When Will 12th ed. Come Out?

[Guest Robert Collins]

Anyone know when the 12th ed. will come out?

[Chris Harrison]

2 hours ago, Guest Robert Collins said:

Anyone know when the 12th ed. will come out?

I don't know but between the 7th and 11th Editions there has been roughly 10 years between each edition so by that math we are about due. 

However, there was 19 years between the 6th and 7th and 28 years between the 4th and 5th.

So who knows?

[Richard Brown]

I think the authorship team has been working on the 12th edition for several months now... maybe even over a year...  and that most of us expect it to come out some time around 2020, give or take a year or so.

[Guest Nathan Zook]

Please, oh please, as a political activist, do NOT have it come out in 2020!  Both major parties have (foolishly, IMHO) followed the recommendation of specifying that the "current edition" governs all meetings.  You could literally release a new edition on Tuesday of a convention--it would then immediately become the parliamentary authority!

Yeah, I'm not a fan of that particular recommendation.  I think that societies should adopt a rule that the authority updates outside of periods sensitive for those bodies--perhaps something like the time from the prior regular meeting until the end of the next annual meeting for most.  For the parties, it might be as broad as the even-numbered years.  We should encourage societies to adopt policies which are modest.

Of course, the body should also be permitted to update its authority by the usual 2/3rds, notice + majority, or majority of membership.

But I really don't get the idea of allowing complete outsiders to change the parliamentary authority of a body arbitrarily.

[Josh Martin]

7 hours ago, Guest Nathan Zook said:

Please, oh please, as a political activist, do NOT have it come out in 2020!  Both major parties have (foolishly, IMHO) followed the recommendation of specifying that the "current edition" governs all meetings.  You could literally release a new edition on Tuesday of a convention--it would then immediately become the parliamentary authority!

There is nothing foolish at all about specifying the current edition of RONR as the parliamentary authority. RONR recommends it. Additionally, this concern about the sudden shift to a new edition (which we seem to see a few people express each time a new edition is released) is overblown. The changes between editions are not earth-shattering.

Even to the extent that there is such a concern, however, the last edition was released in conjunction with the convention of the National Association of Parliamentarians. The convention (or national training conference, in even years) is generally held in September, by which time the conventions of the major political parties will have concluded.

7 hours ago, Guest Nathan Zook said:

Yeah, I'm not a fan of that particular recommendation.  I think that societies should adopt a rule that the authority updates outside of periods sensitive for those bodies--perhaps something like the time from the prior regular meeting until the end of the next annual meeting for most.  For the parties, it might be as broad as the even-numbered years.  We should encourage societies to adopt policies which are modest.

A society is free to establish a rule in its bylaws providing as much if it wishes, but I do not think it is necessary.

7 hours ago, Guest Nathan Zook said:

Of course, the body should also be permitted to update its authority by the usual 2/3rds, notice + majority, or majority of membership.

This vote is not sufficient to change the parliamentary authority. Most organizations adopt a parliamentary authority in their bylaws, in which case the vote to change it is the same as the vote to amend the bylaws. If the bylaws are silent regarding their amendment, or if the organization adopted the parliamentary authority by the same vote as a special rule of order instead of adopting it in their bylaws, the required vote to change it is a 2/3 vote with notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership.

7 hours ago, Guest Nathan Zook said:

But I really don't get the idea of allowing complete outsiders to change the parliamentary authority of a body arbitrarily.

As I understand it, the authors do not view a new edition as a new parliamentary authority.

Edited February 7, 2019 at 01:44 PM by Josh Martin

[Joshua Katz]

7 hours ago, Guest Nathan Zook said:

You could literally release a new edition on Tuesday of a convention--it would then immediately become the parliamentary authority!

I don't know about the Ds, but the Rs, I believe, use the House rules of order (together with their special rules of order) for their convention and RONR for their meetings. The Ls do use RONR for conventions, albeit with several special rules of order. I don't know what the Gs do.

Edited February 7, 2019 at 01:50 PM by Joshua Katz

[J. J.]

3 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

I don't know about the Ds, but the Rs, I believe, use the House rules of order (together with their special rules of order) for their convention and RONR for their meetings. The Ls do use RONR for conventions, albeit with several special rules of order. I don't know what the Gs do.

For their national conventions, possibly.  The state and local groups that I have seen use RONR.  Those have a role in choosing the national convention delegates and the the national committee members.

