Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

RONR Article on Parliamentary Authority--group wants to remove it from the bylaws


Marsha Thole

Recommended Posts

I am on a "working group" to revise the HOA's bylaws. I am outnumbered by the others who want to remove the article on Parliamentary Authority. After explaining there would be chaos, I ended by saying that if that is what they plan to do, I am off the group and out of the HOA (it is not mandatory anyway). Two men said they never heard of Robert's Rules (they are in their 70s). I gave some examples of the chaos, asking them how would they handle voting disputes if there were no rules? 

Anyone have some info I could use to convince these people that they would be making a big mistake to remove that article. Our state statutes are silent on requiring any authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2023 at 8:47 PM, Marsha Thole said:

I am on a "working group" to revise the HOA's bylaws. I am outnumbered by the others who want to remove the article on Parliamentary Authority. After explaining there would be chaos, I ended by saying that if that is what they plan to do, I am off the group and out of the HOA (it is not mandatory anyway). Two men said they never heard of Robert's Rules (they are in their 70s). I gave some examples of the chaos, asking them how would they handle voting disputes if there were no rules? 

Anyone have some info I could use to convince these people that they would be making a big mistake to remove that article. Our state statutes are silent on requiring any authority.

I think there are a few threads in this forum where this has been discussed, but it might be hard to find them.  I'll try to find a couple of well-written articles about why there should be some rules.  I'll start with a statement by Thomas Jefferson in his "Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice", written to be used by the U.S. Senate.  He said at that time, in 1801:

"And whether these forms be in all cases the
most rational or not is really not of
so great importance. It is much
more material that there should be a rule to go
by than what that rule is; that there may be a
uniformity of proceeding in business not subject
to the caprice of the Speaker or captiousness of
the members. It is very material that order, de-
cency, and regularity be preserved in a dignified
public body."

By the statement, "the caprice of the Speaker", he is referring to the Speaker of the House as the presiding officer, not to a person addressing the body. In other words, he is saying that it is better that there be some rule rather than no rule at all.

I'll try to find a couple of better examples, but it will take me some time.  In the meantime, some of my colleagues may be able to help you out.  You are right when you say that without rules, there will likely be chaos! 

Edited by Richard Brown
Added date
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2023 at 9:47 PM, Marsha Thole said:

I am on a "working group" to revise the HOA's bylaws. I am outnumbered by the others who want to remove the article on Parliamentary Authority. After explaining there would be chaos, I ended by saying that if that is what they plan to do, I am off the group and out of the HOA (it is not mandatory anyway). Two men said they never heard of Robert's Rules (they are in their 70s). I gave some examples of the chaos, asking them how would they handle voting disputes if there were no rules? 

Anyone have some info I could use to convince these people that they would be making a big mistake to remove that article. Our state statutes are silent on requiring any authority.

"The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right." ~ Mark Twain

"Wise men don't need advice.  Fools won't take it." ~Benjamin Franklin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2023 at 8:47 PM, Marsha Thole said:

I am on a "working group" to revise the HOA's bylaws. I am outnumbered by the others who want to remove the article on Parliamentary Authority. After explaining there would be chaos, I ended by saying that if that is what they plan to do, I am off the group and out of the HOA (it is not mandatory anyway). Two men said they never heard of Robert's Rules (they are in their 70s). I gave some examples of the chaos, asking them how would they handle voting disputes if there were no rules? 

Anyone have some info I could use to convince these people that they would be making a big mistake to remove that article. Our state statutes are silent on requiring any authority.

I think there are two separate parts to this question - whether it is best for the organization to have some sort of rules governing their meetings, and whether it is best to use RONR specifically.

To the first question, if an organization has no parliamentary authority whatsoever, then there is great uncertainty as to what exactly the rules are. Such a group is of course bound by any rules found in applicable law and in the organization's bylaws and other governing documents, but while these rules cover certain matters, there is often a great deal left uncovered, as most assemblies have neither the time nor interest to develop a complete set of parliamentary rules for their meetings.

