If RONR is abandoned, is there a default set of rules a group must abide by?

[BabbsJohnson]

I remember somebody here mentioning a default set of parliamentary rules that were more complex and based on English Parliament?  I might be getting that wrong...

If a group changes their bylaws to remove the officially adopted set of parliamentary rules, does that mean they have to follow another set by default, or can they just run their meetings however they wish to at that point?

Would they need to write their own set of rules, or would they just wing it each time and have it (possibly) be capricious & arbitrary depending on who was at the meeting?

”At the last meeting we used a talking stick for recognition & obtaining the floor. That was David’s idea, and he’s an idiot, so this time, it’s whoever shouts the loudest, or perhaps memebers could give the Chairperson a dollar, or so a little dance, each time they wish to speak...”

[Shmuel Gerber]

22 minutes ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

I remember somebody here mentioning a default set of parliamentary rules that were more complex and based on English Parliament?  I might be getting that wrong...

If a group changes their bylaws to remove the officially adopted set of parliamentary rules, does that mean they have to follow another set by default, or can they just run their meetings however they wish to at that point?

Would they need to write their own set of rules, or would they just wing it each time and have it (possibly) be capricious & arbitrary depending on who was at the meeting?

”At the last meeting we used a talking stick for recognition & obtaining the floor. That was David’s idea, and he’s an idiot, so this time, it’s whoever shouts the loudest, or perhaps memebers could give the Chairperson a dollar, or so a little dance, each time they wish to speak...”

According to RONR, "A deliberative assembly that has not adopted any rules is commonly understood to hold itself bound by the rules and customs of the general parliamentary law—or common parliamentary law (as discussed in the Introduction)—to the extent that there is agreement in the meeting body as to what these rules and practices are." and "This book [i.e., RONR] embodies a codification of the present-day general parliamentary law."

(The talking stick, however, may have a different idea. I suppose you'd have to ask about that in the Official Talking Stick Q&A Forum.)

[Josh Martin]

23 minutes ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

I remember somebody here mentioning a default set of parliamentary rules that were more complex and based on English Parliament?  I might be getting that wrong...

I don’t think this is quite how I would characterize it, although it is certainly correct that the rules of the British Parliament played an important role in the development of parliamentary law.

RONR has the following to say on the common parliamentary law and the rules to be followed in an assembly without an adopted parliamentary authority.

”Parliamentary law originally was the name given to the rules and customs for carrying on business in the English Parliament that were developed through a continuing process of decisions and precedents somewhat like the growth of the common law. These rules and customs, as brought to America with the settling of the New World, became the basic substance from which the practice of legislative bodies in the United States evolved. Out of early American legislative procedure and paralleling it in further development has come the general parliamentary law, or common parliamentary law, of today, which is adapted to the needs of organizations and assemblies of widely differing purposes and conditions.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. xxix)

“A deliberative assembly that has not adopted any rules is commonly understood to hold itself bound by the rules and customs of the general parliamentary law—or common parliamentary law (as discussed in the Introduction)—to the extent that there is agreement in the meeting body as to what these rules and practices are.” (RONR 11th ed., pg. 3)

”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.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 17)

25 minutes ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

If a group changes their bylaws to remove the officially adopted set of parliamentary rules, does that mean they have to follow another set by default, or can they just run their meetings however they wish to at that point?

It is essentially the latter (except the organization is still required, of course, to follow its own rules and rules in applicable law).

27 minutes ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

Would they need to write their own set of rules, or would they just wing it each time and have it (possibly) be capricious & arbitrary depending on who was at the meeting?

The former would be preferable, but the latter would be possible.

[BabbsJohnson]

Many thanks 

[BabbsJohnson]

3 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

(The talking stick, however, may have a different idea. I suppose you'd have to ask about that in the Official Talking Stick Q&A Forum.)

I still seem to be having trouble finding that forum...

[Guest Zev]

I recall somewhere that native American Indians used an eagle feather in the center of the teepee and whoever took it had the exclusive right to speak until he relinquished it. I looked on the Internet but I cannot find a site that documents that custom. Perhaps other cultures used a stick, I have no idea.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

If this authority-less assembly is one of the many types regulated by public law, they must, of course, follow whatever procedural rules the public law mandates.

[Joshua Katz]

In light of other posts, I suspect the original question is confusing two things. One question is "if we don't adopt a parliamentary authority, how do we know how to have meetings?" That one has been fully answered, I think. The other is "if we ignore our parliamentary authority, what can we be forced to do?" With the exception of GWCTD's completely correct posting just above mine, the parliamentary procedure answer is - nothing. As we've said a few times, assemblies which choose to ignore parliamentary procedure can get away with it unless a law stops them. There are no RONR police. There is no one to call if your organization is not following the rules. You can elect different people to the board. But if you are looking for a parliamentary maneuver that will cause people to follow the rules, there isn't one. There's no trick or magic to it. The rules exist to tell you how to have fair and efficient meetings. If the majority of any assembly doesn't want fair and efficient meetings, they will not find the rules useful.

[Richard Brown]

2 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

. . . The rules exist to tell you how to have fair and efficient meetings. If the majority of any assembly doesn't want fair and efficient meetings, they will not find the rules useful.

Very well said, Joshua.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/7/2019 at 5:57 PM, .oOllXllOo. said:

I still seem to be having trouble finding that forum...

Not as much trouble as if you had.