Adoption of Roberts Rules of Order

[Antoinette K.]

Hello,

My organization's bylaws do not adopt any particular parliamentary procedure.  However, the bylaws section that discusses the meeting of members states: "the order of business must comply with Robert's Rules of Order." Does RONR have to be expressly adopted in an organization's bylaws for it to be used for all rules of order (i.e., not just the order of business)?

In my scenario, for example, could it be implied that RONR is only applicable for the member meetings' order of business and that RONR would only be persuasive for parliamentary procedure, not determinative?  Any clarification would be helpful.

[Rob Elsman]

Please go to How Your Organization Can Adopt Robert's Rules of Order at the Official Robert's Rules Website.

[Josh Martin]

14 hours ago, Antoinette K. said:

My organization's bylaws do not adopt any particular parliamentary procedure.  However, the bylaws section that discusses the meeting of members states: "the order of business must comply with Robert's Rules of Order." Does RONR have to be expressly adopted in an organization's bylaws for it to be used for all rules of order (i.e., not just the order of business)?

In my scenario, for example, could it be implied that RONR is only applicable for the member meetings' order of business and that RONR would only be persuasive for parliamentary procedure, not determinative?  Any clarification would be helpful.

I think that the first question is a difficult question to give an absolute, general answer to. RONR itself recommends that an organization use the following language in its bylaws to adopt RONR as its parliamentary authority:

"The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the Society in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the Society may adopt."

Some organizations use slightly different language, and depending on what exactly that language says, it may or may not be reasonable to conclude that the organization has adopted RONR as its parliamentary authority. RONR doesn't provide much guidance on the question of whether "RONR has to be expressly adopted in an organization's bylaws for it to be used for all rules of order," since the hope is that organizations will just use the recommended language. The rule on this subject doesn't get into the details of what language, exactly (other than the recommended language), might suffice to adopt a text as the society's parliamentary authority. It simply notes that if a parliamentary authority is adopted, it is binding upon the society.

"When a society or an assembly has adopted a particular parliamentary manual—such as this book—as its authority, the rules contained in that manual are binding upon it in all cases where they are not inconsistent with the bylaws (or constitution) of the body, any of its special rules of order, or any provisions of local, state, or national law applying to the particular type of organization." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 16)

With that said, I am inclined to agree that the rule in your organization's bylaws, in particular, is too specific to suffice to adopt RONR as the society's parliamentary authority. The rule specifically states "the order of business must comply with Robert's Rules of Order." The term "order of business" is a term with a specific meaning in parliamentary law. As a result, I am inclined to think that the society is obliged to comply with the standard order of business in RONR, but it does not appear that the other rules within RONR are binding upon the society, although they may well be considered persuasive.

"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)

As to whether the order of business in RONR is binding only upon meetings of the membership, or also on other bodies such as boards and committees, I think that is less clear, and would require that the rule be read in full in its original context. I'm not comfortable making that determination based solely on the fact that the rule in question is found in the section that discusses meetings of members.

I would suggest, however, that all of these distinctions may be academic, and while they may be interesting to me (and perhaps others on this forum), I don't know that they're terribly useful to the society. Whether the rule is, in fact, under-inclusive and applies only to the order of business, or whether the rule is simply ambiguous and unclear, the proper solution in either case is to amend the bylaws so that they include the language recommended by RONR.

Edited May 15, 2020 at 02:11 PM by Josh Martin

[Richard Brown]

Agreeing with Mr. Martin, it is ultimately up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws and to determine whether the language used amounts to an actual adoption of RONR as your parliamentary authority.

[Antoinette K.]

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

I think this is a difficult question to give an absolute, general answer to. RONR itself recommends that an organization use the following language in its bylaws to adopt RONR as its parliamentary authority:

"The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the Society in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the Society may adopt."

Some organizations use slightly different language, and depending on what exactly that language says, it may or may not be reasonable to conclude that the organization has adopted RONR as its parliamentary authority. RONR doesn't provide much guidance on the question of whether "RONR has to be expressly adopted in an organization's bylaws for it to be used for all rules of order," since the hope is that organizations will just use the recommended language. The rule on this subject doesn't get into the details of what language, exactly (other than the recommended language), might suffice to adopt a text as the society's parliamentary authority. It simply notes that if a parliamentary authority is adopted, it is binding upon the society.

"When a society or an assembly has adopted a particular parliamentary manual—such as this book—as its authority, the rules contained in that manual are binding upon it in all cases where they are not inconsistent with the bylaws (or constitution) of the body, any of its special rules of order, or any provisions of local, state, or national law applying to the particular type of organization." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 16)

With that said, I am inclined to agree that the rule in your organization's bylaws, in particular, is too specific to suffice to adopt RONR as the society's parliamentary authority. The rule specifically states "the order of business must comply with Robert's Rules of Order." The term "order of business" is a term with a specific meaning in parliamentary law. As a result, I am inclined to think that the society is obliged to comply with the standard order of business in RONR, but it does not appear that the other rules within RONR are binding upon the society, although they may well be considered persuasive.

"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)

As to whether the order of business in RONR is binding only upon meetings of the membership, or also on other bodies such as boards and committees, I think that is less clear, and would require that the rule be read in full in its original context. I'm not comfortable making that determination based solely on the fact that the rule in question is found in the section that discusses meetings of members.

I would suggest, however, that all of these distinctions may be academic, and while they may be interesting to me (and perhaps others on this forum), I don't know that they're terribly useful to the society. Whether the rule is, in fact, under-inclusive and applies only to the order of business, or whether the rule is simply ambiguous and unclear, the proper solution in either case is to amend the bylaws so that they include the language recommended by RONR.

Thank you Josh for your thorough analysis.  This is very helpful.