[Richard Brown]

Agreeing in part with both Joshua Katz and J.J., the Republican National Convention does not use RONR.  As Joshua said, I believe it uses the rules of the House of Representatives.  Some of the committees, however, and perhaps the Republican National Committee, may use RONR.  I think most state central committees use RONR as well.  The Libertarian Party uses RONR at its convention as do most, if not all, state affiliates and the Libertarian National Committee. I do not know what parliamentary authority the Democrat National  Convention uses.

I agree with Josh Martin that the few changes in RONR from one edition to the next every ten years or so are so minor as to rarely cause a problem.  It's a red herring.  Not a real problem.

[Gary Novosielski]

5 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

I don't know what the Gs do.

As a former member of the GNC, I can assure you, neither do they.   

[Joshua Katz]

3 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Some of the committees, however, and perhaps the Republican National Committee, may use RONR.

The national committee, in fact, has a rule that an RP or PRP will be used for each of its meetings. Probably a nice gig.

[Guest Zev]

Guest Nathan: Just have your organization change its bylaws to indicate a specific edition and all your problems will evaporate. After all, the changes from one edition to the next "...are so minor as to rarely cause a problem." Right?

[Richard Brown]

4 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

Guest Nathan: Just have your organization change its bylaws to indicate a specific edition and all your problems will evaporate. After all, the changes from one edition to the next "...are so minor as to rarely cause a problem." Right?

I think specifying a particular edition of RONR is a bad idea. In practice, that seems to cause many more problems than are caused by specifying "the current edition" as the Parliamentary Authority. 

[Guest Zev]

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

In practice, that seems to cause many more problems than are caused by specifying "the current edition" as the Parliamentary Authority. 

Show me.

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Guest Zev said:

Show me.

Just read the questions on this forum and see for yourself how often that issue comes up. If you really don't believe it's best to specify "the current edition" rather than a specific edition,  I'm sure we can give you a bunch of reasons, but the main one that comes to mind is that organizations usually don't get around  to updating their bylaws to specify the new edition and then when a problem comes up at a meeting, most of the members have only the current edition with them and nobody has the old edition which is their actual parliamentary authority.  Nobody wants to have to remember to take the 11th edition to the meetings of the Atlantic City Windsurfers Assopciation, the 10th edition to the meetings of Audubon Society, the 9th edition to the meetings of the Irisn-American Society, the 4th edition to the meetings of the Boston Blacksmith Association, etc.   In addition, most of the changes from edition to edition are clarifications and improvements, not drastic rule changes.  The most significant change between the 10th and 11th editions, for example, was in Chapter XX on disciplinary procedures.  Everyone I have talked with about those changes believes they are for the better and add clarity.  Most of the other changes made clarifications which lead to better clarity, thus lessening confusion and arguments about the meaning of  a rule.  The list of reasons goes on and on.

Why do you think it is better to specify a specific edition?

[Weldon Merritt]

49 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Just read the questions on this forum and see for yourself how often that issue comes up. If you really don't believe it's best to specify "the current edition" rather than a specific edition,  I'm sure we can give you a bunch of reasons, but the main one that comes to mind is that organizations usually don't get around  to updating their bylaws to specify the new edition and then when a problem comes up at a meeting, most of the members have only the current edition with them and nobody has the old edition which is their actual parliamentary authority.  Nobody wants to have to remember to take the 11th edition to the meetings of the Atlantic City Windsurfers Assopciation, the 10th edition to the meetings of Audubon Society, the 9th edition to the meetings of the Irisn-American Society, the 4th edition to the meetings of the Boston Blacksmith Association, etc.   In addition, most of the changes from edition to edition are clarifications and improvements, not drastic rule changes.  The most significant change between the 10th and 11th editions, for example, was in Chapter XX on disciplinary procedures.  Everyone I have talked with about those changes believes they are for the better and add clarity.  Most of the other changes made clarifications which lead to better clarity, thus lessening confusion and arguments about the meaning of  a rule.  The list of reasons goes on and on.

Why do you think it is better to specify a specific edition?

 My experience is that in most organizations except for NAP and AIP, most members don't have any edition with them. And if they have anything, it is just about as likely to be a knock-off as The Right Book.

I think the fact that the changes from edition to edition are relatively minor, and mostly clarification, can cut either way. I also think that organiztions that don't get around to amending their bylaws to specifiy the new edition probably are the ones most likely to not realize that there is a new edition, so they would be using the old one anyway,  even if their bylaws do specify the current edition.

[Guest Zev]

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

Just read the questions on this forum and see for yourself how often that issue comes up. If you really don't believe it's best to specify "the current edition" rather than a specific edition,

I never said or implied that the current edition was not preferable to the previous ten.