When no parliamentary authority has been adopted, other parliamentary matters are generally understood to be bound by the "common parliamentary law"... to the extent there is agreement among the assembly's members about what that is. This tends to lead to disagreements among members about what the rules are in a particular situation, which ultimately leads to ill feelings and wastes the assembly's time, when it could instead be discussing the merits of the business before it. It is for these exact reasons that RONR was originally written.

"As he and his wife worked with persons from different parts of the country in several organizations seeking to improve social conditions there, they found themselves in the midst of a strange situation. Remarking on it many years later, in a lecture in Cincinnati, he stated that “Friction as to what constituted parliamentary law was indeed no uncommon thing.” Each member of these organizations had brought from his home state different and often strong convictions as to what were correct parliamentary rules, and a presiding officer usually followed the customs of the locality from which he came. Under these conditions, confusion and misunderstanding had reached a point where issues of procedure consumed time that should have gone into the real work of the societies." RONR (12th ed.) pgs. xxxix-xl

"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 (12th ed.) 2:19

"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. Most assemblies operate subject to one or more classes of written rules, however, that the particular body—or, sometimes, a higher authority under which it is constituted—has formally adopted." RONR (12th ed.) 1:5

The second question is whether it is best to use RONR specifically. To this point, I would note that RONR is the foremost parliamentary authority in the United States for the use of ordinary societies, so persons are most likely to be familiar with it. It is also the most comprehensive parliamentary authority, so the assembly is unlikely to run across a situation where a rule is not covered by the text. In recognition of the fact that the full text has become somewhat unwieldy over time, the Authorship Team has also written Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief, a much shorter work which members can use to learn the basics of parliamentary procedure, with the full text still available for reference for more advanced or unusual situations. 

I think this covers the basic arguments for why the society should adopt some sort of parliamentary authority and why, ideally, that authority should be Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. If you are aware of specific reasons why members are arguing to remove the parliamentary authority from the bylaws, we may be able to provide more specific details to address those concerns.

Edited by Josh Martin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forget if this is in the foreword to Roberts or elsewhere, but I tend to concur with the general wisdom that in the absence of established rules of order, you find yourself with a choice of evils: 

(1) Simple majority rule where the majority simply crushes the interests of any minority, no matter how large the minority or important the interest;

(2) Despotism of the chair; 

(3) Disintegration of the group; 

(4) Some combination of the above. 

If Roberts seems too complicated, I've personally always been partial to "Rusty's Rules of Order," which enjoy both simplicity and proletarian pragmatism, though they probably give way to a bit more to chair-despotism and simple-majoritarianism, since they are less concerned with two-thirds majorities and various nested hierarchies of motions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've run into another variation of despotism in the absence of Robert's Rules, and that is consensus decision-making.

The supposed "wisdom" was that requiring a supermajority would cause a greater buy-in on decisions  Of course the opposite was true.  The term supermajority is a fiction.  What it created was minority rule, where a small minority could block any action and would use that power as a club.  (I know, you're thinking "Ripped from the Headlines" but this was long ago.)

Since then I have a personal standing rule not to join an organization that did not use RONR as its parliamentary authority.  That has allowed me to dodge a bullet or two.  (Metaphorically--I also dodged one or two literal ones, but that was due to being drafted into an organization that also did not use Robert's Rules.  The exception proves the rule.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any ordinary society is, as a matter of parliamentary law, at liberty to adopt a manual as its parliamentary authority, write the entire body of its parliamentary procedure, or rely on the common parliamentary law (insofar as the members can agree on what it is).  How chaotic the association wants its meetings to be is entirely up to the association.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/17/2023 at 12:37 PM, Rob Elsman said:

Any ordinary society is, as a matter of parliamentary law, at liberty to adopt a manual as its parliamentary authority, write the entire body of its parliamentary procedure, or rely on the common parliamentary law (insofar as the members can agree on what it is).  How chaotic the association wants its meetings to be is entirely up to the association.

Exactly.

And if they elect to do these things under some body of rules substantially unlike RONR, they are at liberty to do so in my absence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...