Robert's Rules or Not to Robert's Rules

[Guest NewSec]

Hi, I am a newly elected member of an Executive Committee for a Volunteer Rescue Squad. Of 7 members, at least 3 have served on the Committee in prior years. They make up President, Treasurer and Captain. I have been a Secretary on an HOA and am lightly familiar with the parliamentary process. The rest are no more more familiar, and possibly even less. In a word, "they are doing it wrong."

I gently suggested that we might want to consult with the rules and was told I should not worry so much about Robert's Rules. Now as a newbie to the squad itself and the Committee, I certainly don't want to make waves, however, the By Laws clearly state the role of the secretary and the requirement to conform to Robert's Rules as shown below:

"b) The Secretary shall act as Secretary for all regular or special meetings, shall determine any member's entitlement to vote, and shall have present a current copy of Robert's Rules of Order. In the absence of the Secretary the presiding officer shall appoint an acting Secretary who shall transmit to the regular Secretary, as soon as practical following the meeting, the minutes thereof, to be included by the regular Secretary among the permanent records of the SQUAD.
c) All meetings shall conform to parliamentary procedures as set forth in Robert's Rules of Order. Procedural questions for which an answer is not readily available may be referred to the Legal Advisor, if present, whose determination of procedure shall be final."

Rather than force this issue, particularly as a new member who will likely be met with opposition on my newbie status alone, I thought perhaps the most effective approach would be to bring up as new business the question of modifying the By Laws to eliminate the requirement to conform to Robert's Rules.

I would like to do my duty, as well as protect the Squad. If members decide they don't want to use them, then it should not be a requirement in the By Laws. If they do want to keep the requirement in, then in theory, they are agreeing that "meetings shall conform to parliamentary procedures as set forth in Robert's Rules of Order," and I will have some cover when I try to encourage proper procedure. 

Would love to know if others have had to deal with this, and if my approach seems off base in any way.

 

Thank you,

NewSec

 

[Rob Elsman]

Robert's Rules is not much to be worried about.  The bylaws are not much to be worried about.  Nobody's worried.  Don't worry.  Be happy.

In all seriousness, it takes the group's collective commitment to make proper parliamentary procedure work well.  This group does not seem to have it.  It does not even seem to want it.

[Guest NewSec]

Agree. I will attempt to raise a motion to address proper use of parliamentary procedure and see if I can get some consensus. 

What is so interesting is several members demand that the meetings only be an hour, yet the first meeting almost lasted 3. I think we could be more effective with some basic guidelines in place. Oh well.  

[Rob Elsman]

It might just be that this group is very peaceable and has "found its groove", so to speak, having very informal business meetings.  As the "newbie" on the block, I suggest that you give it some time.  You will also "find your groove".  Just give it a rest for a little while.

[Joshua Katz]

1 hour ago, Guest NewSec said:

What is so interesting is several members demand that the meetings only be an hour, yet the first meeting almost lasted 3.

This is sometimes the best selling point for parliamentary procedure. People might not care about rights, but if you say you can get all the business done quickly...