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

I'm sure we can give you a bunch of reasons,

I was hoping for that rather than just a statement to the effect that "this one over here is better than that one over there."

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

Nobody wants to have to remember to take the 11th edition...

...and so forth. Good. We have something more concrete to talk about. I do not like the idea of having to take different editions to different meetings either. But this kind of problem is not solved by the publisher's "Cite This Book" page or the suggested language for the bylaws. When I joined the Atlantic City Windsurfers Association or Audubon Society or Irish-American Society or Boston Blacksmith Association, I was well-informed what rules they adopted and was forewarned what to do in order to be a productive member of this society. We have in this country many organizations that use Sturgis or Demeter and they have a different set of problems they have to deal with.

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

In addition, most of the changes from edition to edition are clarifications and improvements, not drastic rule changes.

The use of the words "clarifications" and "improvements" does not mean "does not have any effect." All these changes have an effect. If this were not true then I would have to make the case that the 7,844 additions, 5,482 deletions, 566 case changes, and 13 outright errors since 1970 are meaningless. This just does not make any sense to me.

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

Everyone I have talked with about those changes believes they are for the better and add clarity. Most of the other changes made clarifications which lead to better clarity, thus lessening confusion and arguments about the meaning of  a rule.

Absolutely. And would it not be? The user community has experiences with the current rules, problems occur, the authors think about solutions and apply themselves, we have a new edition and the world is a better place.

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

The list of reasons goes on and on.

As mentioned, I was hoping the list would in fact go on. But I do no think that this is the real problem as relates to the suggestion that the bylaws contain the language indicated about the current edition. That the current edition is better and replaces the previous editions there is no question in my mind.

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

Why do you think it is better to specify a specific edition?

OK. I now take this to be my invitation to clarify the reason. What I am about to paste below is five potential scenarios. Some have temporary effect while others may be longer lasting. I have given names to these scenarios. I named then as the Navy would have named their battleships. Nothing special about it. Not trying to disparage any state or the inhabitants there. Just a name. Perhaps these scenarios will give some food for thought. I apologize for the length of all this but its just the way it turned out. Here we go.

***

Few people seem to appreciate the potential practical effect that amending the bylaws to specify "the current edition" has.

I do not dispute the suggestion that the newest edition is better than the previous. What I do wish to point out is that amending the bylaws in this manner is actually a bad idea.

Let us perform a thought experiment for a second.

Scenario 1: The Virginia Case

A very large convention is meeting, say thirty thousand delegates fill a stadium. Minutes before the meeting is declared in session one single individual gets the attention of the presiding officer and informs him/her that he stopped by a local book store and lo and behold here is the brand new edition of Robert's Rules Of Order, Newly Revised. The presiding officer has never seen this new edition, has no idea what changes have been done but has scanned the bulleted list the authors have supplied in the foreword. Time is short, the meeting is expected to be in session, business needs to be attended to. The bylaws are fairly clear on this question, because the bylaws contain the language suggested by the book. What does the presiding officer do?

Scenario 2: The Nebraska Case

A mid-sized assembly meets, say one hundred. The presiding officer enters sporting his/her new copy of Robert's Rules Of Order, Newly Revised. The presiding officer has been studying it carefully for several weeks. No other members have even seen this edition. The presiding officer in his/her zeal attempts to render all decisions consistent with the new text as the bylaws require. Members, on the other hand, are unhappy because they themselves do not know what the new text actually says. Again, the bylaws contain the language suggested by the book. What do the members do?

Scenario 3: The Mississippi Case

A small group of farmers down in Mississippi meet to decide on a common strategy for their community concerning the price of cotton. One grizzled old farmer clutches his dog-eared copy of the 1915 edition that his beloved grandpappy used to have and passed down to him all those many years ago. None of the other farmers have their own copy, not even the presiding officer, but uses the single copy supplied by our old farmer. Suddenly, another farmer enters the room and announces that there is such a thing as a newer edition of their beloved book, and that someone told him that some gentleman on this new-fangled internet thing authoritatively said that the new edition must be used and that they have no choice. But alas, this small community is poor and none of them can afford to make such a purchase anytime soon. In this case their bylaws do not contain the language suggested by the book. What do all these people do?

Scenario 4: The Iowa Case

Identical to scenario 3 except that in this case, years ago they changed the wording in their bylaws according to the suggestion in the book. What do they do in this case?

