Fundamental Examination of Robert's Rules?

[Guest red slider]

In a conversation on the Senate use/abuse of the filibuster, I found myself attaching a footnote in my response to one of the contributor's ideas. While it is true that Robert's serves fairly well in most cases, and bodies are free to make up rules that serve their own methods and interests better, still Robert's has served as an underlying model for a long time and simply could not predict how it's interpretations and circumstance might alter fundamental assumptions in the long run. True, the Rules are revised from time to time and local interpretations and laws are used to supplement or overrule them. Still, the premise that we might profit from a deep examination of the text and how it may influence the quality and outcome of our decisions as well as how we conduct the processes to arrive at those decisions, might be in order. Do the very processes interfere with or precondition what results are achieved, what decisions are made? How might they be doing so, even in ways we are unaware? I don't pretend to have answers, these are thorny questions. But perhaps now, at the outset of a new century, it would be a good time to examine such questions? Here is what I wrote:

Perhaps it is time to open up the whole matter of how we conduct deliberative processes in this society; particularly in our public bodies. Robert's Rules and Congressional and other public processes (which used Robert's as a foundation) were meant to facilitate deliberation and decision making and avoid violent disagreement. However, a lot of very clever lawyers (which is what most of Congress is) have had a lot of time since Robert's (1876) to subvert its original intent and find 'get-arounds' that can virtually produce the opposite of what the rules were meant to promote. No matter that lawyers are working both sides of the street. The intention of both is to gain advantage by employing (or distorting) the rules in their favor. The rules themselves have had sufficient time to become corrupted. Perhaps we need a new set of rules for the 21st century which reestablish the original purposes of producing sound decisions in an atmosphere that facilitates cogent arguments be heard and sober reflection be made. Time for an overhaul of the rules themselves? Perhaps.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

In a conversation on the Senate use/abuse of the filibuster, I found myself attaching a footnote in my response to one of the contributor's ideas. While it is true that Robert's serves fairly well in most cases, and bodies are free to make up rules that serve their own methods and interests better, still Robert's has served as an underlying model for a long time and simply could not predict how it's interpretations and circumstance might alter fundamental assumptions in the long run. True, the Rules are revised from time to time and local interpretations and laws are used to supplement or overrule them. Still, the premise that we might profit from a deep examination of the text and how it may influence the quality and outcome of our decisions as well as how we conduct the processes to arrive at those decisions, might be in order.

Do the very processes interfere with or precondition what results are achieved, what decisions are made?

How might they be doing so, even in ways we are unaware?

I don't pretend to have answers, these are thorny questions.

But perhaps now, at the outset of a new century, it would be a good time to examine such questions?

Here is what I wrote:

Perhaps it is time to open up the whole matter of how we conduct deliberative processes in this society; particularly in our public bodies. Robert's Rules and Congressional and other public processes (which used Robert's as a foundation) were meant to facilitate deliberation and decision making and avoid violent disagreement. However, a lot of very clever lawyers (which is what most of Congress is) have had a lot of time since Robert's (1876) to subvert its original intent and find 'get-arounds' that can virtually produce the opposite of what the rules were meant to promote. No matter that lawyers are working both sides of the street. The intention of both is to gain advantage by employing (or distorting) the rules in their favor. The rules themselves have had sufficient time to become corrupted. Perhaps we need a new set of rules for the 21st century which reestablish the original purposes of producing sound decisions in an atmosphere that facilitates cogent arguments be heard and sober reflection be made. Time for an overhaul of the rules themselves? Perhaps.

What is your question about the Tenth Edition (2000) of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised?

[hmtcastle]

But perhaps now, at the outset of a new century, it would be a good time to examine such questions?

The century began ten years ago.

The rules themselves have had sufficient time to become corrupted.

I trust you're not referring to RONR.

Time for an overhaul of the rules themselves?

The publication of the 11th edition is imminent.

