Appicability of Robert's Rules

[Joseph Clark]

Thank you for the opportunity to ask this question.

Our club is a private organization.  It is printed in the By-Laws, Section 1.

"Each officer shall perform all the duties pertaining to his office.  The "Robert's

Rules of Order is hereby recognized as authority on parliamentary procedure."

This is the only explicit reference to Robert's Rules. The question then is:
Does this bind the club to adhere to Robert's?

There is a member who insists at every meeting that we MUST follow Robert's,

even though nowhere does it state in the by-laws or Constitution, that the club

will actually use parliamentary procedure.  We do, in fact, use parliamentary

procedure at general membership meetings, but this member is stating that

Robert's is binding on the club. My interpretation is that Robert's

is a guideline, and is not binding in this case. 

Thank you again.

[Joshua Katz]

I don't see any reasonable interpretation of

On 2/13/2024 at 10:56 AM, Joseph Clark said:

The "Robert's

Rules of Order is hereby recognized as authority on parliamentary procedure."

other than that RONR is your parliamentary authority. Different language would be better, but for this to mean something, I think it means you should follow RONR except in those cases RONR says not to, such as when your bylaws or special rules of order vary.

In any case, a democratic society will follow the common parliamentary law, which in practice will look quite similar to using RONR.

[Joseph Clark]

Thank you, Mr. Katz. 

On 2/13/2024 at 11:09 AM, Joshua Katz said:

I think it means you should follow RONR

I believe the section is vague, and therefore does not bind us.  What makes it difficult for my

interpretation is that "recognizing" Robert's does not necessarily mean that we must apply

Robert's, and as you advise we "should".  I am not a parliamentarian, I am a trustee, one of the Executive Committee members,

and I am trying to do what is right for the club. I suppose it could be argued that "recognizing"

Robert's as the authority implies that we must use Robert's as the member cited in my post insists,

rather than "should" as you stated.

It seems like I'm threading through a minefield.  Thank you again.

 

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/13/2024 at 11:25 AM, Joseph Clark said:

Thank you, Mr. Katz. 

I believe the section is vague, and therefore does not bind us.  What makes it difficult for my

interpretation is that "recognizing" Robert's does not necessarily mean that we must apply

Robert's, and as you advise we "should".  I am not a parliamentarian, I am a trustee, one of the Executive Committee members,

and I am trying to do what is right for the club. I suppose it could be argued that "recognizing"

Robert's as the authority implies that we must use Robert's as the member cited in my post insists,

rather than "should" as you stated.

It seems like I'm threading through a minefield.  Thank you again.

 

Why do you think that your Club should not regard Robert's Rules of Order as its parliamentary authority?  

[Joseph Clark]

Mr. Honemann,

I did not mean to imply that the club should not regard Robert's as its parliamentary authority. 

That is already stated in the by-laws, Section 1.  But that is the only place it is mentioned, and does not

state that the club will or should use parliamentary procedure anywhere in the by-laws.  Do I understand

that Robert's is somehow binding simply because we recognize it as the authority on parliamentary

procedure?  It's my understanding that Robert's is a guideline for conducting an orderly meeting, not a

legally binding requirement unless the by-laws explicitly state that parliamentary procedure will be used.

The by-laws are vague, as I have quoted the applicable section in my first post.

As Mr. Katz stated, we should apply Robert's unless the by-laws state otherwise, but that isn't binding,

in my opinion.  I am not trying to be argumentative, but there are so many things open to personal

interpretation, I asked  here because I believe the members have a much better grasp than either

our club member or I have.

Thank you.

 

[Guest Anon]

On 2/13/2024 at 10:59 AM, Joseph Clark said:

does not state that the club will or should use parliamentary procedure anywhere in the by-laws

Parliamentary procedure is just rules for how to conduct meetings. Does you club have meetings (or do your bylaws say your club should be having meetings?) It would be hard to operate a club without meetings of the members of the club to make decisions. Those meetings will need to have some kind of procedure. Your bylaws say that that procedure needs to follow RONR.

[Joshua Katz]

On 2/13/2024 at 11:59 AM, Joseph Clark said:

But that is the only place it is mentioned, and does not

state that the club will or should use parliamentary procedure anywhere in the by-laws. 

