wording in bylaws to state use of RRO

[Guest sharon]

  What would be the proper wording to use in bylaws to make Roberts rules the clubs rule of order.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

See here.

[Nathan Zook]

Mr Chairman, I move to amend the motion by inserting the words "or its successors" between "Revised" and "shall".

I believe that history has shown that the name of this series of works has changed over time; that these changes have been a source of dispute when the most recent name has changed; and that there is no way to guarantee that yet another change in name will never occur.

[Guest Zev]

Be aware that some people, not many, think that the wording should indicate a specific edition. There will be a set of problems regardless of which wording the organization chooses and there will always be a dispute as to which set is the worse, as I mentioned in a recent thread. Also, I do not recall hearing about any dispute concerning the name change when General Robert made available de 4th edition in 1915, although I could be wrong about this.

[Nathan Zook]

I'm talking about disputes today when the rule (or the governing code) says "Roberts Rules of Order" or "Roberts Rules of Order Revised".

As mentioned elsewhere, I approve of the automatic phrase outside organization-specific blackout periods.

[Gary Novosielski]

7 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

Mr Chairman, I move to amend the motion by inserting the words "or its successors" between "Revised" and "shall".

I believe that history has shown that the name of this series of works has changed over time; that these changes have been a source of dispute when the most recent name has changed; and that there is no way to guarantee that yet another change in name will never occur.

I rise in opposition to the amendment. Shouldn't the fact that the name hasn't changed in the last hundred years and that the current authors have recommended this exact language indicate to us that at least as strong "hint" has been leaked that the title is unlikely to change?

What if there were to be multiple works that claimed (erroneously, of course) to be successors?  I suggest that the sources of possible dispute would be magnified, not reduced; there are already too many books out there with "Roberts Rules" in the title. Only a work with the precisely correct title should be adopted. 

[Josh Martin]

43 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

I rise in opposition to the amendment. Shouldn't the fact that the name hasn't changed in the last hundred years and that the current authors have recommended this exact language indicate to us that at least as strong "hint" has been leaked that the title is unlikely to change?

I concur that the proposed change is unnecessary, although I would note that it has actually been only 49 years since the name was last changed. The name changed from “Robert’s Rules of Order Revised” to “Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised” with the release of the 7th edition in 1970.

I would also add that, even in the event that the name is changed, this language (which will presumably continue to be included in future editions and updated to reflect new editions and new titles) will clarify the matter.

“This Eleventh Edition supersedes all previous editions and is intended automatically to become the parliamentary authority in organizations whose bylaws prescribe "Robert's Rules of Order," "Robert's Rules of Order Revised," "Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised," or "the current edition of" any of these titles, or the like, without specifying a particular edition. If the bylaws specifically identify one of the ten previous editions of the work as parliamentary authority, the bylaws should be amended to prescribe "the current edition of ‘Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised'" (see p. 588).”

[Nathan Zook]

9 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

“This Eleventh Edition supersedes all previous editions and is intended automatically to become the parliamentary authority in organizations whose bylaws prescribe "Robert's Rules of Order," "Robert's Rules of Order Revised," "Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised," or "the current edition of" any of these titles, or the like, without specifying a particular edition. If the bylaws specifically identify one of the ten previous editions of the work as parliamentary authority, the bylaws should be amended to prescribe "the current edition of ‘Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised'" (see p. 588).” 

I have real problems with the ex-post nature of this claim.  If an organization has adopted some work with a different title, current edition or not, then it has not adopted RONR.  If the validity of claims of successorship in the language I propose are problematic (and I agree that they are), then the validity of this claim strikes me as even more problematic.  My proposal clearly permits a work under a new name to become the parliamentary authority without further action.  This claim purports to divine intent contrary to the rule.  This is not the usual form of interpretation.  In particular, any body formed after Roberts Rules of Order, Revised that specified "Roberts Rules of Order" would seem to specifically choose an earlier work.  Now, if the same body of rules were to be published under all three titles.....

 

[Guest Zev]

And all this nonsense just to escape having one single meeting to update one single sentence in the bylaws once every ten years. Its just plain stupid.