[Josh Martin]

In a conversation on the Senate use/abuse of the filibuster

I have no idea how the use of the filibuster in the U. S. Senate is relevant to a forum regarding discussion of Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, as RONR does not permit filibusters and the U. S. Senate does not use RONR as its parliamentary authority.

Robert's Rules and Congressional and other public processes (which used Robert's as a foundation) were meant to facilitate deliberation and decision making and avoid violent disagreement.

You have your cause and effect reversed. RONR was based (partly) on the procedures of the U. S. House of Representatives at the time, not the other way around. Neither house of the U. S. Congress uses RONR as its parliamentary authority, and most state legislatures don't use it either (and even for the few that do, it's pretty much irrelevant due to the mass of special rules of order they adopt). RONR is generally only used in "public processes" on the more local level, such as city and county government.

However, a lot of very clever lawyers (which is what most of Congress is) have had a lot of time since Robert's (1876) to subvert its original intent and find 'get-arounds' that can virtually produce the opposite of what the rules were meant to promote.

Neither house of the U. S. Congress uses RONR as its parliamentary authority.

Perhaps we need a new set of rules for the 21st century which reestablish the original purposes of producing sound decisions in an atmosphere that facilitates cogent arguments be heard and sober reflection be made. Time for an overhaul of the rules themselves?

A discussion of any "overhaul" of rules, whether you are referring to the rules of RONR or the rules of particular assemblies (whether or not they use RONR), is beyond the scope of this forum. It may be helpful for these discussions with others, however, if you get some of your facts straight.

If you actually have a question about Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 10th edition, we would be happy to help.

[Tim Wynn]

Time for an overhaul of the rules themselves? Perhaps.

As RONR is a private publication, the public does not have a vote concerning its content, except by choosing whether or not to purchase it, and, in that regard, the world has clearly stated its approval.

The rules themselves have had sufficient time to become corrupted.

It sounds to me like your suggesting a new rule should be inserted, such as, "These rules shall not be corrupted," which means, you're blaming the victim for the crime, simply because the victim was not impervious to the criminal.

No rule can make people adhere to the rules. Only people can do that. RONR is a tool, a great one. However, any tool can be misused, and that is not the failing of the tool.

[David A Foulkes]

However, any tool can be misused, and that is not the failing of the tool.

"It's a poor musician who blames his instrument." (Don't ask me who said it, but it was someone was wiser than I, no doubt)

[Rob Elsman]

In a conversation on the Senate use/abuse of the filibuster, I found myself attaching a footnote in my response to one of the contributor's ideas. While it is true that Robert's serves fairly well in most cases, and bodies are free to make up rules that serve their own methods and interests better, still Robert's has served as an underlying model for a long time and simply could not predict how it's interpretations and circumstance might alter fundamental assumptions in the long run. True, the Rules are revised from time to time and local interpretations and laws are used to supplement or overrule them. Still, the premise that we might profit from a deep examination of the text and how it may influence the quality and outcome of our decisions as well as how we conduct the processes to arrive at those decisions, might be in order. Do the very processes interfere with or precondition what results are achieved, what decisions are made? How might they be doing so, even in ways we are unaware? I don't pretend to have answers, these are thorny questions. But perhaps now, at the outset of a new century, it would be a good time to examine such questions? Here is what I wrote:

Perhaps it is time to open up the whole matter of how we conduct deliberative processes in this society; particularly in our public bodies. Robert's Rules and Congressional and other public processes (which used Robert's as a foundation) were meant to facilitate deliberation and decision making and avoid violent disagreement. However, a lot of very clever lawyers (which is what most of Congress is) have had a lot of time since Robert's (1876) to subvert its original intent and find 'get-arounds' that can virtually produce the opposite of what the rules were meant to promote. No matter that lawyers are working both sides of the street. The intention of both is to gain advantage by employing (or distorting) the rules in their favor. The rules themselves have had sufficient time to become corrupted. Perhaps we need a new set of rules for the 21st century which reestablish the original purposes of producing sound decisions in an atmosphere that facilitates cogent arguments be heard and sober reflection be made. Time for an overhaul of the rules themselves? Perhaps.

