Jim Slaughter's Blog: Robert's Rules & Parliamentary Procedure - Posts Tagged "roberts-rules"

Thousands of meetings occur every day, many claiming to follow Robert’s Rules of Order when transacting business. How is it we know so little about this book that’s so essential to meetings? Below are ten well-known “facts” about Robert’s Rules of Order. But as Mark Twain warned, “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

Myth #1: Parliamentary Procedure Doesn’t Matter
Most organizations dictate that a certain parliamentary book will be followed when transacting business. State laws often require that certain groups (governmental bodies, homeowner and condominium associations, nonprofits) follow specific rules or even Robert’s Rules during meetings. Ignoring or incorrectly applying these procedures can lead to embarrassment, hard feelings, and even lawsuits.

Myth #2: Any Robert’s Will Do
There are lots of books with “Robert’s Rules” in the title. However, most of these books are earlier editions of Robert’s or knock-offs. There’s only one official Robert’s Rules. The current book is Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (11th Edition), published in 2011. If you follow the “latest edition” of Robert’s, this is your book. Each new edition brings changes to procedure (the 11th Edition has 120 listed changes.)

Myth #3: Rules Are the Same for All Meetings
Rules aren’t one-size-fits all. Problems are common when large meetings behave too informally or small meetings behave too formally. Rules should be like clothes—they should fit the organization they are meant to serve.

Most parliamentary manuals provide that board meetings and membership meetings are conducted differently. Large meetings must be fairly formal. However, formality can hinder business in smaller bodies. As a result, Robert’s recommends less formal rules for small boards and committees that include:
•No seconds to motions.
•No limits on debate.
•The chair can debate and vote.

Smaller boards that dislike this informality may wish to follow more formal procedures. Even informal boards may choose to be more formal on important or controversial matters.

Myth #4: Seconds Always Matter
A second to a motion implies that at least one other person wants to discuss the motion. If there is no second, there should be no further action on the proposal, so seconds have their place. However, after any debate on an issue, the lack of a second is irrelevant. Seconds from the floor aren’t even required in smaller boards or on motions from committees.

Myth #5: Debate and a Formal Vote Are Required
Many noncontroversial matters can be resolved without debate through “general” or “unanimous” consent. Using this method, the presiding officer asks, “Is there any objection to …?” For example, “Is there any objection to ending debate?” If no one objects, you’re done. Debate is closed. If a member objects, the matter is resolved with a motion and vote. Unanimous consent allows an assembly to move quickly through non-contested issues.

Myth #6: The Maker of a Motion Gets to Speak First and Last
The maker of a motion has the right to speak first to a proposal. After that, the maker has no more rights to speak than other members. In fact, the maker cannot speak a second time unless everyone else who wishes to speak to the issue has had a chance.

Myth #7: “Old Business”
Opening up the floor to “Old Business” is not proper parliamentary procedure, and should never be done. First, “Old Business” is not a parliamentary term; second, it suggests a revisiting of any old thing ever discussed. The correct term to use is “Unfinished Business,” which makes clear that you are referring to specific items carried over from the previous meeting. A presiding officer never needs to ask, “Is there any Unfinished Business?” but simply states the question on the first item. Annual meetings generally have no unfinished business.

Myth #8: Yelling Out “Question!” Stops Debate
The Previous Question (or motion to close debate) is often handled wrong. Shouting “Question!” from the back of the room is not only bad form, it’s ineffective. The motion to close debate is just another motion. A member wanting to close debate must be recognized by the chair. The Previous Question requires a second and a two-thirds vote. Only the assembly decides when to end debate.

Myth #9: “Lay on the Table” Kills Sticky Issues
The motion to “Lay on the Table” temporarily delays a matter when some other urgent issue has arisen. Once the urgent matter is over, the group can resume the tabled matter. Because the motion to Table is undebatable and only requires a majority vote, it should not be used to get rid of a matter. Robert’s provides that the motion is out of order if the intent is to kill or avoid dealing with a measure.

Myth #10: The Chair Rules the Meeting
The chair is the servant of the assembly, not its master. Put another way, the chair can only get away with what the assembly allows. If the rules of the assembly are being violated, any member can raise a “Point of Order.” Once the chair rules on the Point of Order, a member can Appeal from the decision of the chair. If seconded, the Appeal takes the parliamentary question away from the chair and gives it to the assembly. The assembly is the ultimate decider of all procedural issues.


If you lead or attend meetings that conduct business, you should learn at least the basics of Robert’s Rules and parliamentary procedure. The benefits of a well-run meeting go beyond legal concerns. Proper procedure can turn long, confrontational meetings into short, painless ones. Eliminating these myths and educating your membership will bring your meetings more in line with proper procedure and result in shorter, more effective meetings. Have a great meeting!