[Gary Novosielski]

22 minutes ago, Nathan Zook said:

I have real problems with the ex-post nature of this claim.  If an organization has adopted some work with a different title, current edition or not, then it has not adopted RONR.  If the validity of claims of successorship in the language I propose are problematic (and I agree that they are), then the validity of this claim strikes me as even more problematic.  My proposal clearly permits a work under a new name to become the parliamentary authority without further action.  This claim purports to divine intent contrary to the rule.  This is not the usual form of interpretation.  In particular, any body formed after Roberts Rules of Order, Revised that specified "Roberts Rules of Order" would seem to specifically choose an earlier work.  Now, if the same body of rules were to be published under all three titles.....

 

It's a tempest in search of a teapot.

[Nathan Zook]

9 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

And all this nonsense just to escape having one single meeting to update one single sentence in the bylaws once every ten years. Its just plain stupid.

In theory, I can agree with you.  In practice, there are over 3000 counties in the United States feeding into 50 states  with a lot of subordinate units with committees having their own bylaws.  And my experience with the rules in two of those states makes it EXTREMELY likely that numerous counties would fail to update their language before some sort of crisis required it.  In particular, some states (such as Texas) have statutes setting quorums for non-statutory actions which are historically difficult to make, meaning that the change has to be implemented during the organizational meeting in the middle of the campaign & convention season.  Other places insist that the committees are continuing bodies, so that these things require a full bylaws change.  And there will be a lot of no-nothings that will oppose the change simply because they don't know that they are no-nothings, and want to keep it that way.

Which I why I support automatic updates--on a timeframe which is convenient to the body.

[Joshua Katz]

11 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

And all this nonsense just to escape having one single meeting to update one single sentence in the bylaws once every ten years. Its just plain stupid.

I would say to avoid multiple fights at multiple meetings every 10 years over entirely minor, even miniscule, differences, with people shouting about which book is the right book, presumably so they know which one to ignore most of the time.

[Nathan Zook]

1 minute ago, Joshua Katz said:

I would say to avoid multiple fights at multiple meetings every 10 years over entirely minor, even miniscule, differences, with people shouting about which book is the right book, presumably so they know which one to ignore most of the time.

You've been to some of our meetings!

[Gary Novosielski]

Maybe they don't know they're no-nothings because they think they're know-nothings.

In any case, I think it's unlikely this recommendation will change in the 12th edition.

[Guest Zev]

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

I would say to avoid multiple fights at multiple meetings every 10 years over entirely minor, even miniscule, differences, with people shouting about which book is the right book, presumably so they know which one to ignore most of the time.

In other words, you prefer some sort of decree from on high. So much for the "deliberative" assembly. I can just imagine what the reaction would have been if then-Lieutenant-Colonel Robert said to all the three thousand people that purchased the 1st edition in February/March/April of 1876 that they were forced to purchase the 2nd edition in July simply because it "automatically" replaced the first. Mr. Brown indicated multiple parliamentary authorities all over the place and you now have another example of multiple organizations haggling over the same text. Excellent. I wanted to hear as many of these examples as possible. Keep them coming if you can.

[Dan Honemann]

I think it's rather interesting that a mere statement by the authors of their intent is first construed here as an unjustifiable "claim", and then characterized as "some sort of decree from on high."

Maybe you all better read it again. 🙂

 

[Atul Kapur]

As It Has Been Decreed.

So Shall It Be Done.

We will all read it again 😁

[Josh Martin]

One of the previous debates on this subject involves further review of the exact meaning of this statement: https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/32034-incorrect-parliamentary-authority/

 

[Joshua Katz]

12 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

In other words, you prefer some sort of decree from on high. So much for the "deliberative" assembly. I can just imagine what the reaction would have been if then-Lieutenant-Colonel Robert said to all the three thousand people that purchased the 1st edition in February/March/April of 1876 that they were forced to purchase the 2nd edition in July simply because it "automatically" replaced the first. Mr. Brown indicated multiple parliamentary authorities all over the place and you now have another example of multiple organizations haggling over the same text. Excellent. I wanted to hear as many of these examples as possible. Keep them coming if you can.