RONR (10th ed.) is principally for use in ordinary, non-legislative bodies. If you don't like the rules of order in Congress, write your congressman and senators.

[Guest Nancy N.]

You guys reflexively getting defensive. Gimme a break. No need to be snippy. Lighten up. Red Slider, the OP, makes some thoughtful points -- some which most of the responders have entertained at one time or another. And while some niggling details might have got wrong, that doesn't affect the larger issues. And while this forum might not be the perfect venue for such discussion, the moderator is on record (I got a print-out somewhere) that the regulars know they get away with murder (but more often mere mayhem), which might not apply to Red Slider (unless that's Jay Maynard's other secret identity when he's not wearing his Tron supersuit), but certainly would certainly apply to Messers. Goldsworthy, Mountcastle, Martin, Wynn, Foulkes, and Elsman. And maybe somebody else. There's nominally five hundred registered members of this forum, and probably almost half have posted more than once.

(Digressed again. Great Steaming Cobnuts.)

[hmtcastle]

. . . but certainly would certainly apply to Messers. Goldsworthy, Mountcastle, Martin, Wynn, Foulkes, and Elsman. And maybe somebody else.

Messer. Tesser comes (certainly) to mind.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

...

Red Slider, the OP, makes some thoughtful points ...

...

I wouldn't go so far as to say that.

Like any evolving thing, it is not useful to point at X in its present long-evolved state, and pretend that we, as collective hive-minded worker-bee group, will de-mantle it, and build it up anew. And expect improvement.

Anything built by thousands of people over hundreds of years won't be re-invented by thousands of descendants of those same people.

All you can do is tweak one strand of DNA on the long, long double helix.

And while this forum might not be the perfect venue for such discussion,

...

Amen, sister.

[Gary Novosielski]

Like any evolving thing, it is not useful to point at X in its present long-evolved state, and pretend that we, as collective hive-minded worker-bee group, will de-mantle it, and build it up anew. And expect improvement.

Indeed, I have had the distinct displeasure of witnessing two such attempts--both unmitigated disasters.

[Josh Martin]

Red Slider, the OP, makes some thoughtful points -- some which most of the responders have entertained at one time or another. And while some niggling details might have got wrong, that doesn't affect the larger issues.

I don't dispute any of this. I just think this is not the appropriate forum for the discussion. I concede that I could have been kinder in my corrections.

And while this forum might not be the perfect venue for such discussion, the moderator is on record (I got a print-out somewhere) that the regulars know they get away with murder (but more often mere mayhem), which might not apply to Red Slider (unless that's Jay Maynard's other secret identity when he's not wearing his Tron supersuit), but certainly would certainly apply to Messers. Goldsworthy, Mountcastle, Martin, Wynn, Foulkes, and Elsman. And maybe somebody else. There's nominally five hundred registered members of this forum, and probably almost half have posted more than once.

Well, perhaps, but he is also on record as not caring about what anyone has to say about what the rules of RONR should be, only what they are, so that nips in the bud any "fundamental examination" of the rules of RONR. I also expect a "fundamental examination" of the rules of the U. S. Congress would be pushing our luck a bit too far.

[Gary Novosielski]

I also expect a "fundamental examination" of the rules of the U. S. Congress would be pushing our luck a bit too far.

Here, certainly.

In the larger world, we might actually have more success changing them than changing what's in RONR.

In fact, I'd even give the former the much stronger edge in the advisability department.

[Josh Martin]

In the larger world, we might actually have more success changing them than changing what's in RONR.

Well, I'm fairly certain that our ability to change what's in RONR is essentially zero, except to the extent that we help the authors realize which areas need clarification, so this is certainly an accurate statement.

[Gary Novosielski]

Well, I'm fairly certain that our ability to change what's in RONR is essentially zero, except to the extent that we help the authors realize which areas need clarification, so this is certainly an accurate statement.

