Roberts Rules in general use

[Guest Chris S.]

This is a very general question I can't seem to get an answer to.  Is Robert Rules of Order a guidebook? We have members that feel the book is law and we have to follow every rule verbatim and word for word. I contend that RRO is a general guide to help organize and direct meetings to run efficiently and with order. 

Any help would be appreciated. 

[Rob Elsman]

An organization that adopts the book as its parliamentary authority commits itself to conduct its business meetings using the procedures the book sets out, remembering that many rules of order can be suspended for a particular purpose.

The book is not a book of statutes. It should be more thought of as a manual of parliamentary procedure.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 2/19/2024 at 3:57 PM, Guest Chris S. said:

This is a very general question I can't seem to get an answer to.  Is Robert Rules of Order a guidebook? We have members that feel the book is law and we have to follow every rule verbatim and word for word. I contend that RRO is a general guide to help organize and direct meetings to run efficiently and with order. 

Any help would be appreciated. 

If an organization has adopted Robert's Rules of Order as the parliamentary authority, then it should follow every rule verbatim and word for word, including the parts that say there is often no need to follow every rule verbatim and word for word:

- "In cases where there seems to be no opposition in routine business or on questions of little importance, time can often be saved by the procedure of unanimous consent, or as it was formerly also called, general consent. Action in this manner is in accord with the principle that rules are designed for the protection of the minority and generally need not be strictly enforced when there is no minority to protect. Under these conditions, the method of unanimous consent can be used either to adopt a motion without the steps of stating the question and putting the motion to a formal vote, or it can be used to take action without even the formality of a motion." (4:58)

- "There is no acceptable alternative to parliamentary procedure for the conduct of business in a deliberative assembly; yet many presiding officers try to get along with a minimum of knowledge. This approach inevitably results in signs of unsureness. … The president should never be technical or more strict than is necessary for the good of the meeting. Good judgment is essential; the assembly may be of such a nature, through its unfamiliarity with parliamentary usage and its peaceable disposition, that strict enforcement of the rules, instead of assisting, would greatly hinder business. But in large assemblies where there is much work to be done, and especially where there is likelihood of trouble, the only safe course is to require a strict observance of the rules." (47:14–19)

[Josh Martin]

On 2/19/2024 at 2:57 PM, Guest Chris S. said:

This is a very general question I can't seem to get an answer to.  Is Robert Rules of Order a guidebook? We have members that feel the book is law and we have to follow every rule verbatim and word for word. I contend that RRO is a general guide to help organize and direct meetings to run efficiently and with order. 

Neither of these is correct. The truth is somewhere in between the two.

RONR is not simply a "general guide." If RONR is an organization's parliamentary authority, it is binding, not simply a suggestion.

On the other hand, to say "the book is law and we have to follow every rule verbatim and word for word" goes too far in the other direction. The assembly is generally free to adopt special rules of order superseding the rules in RONR, and is also generally free to suspend the rules in a particular case. More often than not, if the assembly wants to do something - especially if there are 2/3 in support - there is a way to do it. Further, there are areas in RONR which provide for flexibility in particular situations, such as the somewhat looser rules on certain subjects for small boards.

I would also note that another problem is there is no guarantee that those who insist "the book is law and we have to follow every rule verbatim and word for word" actually have a correct understanding of the words in the book. Often, I find the persons who shout the loudest about how the assembly "has to follow Robert's Rules" will proceed to insist the assembly follow a rule which is not, in fact, in Robert's Rules.

"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. What another manual may have to say in conflict with the adopted parliamentary authority then has no bearing on the case. In matters on which an organization's adopted parliamentary authority is silent, provisions found in other works on parliamentary law may be persuasive—that is, they may carry weight in the absence of overriding reasons for following a different course—but they are not binding on the body." RONR (12th ed.) 2:18

We may be able to provide further guidance if you can provide specific examples of where this disagreement has led to conflict on the board. I might also suggest reviewing RONR (12th ed.) 2:14-22, and Section 25.

Edited February 19, 2024 at 10:44 PM by Josh Martin