You seem not to have engaged with the second part of my response, though. Why do you think that part is wrong?

On 2/13/2024 at 11:59 AM, Joseph Clark said:

Do I understand

that Robert's is somehow binding simply because we recognize it as the authority on parliamentary

procedure?

I think that is the only non-silly reading of those words, yes.

On 2/13/2024 at 11:59 AM, Joseph Clark said:

It's my understanding that Robert's is a guideline for conducting an orderly meeting, not a

legally binding requirement unless the by-laws explicitly state that parliamentary procedure will be used.

Law and bylaws don't always travel together. The bylaws saying RONR is your parliamentary authority doesn't, by itself, make it legally binding. Whether it is or isn't will depend on the relevant laws, which vary state by state, and the nature of the organization. 

 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 2/13/2024 at 11:25 AM, Joseph Clark said:

Thank you, Mr. Katz. 

I believe the section is vague, and therefore does not bind us.  What makes it difficult for my

interpretation is that "recognizing" Robert's does not necessarily mean that we must apply

Robert's, and as you advise we "should".  I am not a parliamentarian, I am a trustee, one of the Executive Committee members,

and I am trying to do what is right for the club. I suppose it could be argued that "recognizing"

Robert's as the authority implies that we must use Robert's as the member cited in my post insists,

rather than "should" as you stated.

It seems like I'm threading through a minefield.  Thank you again.è

 

If it had said "guidebook" instead of "authority" I might agree with you, but it is clearly stated as your parliamentary authority.  It might seem like a minefield, but knowing what book to use means the mines are all clearly marked.  There's nothing vague about it.

The good news is that according to the rules in Robert's, small board meetings have a more relaxed set of rules that do not require the formality of larger meetings, so Robert's Rules is still your friend.

If you're unfamiliar with the rules, start by buying a copy of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised in Brief, 3rd edition.  It's a good introduction to parliamentary procedure without getting overly technical.  It contains citations to The (full) Book, Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th edition, which is at this point your actual parliamentary authority.

 

[Atul Kapur]

I agree with the other responses that the bylaws make clear that Robert's Rules are binding; there is no reason to indicate what is the authority on parliamentary procedure if you are not going to follow parliamentary procedure.

I am concerned about the reluctance to use parliamentary procedure. It appears to me that this arises out of a misconception that paralmentary procedure adds unnecessary formality and busywork and is too focused on details to the extent that it impedes actual decision-making. The individual who is insisting on parliamentary procedure may be insisting on an excessively formal procedure that is not actually what is in Robert's Rules. It may very well be good too have the group get some training in the proper use of parliamentary procedure.

Do you have specific examples of what this member is requesting or demanding be done when they demand that Robert's Rules be followed? What steps do they feel are being skipped? What rights do they feel are being violated?

[Josh Martin]

On 2/13/2024 at 9:56 AM, Joseph Clark said:

The "Robert's Rules of Order is hereby recognized as authority on parliamentary procedure."

Does this bind the club to adhere to Robert's?

Yes.

“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

I would add that, with some exceptions, the rules may be suspended in a particular case, for a particular purpose, by a 2/3 vote.

On 2/13/2024 at 9:56 AM, Joseph Clark said:

There is a member who insists at every meeting that we MUST follow Robert's, even though nowhere does it state in the by-laws or Constitution, that the club will actually use parliamentary procedure.

This member is absolutely correct.

As for this argument that your constitution does not say you “must” use parliamentary procedure, you are missing the point. In a deliberative assembly, you are using parliamentary procedure, by definition.

For more discussion on that question, see this thread: https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/35319-where-does-it-say-that-were-required-to-follow-parliamentary-procedure-to-make-decisions/#comment-209419

On 2/13/2024 at 9:56 AM, Joseph Clark said:

My interpretation is that Robert's is a guideline, and is not binding in this case. 

Your interpretation is wrong.

Now, could you explain more about what this argument is really about? I imagine this is not really an academic discussion about Robert’s Rules of Order and parliamentary procedure.

Rather, I imagine there are disagreements over whether to follow particular rules in Robert’s, either generally or in a particular instance. If you could elaborate, we can probably suggest solutions.