Yes, I was counting heavily on the "anything more than zero" probability in forming my assessment of our chances.

[hmtcastle]

. . . except to the extent that we help the authors realize which areas need clarification . . .

I think that's no small contribution.

I don't know how much input was provided by general users of Robert's Rules (as opposed to professional parliamentarians) prior to previous revisions, but I have to think that there has been nothing like the thousands of questions asked and answered on this discussion forum (and its Q&A predecessor). For this reason alone, I look forward to the next edition.

[Guest red slider]

Gentlemen and Gentlewomen (I trust),

First let me apologize for introducing such an abstract matter to this group - a meta-level question, if you will. It is plain that you serve, here, to answer specific questions about parliamentary procedure in general, and applications of its Rules in particular. I knew that at the outset, from reading many of the posts to this forum. Still, you appear to be the experts in the discipline of formal discussion and its rules; and too, the title of this particular forum was "General Discussion", so I risked that some here have thought about such matters as I raised and might have instructive insights to offer. I apologize if I have taken a liberty which you did not intend (and may, even now, be taking one - as I have no 10th ed. question to ask). I have no complaint if your moderator simply wishes to remove this and my original post and leave it as if I had never paid you this visit.

That said, I did find your many responses both instructive and illuminating. I am appreciative of that, and thank you all for the variety and thoughtfulness of your responses. I did gain specific knowledge of some interesting matters about rules application, both here and from reading other topics in this forum, and I'm sure that is one of the intents of having this be a public one. Another interesting insight I gained came directly from the answers given in th topic I introduced, however wrongly. Some may object, but I feel relatively certain that your answers, taken as a whole, serve to make my original case: that specific rule-sets (whether Robert's or any others), over time, become paradigmatically closed and difficult for those steeped in its canon to examine their own fundamental propositions or heed calls to do so. This is not a failing or flaw on the part of practitioners, but merely a fact - an occupational hazard which cannot be avoided if we wish to have competent practice in any discipline. In Science (Kuhn, et al); in politics (Chomsky, et al); in medicine and any other practice, reluctance to re-examine established canon is a predictable trade-off.

In my own discipline (poetry) this is just as problematic; with a certain difference. Even in the most specialized academic circles, I have found practitioners of poetry and poetics have an ear open to any question raised about the basic assumptions of poetry or poetics and its dominant paradigms. I have found that most of us regard such broad questions to be matters of vital concern. I've yet to encounter an instance of anyone raising such meta-level questions to be found off-topic or outside the scope of our practice. For most of us, it is as if someone had raised a 'point of order' and we are compelled to stop and seriously consider the matter. Now, all this is likely peculiar to the discipline of poetry. It should not lessen the fact that the question I raised here might be inappropriate in this forum - the potential need to examine the fundamental assumptions of our rules of order (Robert's or otherwise) and question how they might subtly condition, even in unconscious or unintended ways, discussions that operate under them. Still, your answers, taken en toto, do suggest that it is difficult for those within the discipline to consider matters which may vitally engage it but do not comfortably fit into the paradigms of practice. So, in a sense, you have informed me (perhaps unintentionally) that there may indeed be a very important need for examining the deep structures of Robert's and other models of conducting formal discussion and decision-making. That fact that others might have tried before is irrelevant. The fact of reluctance for those within the subject to engage such matters simply informs us that they may not be the best group to initiate or conduct such examination. To them, at least at first, it may appear to be off-topic and distracting from their principal work.

With that, I will thank you again for your kind assistance and absent myself from this forum.

ps. From my perspective, the century-clock moves far more slowly than our daily one and "ten years" remains well within the 'outset' parameters of such a span. Poetic license, perhaps, but that is how I regard time. BTW: Red Slider is, in fact, my name - I have never been to this site before my OP, nor do I recognize any of the names someone suggested might have been used as aliases for mine. - rs

[Dan Honemann]

If posts have some relevance to RONR they are usually permitted, no matter how sophomoric.

