Roberts Rules not in By Laws

[Guest Linda]

We have a board member who keeps saying we have to follow Roberts Rules even though we don't want to. And Roberts Rules are not mentioned in our bylaws. So where can I find an answer in order to stop this person from trying to manipulate the meetings?

[Richard Brown]

This what RONR says on page 17 about an organization which has not adopted a parliamentary authority: 

"Although it is unwise for an assembly or a society to attempt to function without formally adopted rules of order, a recognized parliamentary manual may be cited under such conditions as persuasive. Or, by being followed through long-established custom in an organization, a particular manual may acquire a status within the body similar to that of an adopted parliamentary authority."

A parliamentary authority, such as Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, may be adopted either in the bylaws or by way of a motion to adopt it as the parliamentary authority. 

Edited to add:  Adopting a parliamentary authority by means of a motion would require the same vote as adopting a special rule of order.  See page 15 of RONR.

Edited January 19, 2019 at 09:44 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[Guest We do have structure]

We are a small nonprofit org. We did set up bylaws structured on Roberts rules but just didn't say Roberts Rules. We have never had issues in over 12 years until this person came on board.

[jstackpo]

Not to be (too) flippant...  you have been lucky. 

Best you put RONR in your bylaws right away, or at least adopt them as your authority via the "special rule of order" method.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

52 minutes ago, Guest Linda said:

We have a board member who keeps saying we have to follow Roberts Rules even though we don't want to. And Roberts Rules are not mentioned in our bylaws. So where can I find an answer in order to stop this person from trying to manipulate the meetings?

How is this person trying to manipulate the meetings?

[Richard Brown]

The chair can always state that he is going to follow the rules in RONR (or whatever parliamentary authority he prefers) and can make his rulings based on that authority.  If a member disagrees with the chair's decision, the member can appeal from the ruling of the chair (provided someone seconds his appeal). 

I agree with Dr. Stackpole that the best thing is for the organization to formally adopt RONR either by amending the bylaws or by adopting a special rule of order which specifies that RONR is the parliamentary authority.  Suggested language for both methods is contained in RONR.

[Guest Zev]

2 hours ago, Guest Linda said:

We have a board member who keeps saying we have to follow Roberts Rules even though we don't want to.

Curiosity killed the cat. Why not? What is wrong with these rules?

[Weldon Merritt]

20 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

Curiosity killed the cat. Why not? What is wrong with these rules?

Indeed! And what rules do you want to follow?

Often, a desire "not to be bound" by Robert's Rules is based on the erroneous belief that without them, the organization can just operate as it wishes. But in fact, without an adopted parliamentary authority, the organization still is bound by the common parliamentary law. The problem is that there is often disagreement about what the common parliamentary law is in any particular instance.

Far better to have an adopted PA, whether RONR or some other one more to the organization's liking, and then adopt special rules of order to vary from the PA in areas where the organization wants to do something different. 

[Richard Brown]

2 hours ago, Guest Linda said:

We have a board member who keeps saying we have to follow Roberts Rules even though we don't want to. And Roberts Rules are not mentioned in our bylaws. So where can I find an answer in order to stop this person from trying to manipulate the meetings?

I actually mis-read Guest Linda's post and thought she was saying the group wants to follow Robert's Rules but that one member doesn't.  I see now that I got it just backwards.  But, I still think her group should formally adopt RONR, or, if they really don't like RONR,, then adopt some other parliamentary authority so that they can always look up a rule rather than to interpret everything on a whim and be subject to a presiding officer who does what he wants and nobody can point to a rule to say he's doing it wrong.

A couple of possibilities that come to mind:  First, this person might not actually know Robert's Rules that well and second, the group might  unwittingly be pretty much following Robert's Rules without knowing it.  And, I guess, a third possibility is that nobody else really knows what is in Robert's Rules so they are just afraid of it without knowing why.

I do have a question for Guest Linda:  What basis does your group use for deciding how to handle motions and what vote requirement is required?  What about points of order?  What about elections?  Motions to postpone, close debate, etc?   Appeals?  Does the way things are handled depend on the whim of the presiding officer?

Whatever.... if the group wants to keep doing what it has been doing, have at it. I have a hunch you are probably following Robert's Rules of Order and the common parliamentary law more than you realize.

[jstackpo]

12 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

so that they can always look up a rule rather than to interpret everything on a whim and be subject to a presiding officer who does what he wants and nobody can point to a rule to say he's doing it wrong.

Or, as T. Jefferson put it:

[1.2] And whether these forms be in all cases the most rational or not, is really not of so great importance. It is much more material that there should be a rule to go by, than what that rule is; that there may be an uniformity of proceeding in business, not subject to the caprice of the Speaker, or captiousness of the members. 
 

It's the caprice and especially the captiousness that will get you every time...

[Gary Novosielski]

Adopting a Parliamentary Authority has the advantage that you will be able to spend more time debating what color to paint the clubhouse, and less time debating what the proper procedure is for adopting motions dealing with building maintenance.

[Joshua Katz]

For what it's worth, I just returned from a many-hour long meeting which was conducted entirely using special rules - the bylaws contain a parliamentary authority for all but one particular meeting, held annually, which is conducted according to special rules of order. We got done what we needed to get done, but it would have been shorter, I think, if we used RONR, and certainly less confusing.

[Gary Novosielski]

I have had too many similar experiences and at one point about ten years ago, I vowed never again to join a group that did not have RONR as its parliamentary authority.

I have never regretted that decision.