non-believers

[Newbie]

Our State statute includes this passage:

"III. Except as otherwise provided in the bylaws, meetings of the association shall be conducted in accordance with the most recent edition of Roberts' Rules of Order Newly Revised."

Our bylaws do not reference any different wording such that RONR would not be our parliamentary process.

Yet, we still have non-believers. I think this is simply an act of defiance to not acknowledge RONR. If people don't know the rules, they won't be obligated to abide by them.

Our secretary, who is not a board member but a property management employee, contributes to this cluster by telling naive board members that RONR should simply be "used as a guideline".

What tactful but stern statement(s) can I combat this attitude with?

[Joshua Katz]

3 minutes ago, Newbie said:

Our secretary, who is not a board member but a property management employee, contributes to this cluster by telling naive board members that RONR should simply be "used as a guideline".

 

Your employees answer to your board. If your board wishes to, it can tell its employees to stop misadvising its members. 

If it were me, I'd print out the statute and bylaws, and ask members to point to where the bylaws provide otherwise. 

Ultimately, though, you don't have a parliamentary question. You have a question about making people follow parliamentary procedure. Yes, you are apparently bound by statute to do so, which makes a decent argument. However, a more persuasive argument might be the value of parliamentary procedure - which, to many, can be expressed as allowing the majority to decide, after it has heard from the minority, while protecting the rights of absentees, and getting home before midnight.

[Tom Coronite]

"When the manual has been thus adopted, the rules within it, together with any special rules of procedure that may also be adopted, are binding upon the body and constitute that body's rules of order."  (emphasis added)  RONR Introduction, p. xxix, first paragraph.

Binding.

Ask the secretary to back up the guideline assertion.

However, this is a very common sentiment, especially when people don't want to follow the rules. What are you gonna do? I drive in the Boston area; I see people run red lights all the time. 😉

[Josh Martin]

54 minutes ago, Tom Coronite said:

"When the manual has been thus adopted, the rules within it, together with any special rules of procedure that may also be adopted, are binding upon the body and constitute that body's rules of order."  (emphasis added)  RONR Introduction, p. xxix, first paragraph.

I’m not sure this paragraph is entirely applicable, since it appears the organization has not, in fact, adopted RONR as its parliamentary authority. Rather, state statute appears to provide for this (unless the bylaws provide otherwise).

I nonetheless agree that it is binding (to at least the same extent that it is binding in an organization which has adopted RONR of its own accord), but this is because the statute says so, not because of any rule in RONR.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

6 hours ago, Newbie said:

What tactful but stern statement(s) can I combat this attitude with?

"Here is my lawyer friend, who will now explain the state law to you."

[Richard Brown]

6 hours ago, Newbie said:

What tactful but stern statement(s) can I combat this attitude with?

Show her the statement from the introduction to RONR that Tom Coronite posted, along with the state law directing that the rules in RONR be followed.  Or show her this  thread.

[Josh Martin]

12 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Show her the statement from the introduction to RONR that Tom Coronite posted, along with the state law directing that the rules in RONR be followed.  Or show her this  thread.

Does the statement in question apply in this situation?

”The book is also designed as a manual to be adopted by organizations or assemblies as their parliamentary authority. When the manual has been thus adopted, the rules within it, together with any special rules of procedure that may also be adopted, are binding upon the body and constitute that body's rules of order.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg.  xxix)

As I understand the facts, the organization has not adopted RONR as its parliamentary authority. Rather, state law provides that it shall be used unless the bylaws provide otherwise. I don’t think there is anything in RONR regarding such a situation, but I agree that it is binding because of the state law.

[Tom Coronite]

I am perhaps filling in too many informational gaps on my own, but it seems that the overall question, raised by the OP's secretary's claim, is: Is RONR binding, or a guide only?

If RONR's been adopted, it's binding, is my point.

Josh Martin raises a valid question as to whether the OP's group has actively adopted it, or had it foist upon them by the state. As Mr. Martin indicates, it's probably the latter.

But does that make RONR any less binding? Regardless of how RONR came to be authoritative for this group, it does seem to be authoritative by my reading of the original post. I certainly understand the distinction Mr. Martin is making, but either way, I end up at the same destination.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 4/27/2019 at 12:20 PM, Newbie said:

Our State statute includes this passage:

"III. Except as otherwise provided in the bylaws, meetings of the association shall be conducted in accordance with the most recent edition of Roberts' Rules of Order Newly Revised."

That is truly an unfortunate situation, since (to the best of my knowledge) there is no parliamentary authority with that title. :-)

[Newbie]

9 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

That is truly an unfortunate situation, since (to the best of my knowledge) there is no parliamentary authority with that title. 🙂

Please elaborate. Are you picking a nit because the apostrophe is in the wrong spot?

[Joshua Katz]

6 minutes ago, Newbie said:

Please elaborate. Are you picking a nit because the apostrophe is in the wrong spot?

Interestingly, I cannot think of a situation where it would be correct as placed. It would need to be written by multiple people all named Robert, I suppose. 

[Atul Kapur]

25 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Interestingly, I cannot think of a situation where it would be correct as placed. It would need to be written by multiple people all named Robert, I suppose. 

Or written by someone with the last name Roberts 

[Shmuel Gerber]

41 minutes ago, Newbie said:

Please elaborate. Are you picking a nit because the apostrophe is in the wrong spot?

I made my comment because the apostrophe is in the wrong spot, but I wouldn't call that picking a nit. The error is real and the statute ought to be fixed.

[Joshua Katz]

10 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

Or written by someone with the last name Roberts 

Then it would not be plural, and the possessive would be Roberts's. Consider Congress's, not Congress'.

