Can a group operate according to RONR, without needing an executive committee?

[Hualaan]

Is it possible for a group to operate with only the following positions and responsibilities:

• president: chair of general meetings
• vice president: chair of meetings in the absence of the president
• secretary: maintain the non-financial records, and other standard duties as per RONR
• treasurer: maintain the financial records

And all issues brought forward (as motions), and decisions made, by the whole membership at regular general meetings, supported by the work of standing and special committees?

I've been reading through RONR and RONRIB, including the introductory section on the development of the principles and rules of parliamentary procedure.  I've also read a bit of what I could find online of Robert's original reasons for doing the research and developing his Rules, and on the history of civil society groups in the States and Canada.  If what I read is true, from the 18th century to the early 20th, there must nary have been a person, male or female, over the age of...18? 16? maybe 14?... who wasn't involved in at least one such group to which the Rules would apply (at least in the States; here in Canada, perhaps the same, especially after the Loyalists arrived, post-Revolution).

My brief research leads me to believe that many or most of these groups - at least the more successful - did engage the whole membership in decision making.  The Rules, in fact, appear to be designed to bring the full collective intelligence, knowledge, experience and wisdom of the whole membership to bear.

However, all the groups I belong or have belonged to have had an executive committee with the power to make most of the decisions on behalf of the membership, and with no reference to the membership other than to delegate work.  Either there are no general membership meetings, other than the annual AGM, or they are only used for the executive to make announcements or schedule a guest speaker.  The attitude is: meetings are wastes of time, endless talk and no action, and bigger meetings are bigger wastes of time.  Better to have just a few people - or just one - to take charge and make the decisions on behalf of the group.  That's fast and efficient.

In my personal experience, this may (or may not) be fast, but it's not very effective, and suffers from a whole host of ills that I won't go into.  In at least one of the groups I'm involved with, I would like to introduce the idea and the benefits of engaging the whole membership via RONR.  However, this seems so antagonistic to the general consensus these days that I'm not sure how to go about it.

Does anybody know of any society today in which the people are actively called upon to make the decisions instead of delegating that responsibility to a small subset?  Does anyone know of any such group in the past, for which a narrative of how they operated, and what they achieved, is available?

Any other advice?

[J. J.]

A group that meets frequently may not need a board, especially a small group (p. 481, ll. 16-20). 

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Hualaan said:

Is it possible for a group to operate with only the following positions and responsibilities:

• president: chair of general meetings
• vice president: chair of meetings in the absence of the president
• secretary: maintain the non-financial records, and other standard duties as per RONR
• treasurer: maintain the financial records

And all issues brought forward (as motions), and decisions made, by the whole membership at regular general meetings, supported by the work of standing and special committees?

Yes, at least so far as RONR is concerned.

If the society is to be incorporated, however, it would be prudent to consult a lawyer, as applicable law often does require a board.

2 hours ago, Hualaan said:

Does anybody know of any society today in which the people are actively called upon to make the decisions instead of delegating that responsibility to a small subset?  Does anyone know of any such group in the past, for which a narrative of how they operated, and what they achieved, is available?

I am not personally aware of any societies which act without a board at all. As you note, it is the norm today to have a board of some kind (and may be required by law). It is also quite possible, however, to still have a board but to have a more engaged membership. I am not aware, however, of any narratives of how such groups operated and what they achieved.

[Richard Brown]

3 hours ago, Hualaan said:

Can a group operate according to RONR, without needing an executive committee?

Yes, of course.  Nowhere does RONR say that any type of executive committee or board is necessary.  However, like the others who have posted, at the moment I can't recall any such group which I have ever belonged to, unless maybe many years ago while in college. 

The amount of power and control that is granted to the executive board varies greatly from organization to organization. It's up to each individual organization. Some expect (and permit) the board to act on behalf of the organization only between meetings of the membership and in situations that would be considered emergencies.  Other organizations, such as business clubs and social organizations, generally don't want to be bothered with administrative details at their meetings so they delegate the details of "running the organization" to an executive board of some type.  Their monthly membership meetings can then be mostly social gatherings or meetings for the main  purpose of having guest speakers or lecturers.

Ultimately, however, with the vast majority of voluntary organizations, the membership has ultimate control, if only by virtue of the fact that it is usually the membership which elects the board.