " as confirmation re  the second source  for RONR. And that the earlier statement :

".. Mr Knoll , I can find almost nothing in this last post of yours  which I would regard as being correctly stated " ( emphasis added ),  no longer stands ( for RONR-  source #2) give the explanation  I subsequently  provided .

Indeed ,it is  found  by you ( in context )  to be accurate save for  the reference  re  the Robert's Rules Association . 

 

Well, nothing I have said should be understood as confirmation that "Additions ,modifications ,and supplements added  to the First Edition of Robert's Rules of Order" can be regarded as "sources", but never mind.

[D.Llama]

"Esentially correct "is more than satisfactory and  nuance re word choice is of little  consequence . But on any  quoting  of you as to the 2 principle  sources re RONR - I certainly will make a point of the caveat tagged on  - re : "additions ,modifications ,and supplements to the First Edition ".

Obliged

Pat Knoll