can i inquire whether this is another rule of order?

[rynait]

Hello, 

Someone tried to put in "Martha's Rule of Order" in amendment and person gave a summarized statement based on one page rule.  Membership defeated that amendment and kept robert's rule of order.   The question whether I can ask in here,  Where can I find "Martha's Rule of Order"  and how many other rule of order published out there in circulation?

Rynait

[Gary Novosielski]

A Google search will turn up several links.

It's a poor attempt to run meetings by consensus, which is a pure horror.

[rynait]

On 4/30/2023 at 10:21 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

which is a pure horror.

after googling for that martha's.   and read it.   I believe most most [sic] stupidiest rule of order.    for example  I pre-write motion to buy a van.  explain all of that (per MRO). All of sudden during meeting all members understood (thumbs up) but want to add "pink" van.   HOW?  Do they force an amendment which is a motion (per Robert's rules).  making the logical process far restricted.  

another problem.  Do you think member [sponsor] have time to "THINK" philosophize the motion's additional materials before a meeting.  no-body has a crystal ball to predict the future!

Even worst the paper said proper motion.  That definition for proper is not in the paper, SO WHO defines the meaning of proper motions? I predict a "meeting war" over that.

The worst part; 2/3 of my organization members are grade 7 English language level.  They are going to fail understanding the "pre-motion", wasting the meeting time with "go back" and do over.   (for those who are curious, Those members with higher grade, "interprets 'verbally' motion [not amending] into grade 7 level" prior to seconding. )

Are there other rule of order published out there in circulation?

 

[Josh Martin]

On 4/30/2023 at 10:40 PM, rynait said:

Someone tried to put in "Martha's Rule of Order" in amendment and person gave a summarized statement based on one page rule.  Membership defeated that amendment and kept robert's rule of order.   The question whether I can ask in here,  Where can I find "Martha's Rule of Order"  and how many other rule of order published out there in circulation?

Robert's Rules of Order is, by far, the most common parliamentary authority in the United States, to the point where many are unaware of other authorities and use "Robert's Rules" synonymously with parliamentary procedure. There are, however, many different parliamentary authorities out there, of varying quality. I'm not aware of an exact count.

Edited May 1, 2023 at 11:10 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/1/2023 at 1:44 AM, rynait said:

Are there other rule of order published out there in circulation?

There are many.  Very few of them even come close to RONR in terms of quality; none of them surpass RONR.  

Years ago, after some experience with "consensus" decision making, I became so frustrated with the process that I vowed never again to join an organization that did not use RONR as its parliamentary authority; I have kept that promise.  I am now an old man, and have never regretted my decision.

[puzzling]

I like Roberts rules of order but is it just because;

It is the thickest one ( I am a bookworm)

The most comprehensive one (good reason) 

The most used one (at least it should be that way)

The most democratic one (should be the best reason if true)

Maybe there are other alternatives but any pretended parliamentary authority shorter than 150 pages should be discarded automatically.

Added later:

Forgot other important reasons

Roberts rules of Order is:

updated regularly (not to often about once every 10 year) Rules that are not updated in the last 25 years are not worth reading (except for study)

There is this forum where enquiries can be posted and we can discuss fine details of the ruled.

Maybe there are even more reasons

Edited May 1, 2023 at 03:00 PM by puzzling
More reasons

[Gary Novosielski]

I ran across the following quote in my old bookmarks, and I have no idea whether I originally ran across it myself, or was pointed to it by someone else (most likely someone here) but I was struck by how closely it matches the objections to consensus in the RONR Introduction.  It refers to no less a rule breaker than the late Abbie Hoffman:

Once a proponent of structurelessness. Abbie now taught the necessity of parliamentary procedure, the necessity of accountable leadership, and the importance of democratic process. He railed against what he called "the curse of consensus," which referred to a decision-making process in which unanimous approval is needed to pass a proposal. Under consensus decision making, one stubborn individual can block a decision agreed to by everyone else. Under majority rule, the merits of an issue are debated and then voted up or down. But under consensus, debate is often mistaken for contentiousness; the point is to forge a harmonious feeling rather than a workable decision. In order to get unanimous approval, it often becomes necessary to strip a proposal of its controversial—and most meaningful—aspects. Abbie thus opted for majority rule, and he advised his protégés on how to achieve it. To forge a majority is a form of organizing, he pointed out. You have to persuade people about the merits of your argument. 

Jezer, Marty. Abbie Hoffman, American Rebel. United States, Rutgers University Press, 1993, p. 298.