Scenario 5: The Connecticut Case

A very wealthy group of people in a local historical society meet somewhere in high-class Connecticut countryside. During one of their meetings they are informed of the new edition of RONR. Studying the list of changes some members are of the opinion that the nature and number of changes does not warrant giving the publishers another $50 for each copy and that they would rather stay with the current edition rather than the new and forgo whatever is implied by the changes suggested by the authors. When informed that there is a paperback version they still balk stating that buying what they consider a "throw-away" book is beneath their dignity. Their bylaws indicates the language suggested in the book. What do they do?

End Of Scenarios.

What I do take issue with is the suggestion that the bylaws should be amended in this way as to constrain the assembly in a straight-jacket which obliges them to observe rules that they possibly are not ready to entertain. The book speaks of the freedom of the assembly to enact the rules it desires, yet in this singular case, the argument is made that somehow they are obliged to perform this act. If the reader insists that the organization is not obliged in any way to update their bylaws then exactly what problem do you have with their views on this matter?

My experience has been that most organizations have amended their bylaws to the words suggested, and every year ending in zero they simply ignore what their bylaws say until the presiding officer takes a stand or someone complains, with the inevitable clash created by those that wish to observe the new rules, and those that wish some time to consider the matter. I know for a fact that many years ago one NAP Study Unit in California considered this question, realized the potential danger and changed their bylaws to insert the specific edition. They are fully prepared to amend their bylaws every ten years and avoid any question as to whether the members and presiding officer are prepared to observe the new rules or not. And that is a sensible attitude.

Let us therefore consider the possibility of changing the wording of this suggestion in 2020 so as to remove this "automatically" feature and restore the dignity and freedom of these assemblies. The original author did not say anything about "automatically," so why should this be the case now?

The day the publishers make available for free the entire text of this book on their web site, then my objection to this language will disappear instantaneously. Alas, they cannot do this. Why? Because the purpose is to sell books, the very reason I mentioned in my previous message. And believe me, there is nothing wrong with selling books. What I do consider to be less than honorable is trying to use some form of sophistry to get less wary individuals to feel as through they are guilty of not updating their bylaws or not buying the new edition. If this is not true then why is this suggestion in this book?  Oh, pardon me ... I already answered that question.

***

Perhaps some might think these scenarios are far-fetched. That's OK; disagree if you must. The real problem, in my opinion (and believe me, I have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this is the case) is that this bylaws suggestion is the work of the publishers that have simply imposed their will on the authors. You have brought out a case that suggests bylaws should be worded in this fashion and I have indicated reasons for it not to be so. The cold hard facts are that this statement will always exist no matter what anyone does. The green piece of paper with George Washington's picture on it changes everything. And of course, someone will eventually mention that with this statement in this book or not one set of problems will exist or the other set will exist. Take your pick. And that is life for you.

Thank you for listening and considering the argument.

[Guest Nathan Zook]

Just doubled check.  I could have sworn that the Rs finally fixed that in 2012, but the current rule is the rule of the House for the convention proper.  The committees of the convention use RONR without specifying current edition.  (Also the RNC & it's committees, and the conventions in the States.)

I agree that the changes between the 10th & the 11th editions of RONR were slight.  I do not agree that in the heat of a political convention that such history would be relied upon.  And if you want your hair to stand on end, just watch what happened at the 2012 D convention when they amended the platform after it was adopted.

To be clear:  I absolutely support having the bylaws update automatically--outside periods when a society likely to be more contentious.

I've seen (more than once), members attempt to wrest control from an abusive chair from the floor.  I've engaged in private discussions about the legality and wisdom of removing (or attempting to remove) multiple abusive chairs.  (The legal aspect came in because there were State laws constraining the conduct of the body.)  If you've never been in these situations, then may you never be.  For the parties, this contention rarely died down immediately after the conventions.  Moreover, the period between the convention and the election is the time when the parties should be focusing on things other than their rules.  Certainly, September is better than convention week.

I know I'm being selfish about this. (Thus the "please, oh please".)  But I maintain the conceit that the parties are particularly important.

Yes, I argue this point in the bodies that I am a member of.  Just how many county parties are there?

 

 

[Dan Honemann]

The most recent issue of the National Parliamentarian tells me that the next edition is expected to be released at the NAP's 2020 Training Conference.

[George Mervosh]

2 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

The most recent issue of the National Parliamentarian tells me that the next edition is expected to be released at the NAP's 2020 Training Conference.

It's nice they keep you in the know.  I was more struck by the very unfortunate editorial errors on p. 37.