[jstackpo]

 

17 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

Or written by someone with the last name Roberts

Which "The Elements of Style" (Strunk & White) tell us should be written as "Roberts's..."  (if the author's family name indeed had been Roberts) right there on page 1.

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, Tom Coronite said:

I am perhaps filling in too many informational gaps on my own, but it seems that the overall question, raised by the OP's secretary's claim, is: Is RONR binding, or a guide only?

If RONR's been adopted, it's binding, is my point.

Josh Martin raises a valid question as to whether the OP's group has actively adopted it, or had it foist upon them by the state. As Mr. Martin indicates, it's probably the latter.

But does that make RONR any less binding? Regardless of how RONR came to be authoritative for this group, it does seem to be authoritative by my reading of the original post. I certainly understand the distinction Mr. Martin is making, but either way, I end up at the same destination.

All I am saying is that the rules in RONR concerning a parliamentary authority being binding, including the rule in question, address situations in which the authority has been adopted by the organization itself. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in RONR addressing the specific issue of a parliamentary authority being imposed upon it by statute (although there are rules concerning the status of applicable procedural rules in statute generally, which I discuss below). If an organization is required by statute to use the rules in RONR for its meetings unless the bylaws provide otherwise, and the bylaws do not provide otherwise, then I am inclined to think that the rules in RONR are at least as binding (and possibly even more binding) than if the organization had adopted RONR itself, but this is due to the rule in statute, not due to any rule in RONR. 

If it is felt that is necessary to provide some backup from RONR (although if members do not find state law to be persuasive on this matter, I am not sure why they would find RONR to be more persuasive), these would seem to be relevant passages:

“Aside from rules of parliamentary procedure and the particular rules of an assembly, the actions of any deliberative body are also subject to applicable procedural rules prescribed by local, state, or national law and would be null and void if in violation of such law.” (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 3-4)

”Within this framework under the general parliamentary law, an assembly or society is free to adopt any rules it may wish (even rules deviating from parliamentary law) provided that, in the procedure of adopting them, it conforms to parliamentary law or its own existing rules. The only limitations upon the rules that such a body can thus adopt might arise from the rules of a parent body (as those of a national society restricting its state or local branches), or from national, state, or local law affecting the particular type of organization.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 10)

Edited April 28, 2019 at 07:05 PM by Josh Martin

[Tom Coronite]

Thank you, Josh Martin. I understand.

[Rob Elsman]

I suspect more people think that the general's surname is Roberts than those who think it is Robert. He likely had to put up with this his whole life long.

[J. J.]

A statute mandating a particular parliamentary authority for a type of organization would be a an applicable  procedural rule prescribe in law (p. 251, c.).  It could not be violated.

I think that the best to handle this is  to ask the secretary if a stop sign or a one way sign is "used as a guideline."  If the answer is no, then you have probably have made your point. 

[George Mervosh]

21 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

Or written by someone with the last name Roberts 

NAP made that mistake 3 times in the last edition of the National Parliamentarian

[Newbie]

22 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

I made my comment because the apostrophe is in the wrong spot, but I wouldn't call that picking a nit. The error is real and the statute ought to be fixed.

Mr. Gerber, I understand your position that the title contains a grammatical (?) error. I read on this forum that in many cases the items brought up for discussion are legal matters, not parliamentary matters. Given that, do you think a court would consider this an egregious enough error that the concept of using RONR as the parliamentary process would be invalid?

I'm having a difficult time convincing 5 other board members and a biased secretary that we should be using RONR. I'm wondering which would be the easier task - converting 5 non-believers or getting the NH Legislature to fix a grammatical error or typo.

I don't know how often State Statutes get updated or the process by which that happens. But if you do and are willing to help I'll go along with it.

I thank those that have provided some inputs that I will try out at our next meeting. Interesting aside from J.J.'s comments - our president made a tongue-in-cheek comment at a recent meeting that speed limit signs in NH were just guidelines. And people running stop signs isn't unique to Boston, I see it almost daily up here in NH.

[Joshua Katz]

The court would be left explaining, I think, just what parliamentary authority should be used, since there is none with the precise name written in the statute. (The court would also need to know that the statute is incorrect, which is unlikely.) If there were a book by that name, well, there might be a problem, but I don't see what problem could possibly arise in this context.

[Weldon Merritt]

35 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

The court would be left explaining, I think, just what parliamentary authority should be used, since there is none with the precise name written in the statute. (The court would also need to know that the statute is incorrect, which is unlikely.) If there were a book by that name, well, there might be a problem, but I don't see what problem could possibly arise in this context.

It may be rare, but cases have been won or lost on the basis of punctuation errors and missspeled words. While most of us probably would agree thata if the issue is raiased in litigation, the court should interpret the statute in accord with the apparent legislative intent to specify RONR, there is no guarantee what a court might do.

 

48 minutes ago, Newbie said:

I don't know how often State Statutes get updated or the process by which that happens. But if you do and are willing to help I'll go along with it.

Statutes are "updated" whenever the legislature considers and adopts an  amendment, which obviously can happen only during a legislative session. So if you want to try to get it corrected, contact your local legislator and try to get him or her to introduce an amendment in the next session. But I'm not at all sure that correcting the book title will solve your problem, if members still think that RONR is only a "guideline."

[Shmuel Gerber]

54 minutes ago, Newbie said:

Mr. Gerber, I understand your position that the title contains a grammatical (?) error. I read on this forum that in many cases the items brought up for discussion are legal matters, not parliamentary matters. Given that, do you think a court would consider this an egregious enough error that the concept of using RONR as the parliamentary process would be invalid?

I would hope not.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 4/28/2019 at 1:55 PM, Atul Kapur said:

Or written by someone with the last name Roberts 

In which case it would be Roberts's Rules