[Josh Martin]

I don't know how much input was provided by general users of Robert's Rules (as opposed to professional parliamentarians) prior to previous revisions...

General Robert and his successors received many letters asking parliamentary questions, which assisted in the development of new editions. (RONR, 10th ed., pgs. xl-xli) Certainly, however, the forum expands upon this considerably.

It is plain that you serve, here, to answer specific questions about parliamentary procedure in general, and applications of its Rules in particular.

That's still a little too broad. The forum's focus is limited to Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, not "parliamentary procedure in general."

Some may object, but I feel relatively certain that your answers, taken as a whole, serve to make my original case: that specific rule-sets (whether Robert's or any others), over time, become paradigmatically closed and difficult for those steeped in its canon to examine their own fundamental propositions or heed calls to do so.

Well, I would personally like to see some actual objections to the content of RONR before I see any need to "fundamentally examine" it. You've convinced me so far that there may be a need to "fundamentally examine" the rules of the U. S. Congress but that's about it.

Additionally, I think you need to read the introduction to Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 10th edition, as I'm not entirely convinced you have an understanding of how the common parliamentary law works. I'm not disputing that intense study of a discipline may make it difficult for people to "fundamentally examine" it, but at the same time, a deep understanding of a discipline is necessary to "fundamentally examine" it, and nothing you have said so far convinces me you have a sufficient understanding of RONR or the common parliamentary law to undertake such a task.

So, in a sense, you have informed me (perhaps unintentionally) that there may indeed be a very important need for examining the deep structures of Robert's and other models of conducting formal discussion and decision-making. That fact that others might have tried before is irrelevant. The fact of reluctance for those within the subject to engage such matters simply informs us that they may not be the best group to initiate or conduct such examination.

I never said I was reluctant to engage in such a discussion, just that I was reluctant to do it on this forum.

[Tim Wynn]

Messer. Tesser comes (certainly) to mind.

It's strange that Nancy so often forgets him.

[Tim Wynn]

Gentlemen and Gentlewomen (I trust),

Question everything.

[Tim Wynn]

The fact of reluctance for those within the subject to engage such matters simply informs us that they may not be the best group to initiate or conduct such examination.

I can't think of a better group.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

It is plain that you serve, here, to answer specific questions about parliamentary procedure in general, and applications of its Rules in particular.

...

but I feel relatively certain that your answers, taken as a whole, serve to make my original case:

that specific rule-sets (whether Robert's or any others), over time, become paradigmatically closed and difficult for those steeped in its canon to examine their own fundamental propositions or heed calls to do so.

I would feel for sympathy for your position if you had read (or studied) the competition of Robert's Rules of Order:

• Demeter

• Sturis

• Kerr & King

• Bourinot

• Atwood

• Deschler

• Riddick & Butcher

I mean, if you don't like the Robertian compilation of parliamentary law, then go with someone else's.

No one is stopping you.

Hey, there is no stopping you from 'rolling your own' as they did prior to 1876 (the year of the first edition of Robert's Rules of Order).

In my own discipline (poetry) this is just as problematic ...

Let me make an analogy.

Q. Hypothetically, would you take my meta-question about musical theater paradigms seriously if I had never heard of ______:

• Gilbert & Sullivan

• Stephen Soundheim

• Lerner & Lowe

• Bock & Harnick

• Rogers & Hammerstein

• Webber & Rice

Once you have a background in the history, then you speak constructively about what is missing or what is flawed about the status quo.

Analogy: How can you appraise the work of Stephen Schwartz (responsible for "Wicked" and "Godspell" and "Pippin") without first having a fair overview of contemporary Broadway?

[David A Foulkes]

It's strange that Nancy so often forgets him.

Question everything.

I can't think of a better group.

What - - trying to catch up to HWM's post count?

[Tim Wynn]

What - - trying to catch up to HWM's post count?

No, I just haven't mastered the art of multiple quotes, yet. Annoying the esteemed Mountcastle is just a lucky by-product. <- this emoticon should add to the irritation