On 2/13/2024 at 10:25 AM, Joseph Clark said:

I believe the section is vague, and therefore does not bind us.

I disagree. There is nothing vague about it. The text clearly states that RONR is the society’s parliamentary authority.

On 2/13/2024 at 10:59 AM, Joseph Clark said:

 Do I understand that Robert's is somehow binding simply because we recognize it as the authority on parliamentary procedure?

Yes, that’s exactly what it means to adopt something as a parliamentary authority.

On 2/13/2024 at 10:59 AM, Joseph Clark said:

It's my understanding that Robert's is a guideline for conducting an orderly meeting, not a legally binding requirement unless the by-laws explicitly state that parliamentary procedure will be used.

This response misunderstands what “parliamentary procedure is.”

I agree with you to the extent that RONR is quite likely not legally binding. But if you are running a meeting of a deliberative assembly, you are using parliamentary procedure, by definition. The only remaining question is what parliamentary procedure to use. By adopting RONR as its parliamentary authority, your society has answered that question.

Edited February 13, 2024 at 06:46 PM by Josh Martin

[Joseph Clark]

Okay, this has gotten much further than I intended.  Many of you are assuming that I don't think we should be using Robert's.  That is a false assumption.

The member is complaining that three years ago (yes, he's still complaining), that a nomination of officers was not in accordance with Robert's, although

it was in accordance with the by-laws.  He has threatened the club with legal action.

Now, I apologize for not specifying legally binding, but at no time did I advocate doing away with Robert's.

Thank you all for your responses.

[Joshua Katz]

On 2/13/2024 at 3:48 PM, Joseph Clark said:

The member is complaining that three years ago (yes, he's still complaining), that a nomination of officers was not in accordance with Robert's, although

it was in accordance with the by-laws.  He has threatened the club with legal action.

Well, in that case, he should be advised that, as far as RONR is concerned (law is a different matter), it is way too late to complain. Indeed, it was probably too late to complain when the election took place, let alone now that, most likely, the terms involved are over. So if he is keen to enforce RONR, he's barking up the wrong tree on that specific complaint. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 2/13/2024 at 3:48 PM, Joseph Clark said:

Okay, this has gotten much further than I intended.  Many of you are assuming that I don't think we should be using Robert's.  That is a false assumption.

The member is complaining that three years ago (yes, he's still complaining), that a nomination of officers was not in accordance with Robert's, although

it was in accordance with the by-laws.  He has threatened the club with legal action.

Now, I apologize for not specifying legally binding, but at no time did I advocate doing away with Robert's.

Thank you all for your responses.

The member will be disappointed to learn that if the rules in RONR apply, even if he were right that the nomination of officers was somehow incorrect, his remedy clock ran out three years ago.  First of all, complaining is not a form of objection recognized by RONR.  In fact, complaining about rulings is not even allowed except by the raising of a Point of Order or Appeal.   And a point of order about nominations three years ago is beyond untimely.  It is positively superannuated—and therefore not well taken.  

Point this person toward RONR 12th ed. 23:5 Timeliness Requirement for a Point of Order.  And ignore any subsequent complaints.

 

Edited February 13, 2024 at 09:24 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Joseph Clark]

Thank you, Mr. Katz and Mr. Novosielski.  I will make that point at the next general meeting. 

I am expecting my personal copy of RONR to arrive in tomorrow's mail.

 

To all who responded, thank you, and please accept my apologies for any confusion

I caused.

 

 

[Josh Martin]

On 2/13/2024 at 2:48 PM, Joseph Clark said:

The member is complaining that three years ago (yes, he's still complaining), that a nomination of officers was not in accordance with Robert's, although it was in accordance with the by-laws.  He has threatened the club with legal action.

Thank you for the additional details. It is generally a good idea to ask the question you actually want to ask instead of asking an extremely vague question.

Whether the member has a case legally is a question for an attorney.

As a parliamentary matter, it seems extremely doubtful a Point of Order concerning this matter is still timely.

First, you say that “a nomination of officers was not in accordance with Robert's, although it was in accordance with the by-laws.” Your bylaws take precedence over Robert’s Rules of Order. So to the extent that there is a conflict between your bylaws and Robert’s Rules, the rules in your bylaws prevail. So it may well be there was no error at all.

