RONR v other authorities

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I don't know a thing about other authorities but my local affiliate is considering others - I oppose it sheerly on the basis that the national organization uses it and we will be ill equipped for the national convention.  However, are there any resources that compare the relative merits of various authorities?  And if something is not covered in an authority - as I think they are wanting something really stripped down and simple - do those situation revert to general parliamentary law?  I think they are considering Francis and Francis but I can't get a straight answer out of them.

Edited January 8, 2021 at 03:52 PM by Caryn Ann Harlos

[Guest Puzzling]

14 minutes ago, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

I don't a thing about other authorities but my local affiliate is considering others - I oppose it sheerly on the basis that the national organization uses it and we will be ill equipped for the national convention.  However, are there any resources that compare the relative merits of various authorities?  And if something is not covered in an authority - as I think they are wanting something really stripped down and simple - do those situation revert to general parliamentary law?  I think they are considering Francis and Francis but I can't get a straight answer out of them.

RONR itself mentions some other books you can use as parliamentary authority (sadly they are all rather old)

The AIP website also mentions some others (including their own, new one is being written ) and even has a booklet comparing them.

I do not recognize the reference to Francis and Francis.

.

RONR is my personal favorite but that can be my bookworm habit, and I do like to have a thicker book to hit somebody with:  : )  (and off course this forum is also a good point in favour of RONR)

 

[Josh Martin]

12 minutes ago, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

I don't a thing about other authorities but my local affiliate is considering others - I oppose it sheerly on the basis that the national organization uses it and we will be ill equipped for the national convention.  However, are there any resources that compare the relative merits of various authorities?

I am not aware of resources comparing the relative merits of various authorities, although it may well be that such resources exist. It may be prudent to contact the American Institute of Parliamentarians. While the National Association of Parliamentarians tends to focus almost exclusively on RONR, AIP has a focus which also includes other authorities, especially The AIP Standard Code, which is the distant second most common authority used by organizations in the United States.

17 minutes ago, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

And if something is not covered in an authority - as I think they are wanting something really stripped down and simple - do those situation revert to general parliamentary law?

I suppose it would depend on what the particular authority says, but generally, I would say the answer is yes. In such cases, other parliamentary manuals may be persuasive in determining what the general parliamentary law is regarding such matters.

22 minutes ago, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

I think they are considering Francis and Francis but I can't get a straight answer out of them.

I am not familiar with this authority.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I think the proper name for what they are referring to as francis and francis is the Democratic Rules of Order.

[Guest Puzzling]

1 hour ago, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

if something is not covered in an authority - as I think they are wanting something really stripped down and simple -

I think it is a bit a set of communicating vessels.

The shorter the parliamentary authority the more needs to be spelled out ( read larger)  the bylaws and the opposite.  

If you really want you could do without parliamentary authority and write your own as set of special rules of order,  but I guess we all would argue against that.

 

 

[Richard Brown]

3 hours ago, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

I think the proper name for what they are referring to as francis and francis is the Democratic Rules of Order.

Yes, that is correct. 

Edited to add: it is available on Amazon, but I think I have seen excerpts or an abridged version. I’ll see what I can find when I get home. (I just got the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination and am stuck waiting to make sure I don’t have a reaction). 

Either AIP or NAP used to have a “cheat sheet “ reference card with the major differences between RONR (10th edition) and Sturgis' Standard Code (4th edition) (the name of older versions of the AIP Standard Code) that I sometimes have with me but not right now. I will send you a copy. It’s a laminated card about 4” x 9” that has the rules for most common motions with RONR on one side and Sturgis on the other side.  Sadly, that comparison is no longer published.
 

Edited January 8, 2021 at 07:42 PM by Richard Brown
Added last two paragraphs and also edited last paragraph

[Josh Martin]

55 minutes ago, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

I think the proper name for what they are referring to as francis and francis is the Democratic Rules of Order.

Okay. I am still not familiar with this authority.

35 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

I think it is a bit a set of communicating vessels.

The shorter the parliamentary authority the more needs to be spelled out ( read larger)  the bylaws and the opposite.  

If you really want you could do without parliamentary authority and write your own as set of special rules of order,  but I guess we all would argue against that.

What is described suggests to me that what is desired is to have fewer written rules of order in general, both in the parliamentary authority and in the organization's special rules of order, so that more flexibility is granted to the whims of the chair and the assembly to determine what the rules are in the instances that the written rules are silent.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Apparently the Democratic Rules of Order is 36 pages in total.  I find it difficult to believe that can in any way be sufficient without chaos the minute things get even slightly off the beaten track.

[Guest Puzzling]

1 hour ago, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

Apparently the Democratic Rules of Order is 36 pages in total.  I find it difficult to believe that can in any way be sufficient without chaos the minute things get even slightly off the beaten track.

Are you sure?

The website  https://newsociety.com/books/d/democratic-rules-of-order already states 104 pages (10th edition) so are we referring to the same book?

[Josh Martin]

9 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

Are you sure?

The website  https://newsociety.com/books/d/democratic-rules-of-order already states 104 pages (10th edition) so are we referring to the same book?

The official website for the book does say that it has 104 pages in total, but it also says the book has "Only 27 pages of rules, plus 37 pages of examples".

I'm not sure what's on the other 40 pages.

Edited January 8, 2021 at 09:15 PM by Josh Martin

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

No I am not sure at all, that is what someone on the committee consider the change told me.  Doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the committee.

[Richard Brown]

3 hours ago, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

Apparently the Democratic Rules of Order is 36 pages in total.  I find it difficult to believe that can in any way be sufficient without chaos the minute things get even slightly off the beaten track.

I’m fairly confident I have seen a copy of those 37 pages of rules online somewhere and I think I might have actually saved it or printed them out. However, I’m not able to search for it right now. I do know the rules are short. As others have stated, that leaves things pretty much wide open for the presiding officer and the assembly to interpret the rules as they wish on the fly.

Many people Who say they want simple rules seem to not understand that having a short simple set of rules leaves innumerable questions unanswered with no guidance on how to resolve them. It is literally flying by the seat of your pants with the route being different with every pilot. Members have no way of knowing in advance what is permissible or how the chair should rule on a particular issue until it comes up in debate in the heat of the battle. And the answer can be different from one presiding officer to another and from one meeting or convention to another.

[Guest Puzzling]

Had a quick look t the so called "Democratic rules of order" but found them far from Democratic.

Minority rights are just absent, nothing requires a 2/3 vote or previous notion. 

The whole did me appreciate RONR more. 

[smb]

Francis 'Democratic Rules of Order' is a Canadian authority.  I use the word 'authority' very loosely -- I've been working professionally for thirty years and have never heard of an organization that uses it. [At least not in the U.S.] I have a copy of the 7th edition [2003].  Approximately 28 pp of text, another 30 of FAQ.  It is overly simplified, as one can imagine, but can be a useful book for small organizations that work mostly by consensus but still want some degree of guidance.  I would think it virtually useless for large groups, particularly those with complex agendas, factions, and controversy.  Example: There are no rules for debate, although it states the assembly may adopt some. Otherwise, if the Chair thinks someone is talking too long, she has the authority to ask them to conclude their remarks, and if they decline to ask the assembly by majority vote to silence them.  I suppose that's democratic because a majority decides.  If you want a simplified authority, much better to use AIP's Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure or Robert's Rules of Order in Brief.

It's possible the 10th edition available online is improved, but...

[Gary Novosielski]

RONRIB explicitly deprecates its use as a Parliamentary Authority.