What on earth are you talking about? That one book supersedes another is not a decree from on high. It's part of the text you adopted. If you don't like it, don't adopt the text, or adopt it with a special rule (a book trying to take over your organization would not make itself subservient to your own rules, it seems to me) that the new edition doesn't take effect. 

[Richard Brown]

I deleted this post because of problems with trying to edit it and replaced it with the post below.

 

Edited February 22, 2019 at 07:03 PM by Richard Brown
Deleted original post and replaced it with the post below

[Richard Brown]

14 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Mr. Brown indicated multiple parliamentary authorities all over the place

 

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

What on earth are you talking about?

I'm wondering what he is talking about, too.  I have not even commented in this thread until this post.

 I also agree with Mr. Katz that if someone doesn't like the language in RONR that each new edition automatically supersedes all previous editions and becomes the parliamentary authority of an organization unless a specific edition is specified, it is easy enough to "fix":  Just have the bylaws of all of your organizations specify a particular edition as suggested in RONR.  Done.  Fixed.   If you are afraid that language won't be strong enough, then add the words "and only that edition" when you specify the particular edition that you want to be the parliamentary authority. 

[Nathan Zook]

I agree that I have read a bit more into "This Eleventh Edition superceeds all previous editions" than is justifiable.  The "and is intended" clause is a limitation on the effects of the supercession. (Is that a word?  I think that should be a word.)  I still believe that without a more general clause than what is recommended on RONR, 11 Ed, pg 588, that positive action by the assembly is required to change the parliamentary authority to a work with a different name.

[Guest Zev]

I do not recall actually saying that the statement about "automatically" as being unjustified or that it was a "decree from on high." What I said was that the statement not only was something that General Robert never claimed and that the practical effects of it rendered it just plain stupid. I still adamantly refuse to believe that any of the authors have anything to do with this "automatically." Messrs. Brown and Katz have offered concrete arguments that have shed some light on a different view on this subject for which I am grateful. As I indicated earlier my wish is that all potential counter-arguments would be aired. Debate is good, right? However, my comments on the previous thread, which included the five scenarios has gone unanswered. Avoiding one single meeting to change one single sentence once every ten years. That is not the reason and all of you know it. The Beatles had a song about this very thing. Money.

[Shmuel Gerber]

1 hour ago, Guest Zev said:

That is not the reason and all of you know it. The Beatles had a song about this very thing. Money.

Well, we gotta pay for this forum somehow or other.

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

I do not recall actually saying that the statement about "automatically" as being unjustified or that it was a "decree from on high." What I said was that the statement not only was something that General Robert never claimed and that the practical effects of it rendered it just plain stupid. I still adamantly refuse to believe that any of the authors have anything to do with this "automatically." Messrs. Brown and Katz have offered concrete arguments that have shed some light on a different view on this subject for which I am grateful. As I indicated earlier my wish is that all potential counter-arguments would be aired. Debate is good, right? However, my comments on the previous thread, which included the five scenarios has gone unanswered. Avoiding one single meeting to change one single sentence once every ten years. That is not the reason and all of you know it. The Beatles had a song about this very thing. Money.

It is all well and good to suggest that if a society was to include a specific edition in its bylaws, there would be no real harm because it could be resolved by “one single meeting to change one single sentence once every ten years,” and if this were to actually occur, I suppose this would be perfectly fine.

In practice, I am extremely doubtful that the vast majority of societies would remember to do this, and some sixty-odd years later the society now has as its parliamentary authority an edition which is long out of print and no one can find the society’s copy.

As I understand it, the main purpose of the language in question is to provide clarity for those societies which do not specify a specific edition in their bylaws (which in my experience is most societies), to hopefully avoid arguments about which edition to use, and especially to clarify that certain other texts with “Robert’s Rules” in the title are not, in fact, legitimate editions of that work.

I don’t think the intent of this language was principally to sell more books, and if it was, I can’t imagine it was very successful. Based on the questions we still get on this subject, I don’t think many people outside of this forum have read that page.

Edited February 22, 2019 at 11:10 PM by Josh Martin