Content of Roberts

[Guest Joan]

What is the reply to members who question the relevance of Roberts because it was written in a different time. They also say it is only a 

guide line.

[Josh Martin]

On 4/10/2023 at 10:48 PM, Guest Joan said:

What is the reply to members who question the relevance of Roberts because it was written in a different time.

I would first point out that their understanding that Robert's "was written in a different time" is not entirely correct. While Robert's Rules of Order was originally written in 1876, the text has been updated throughout the years. The most recent edition (the 12th edition) was released in 2020, which was only three years ago. While sometimes that does feel like "a different time," I expect that's not quite what these members meant.

Substantial updates have been made to respond to the evolution of parliamentary law. For instance, the 10th edition, published in 2000, was the first edition to discuss "electronic meetings," and the treatment of this subject has been expanded in each successive edition.

In any event, Robert's Rules of Order continues to be relevant for any deliberative assembly.

I would also ask members, in the event they prefer not to use Robert's, what rules they intend to follow instead.

On 4/10/2023 at 10:48 PM, Guest Joan said:

They also say it is only a guide line.

This may or may not be correct. It depends on whether the organization's rules provide that Robert's Rules is the society's parliamentary authority, and also likely depends on exactly what they mean by "guide line."

In the event the organization's rules do not provide that RONR is the society's parliamentary authority, the members are certainly correct that RONR is only a "guide line."

"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 (12th ed.) 1:5

"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." RONR (12th ed.) 2:19

In the event the organization's rules provide that RONR is the society's parliamentary authority, then I think calling RONR a "guide line" is not correct, although the assembly certainly does have the flexibility to adopt its own rules superseding RONR in a particular case, and most rules RONR can be suspended by the assembly in a particular instance.

"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 (12th ed.) 2:18

Edited April 11, 2023 at 12:10 PM by Josh Martin

[Richard Brown]

On 4/10/2023 at 10:48 PM, Guest Joan said:

What is the reply to members who question the relevance of Roberts because it was written in a different time. They also say it is only a 

guide line.

Although The original edition was published over 100 years ago, it is updated regularly with new editions. A new edition now comes out about every 10 years, with the most recent edition being the 12th edition, published in 2020.

As to whether RONR is a rule book or just a guideline, that depends on whether your organization has adopted RONR as its parliamentary authority. If your organization has adopted RONR as its parliamentary authority, then it is controlling and the organization is bound by it except in those cases where the organization has adopted a special rule of order that supersedes a provision in RONR.   However, if you have not adopted it as your parliamentary authority, you might say that it is then just a “guideline” … or in other words it is persuasive but not controlling. 

[Gary Novosielski]

Beware of people who claim that RONR is "just a guide line".  This reveals an intent to ignore the rules whenever they become inconvenient.  

When RONR says something that helps them, it s rule.  When it says something that keeps them in check, it's "just a guide line".

[Joshua Katz]

I would simply tell such a person that the way to do what they wish is to amend the bylaws, to remove RONR as parliamentary authority (assuming it is now). Whether they're right or wrong is up to the membership.