Second, even supposing there was an error, a Point of Order must generally be raised promptly at the time the breach occurs in order to be timely.

Third, while there are some violations that are so egregious they constitute a “continuing breach,” even in those instances, the Point of Order still must be raised during the continuance of the breach. Since this occurred three years ago, it seems quite likely the term of office for the persons elected has ended, in which event even a Point of Order involving a continuing breach is no longer timely.

Edited February 13, 2024 at 10:20 PM by Josh Martin

[Joseph Clark]

Mr. Martin,

 

Thank you.  I totally agree.  The member alleged that the election was not in accordance with Robert's,

but I was a first-hand witness. 

I will be sure to raise a point of order if he raises a protest at the next meeting, and maybe it will put an

end to what has become a ridiculous series of events.

[Guest Anon]

On 2/13/2024 at 4:56 PM, Joseph Clark said:

I will be sure to raise a point of order if he raises a protest at the next meeting

Unless the member is the chair, you should not raise a point of order. If another member raises some point of order, such as that someone was invalidly elected three years ago(?!), first the chair will rule on the point of order. Then, if you disagree with the chair's ruling, you will appeal that ruling, and the assembly will vote either to sustain or overrule the chair.

[Joseph Clark]

that member is not the chair.  Thank you.

[Atul Kapur]

It the member is continuing to complain about events from three years ago, I find it hard to believe that it is relevant ("germane") to whatever is the business at hand ("the immediately pending question"). So you could raise a point of order that the member us not speaking on topic and ask the chair to call the member to order.

[Michael Seebeck]

"Robert's Rules of Order is hereby recognized as authority on parliamentary procedure."

That's a poorly-worded Bylaw, and it is understandable why there may be confusion.  Being "authoritative" on something doesn't necessarily mean that that authority is binding to be followed.  It just means that it's a best source or reference.

My own suggestion is to try to get that Bylaw amended so that there is no doubt, by having the wording given in 56:49 and 56:66: “The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the <organization> in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the <organization> may adopt.”

[Gary Novosielski]

On 2/13/2024 at 6:23 PM, Joseph Clark said:

that member is not the chair.  Thank you.

I'm not sure you have it quite right yet.   There is no need for you to raise a point of order, since you are not alleging that rules were broken.  There is apparently a member, not the chair, who is complaining about the election three years ago.  Unless this member raises a point of order he has no right to complain how things were handled.  If he complains during a meeting his remarks should be ruled out of order.  If he does raise a point of order, the chair should rule the point not well taken, as it is stunningly untimely, and no continuing breach exists at this point.

In the unlikely event that the chair rules the point well taken, you would then raise an Appeal, which requires a second, is debatable to a limited extent, and to overrule the chair's decision requires a majority in the negative to the question: "Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?" 

Edited February 14, 2024 at 09:58 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Joseph Clark]

if he does raise a point of order, the chair SHOULD rule the point well taken, but the chair, our club president, is not a parliamentarian, nor does the club have one.  It's doubtful that the chair will rule the point not well taken. I will research further and advise the chair at our next Executive Committee meeting.

 

Edited February 14, 2024 at 10:40 PM by Joseph Clark
Unnecessary request for reference.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 2/14/2024 at 5:36 PM, Joseph Clark said:

if he does raise a point of order, the chair SHOULD rule the point well taken, but the chair, our club president, is not a parliamentarian, nor does the club have one.  It's doubtful that the chair will rule the point not well taken. I will research further and advise the chair at our next Executive Committee meeting.

 

I'm curious why you believe the chair should rule the point well taken.  What possible justification can there be to overturn a three-year-old election?

[Joseph Clark]

Sir,

I inadvertently left out the word "not".

[Josh Martin]

On 2/14/2024 at 4:36 PM, Joseph Clark said:

if he does raise a point of order, the chair SHOULD rule the point well taken, but the chair, our club president, is not a parliamentarian, nor does the club have one.  It's doubtful that the chair will rule the point not well taken. I will research further and advise the chair at our next Executive Committee meeting.

Mr. Clark, I earlier made an assumption that the terms of office in your society are three years or less in length. That is, the term of office at issue in the election conducted three years ago has now expired. Could you please confirm whether that assumption is correct?