==========================

This article originally appeared at http://www.idiotsguides.com/static/qu....
For many free charts and articles on meeting procedure, visit www.jimslaughter.com

Today (May 2) is the 176th birthday of the author of the original Robert’s Rules of Order, Henry Martyn Robert. He was born May 2, 1837, in Robertville, South Carolina.

The current edition of the book, Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (11th Edition), would be hardly recognizable to Robert. His 1876 Pocket Manual of Rules of Order for Deliberative Assemblies was 176 pages long. Robert’s vision was to create a “very brief pocket manual, so cheap that every member of a church or society could own a copy, and so arranged as to enable one quickly to find when any particular motion could be made” (as quoted in The Great Peacemaker by Ralph Smedley, the founder of Toastmasters International). In contrast, the 11th Edition weighs in at 716 pages! That’s not necessarily a bad thing, as more recent editions include procedural aspects not dreamt of by Robert—including sections on voting by mail, machine, proxy, and even electronic meetings. Newer Robert’s also take into consideration informal procedures for smaller boards where there are not more than about a dozen members present, which includes most governmental bodies and the boards of directors for many nonprofits and community associations (homeowner and condominium associations).

Students of parliamentary procedure are often surprised to learn that were many competitors to Robert’s Rules in the late 1800′s and early 1900′s. (See http://www.jimslaughter.com/Parliamen...) However, the orderliness of the book, its logic, and Robert’s good marketing sense made it a stand-out. Excellent authorship teams since Robert have kept the book alive, unlike many other good parliamentary manuals of the last century. Even current competitors to Robert’s are indebted to the book and its subsequent editions, as most explain why they diverge from Robert’s or are written for smaller or specific organizations.

So, thanks General Robert! And happy birthday!

==================

For many free charts and articles on meeting procedure, visit www.jimslaughter.com
Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th edition

The term “filibuster” has burst back into the public consciousness due to several high profile political happenings. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has threatened a "nuclear option" in the United States Senate to prohibit filibusters of certain presidential nominees. And recently in Texas, state Senator Wendy Davis used a 13 hour filibuster to defeat an abortion bill by speaking until the legislative clock ran out. Many news reports on these two events have mentioned the filibuster in the context of parliamentary procedure and the parliamentary manual, Robert’s Rules of Order. Twitter even reported that during Senator Davis’ filibuster the phrase “Robert’s Rules of Order” was trending worldwide.

The connection between “filibuster” and “Robert’s Rules of Order” is interesting, given that the word “filibuster” doesn’t appear in Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (11th Edition). Not once in 716 pages! That’s because the filibuster is a legislative concept. About the only recent parliamentary manual that describes the term is Demeter’s Manual of Parliamentary Law, which notes: “Filibuster, or talking a question to death, is a parliamentary proceeding practiced in the Senate of the United States.” (Demeter, p. 29) After a few sentences, Demeter concludes by noting “a filibuster cannot occur in [ordinary] organizations and it need be of no concern to you.”

According to Robert Luce’s 1922 classic, Legislative Procedure, the term “filibuster” comes from the Spanish word filibusteros, which described West Indian pirates that used a small boat called a filibote, or “fly-boat.” The term was originally applied to military adventurers, but it was soon extended in politics to “legislative minorities who used what the majority deemed piratical, disorderly, lawless methods.” (Luce, 283) Instances of filibustering can be found in the very first Congress of the United States in 1790. (Demeter notes as an interesting aside that debate in the U.S. House of Representatives was initially similarly unlimited, but “in 1820 the House adopted the one-hour limit when the brilliant and erratic John Randolph of Virginia consumed so much time in debate the rule was adopted to prevent his holding the floor indefinitely.”)

So why do Robert’s and most other modern parliamentary manuals ignore the filibuster? Well, because unless an organization has a special rule or custom that allows such a practice (as in the U.S. Senate), members can’t just keep talking. General parliamentary procedure has a philosophy of equalizing participation, in that it’s better to hear from six members one time than one member six times! In fact, Robert’s has several rules on debate that apply to most meetings and conventions (though not necessarily to smaller boards or committees) to prevent lengthy and repetitive debate:

1. No one can speak at one time more than 10 minutes.
2. Anyone who has not spoken gets to speak before anyone who has already spoken.
3. No one is permitted to speak a third time to a motion.

Whether your organization follows formal procedure or not, here are some practical suggestions for limiting debate:

◾Encourage new discussion and prevent repetition by asking for speakers who have not spoken.
◾Alternate pro and con. After hearing from a proponent, ask if there is anyone who wishes to speak against the motion. If no one wishes to speak on a particular side, it may be time to ask for unanimous consent to end debate.
◾The chair always has some responsibility to act as traffic cop. That is, if a member tries to jump in for a second or third time while others wish to speak, the chair (like an officer in an intersection) may need to hold out a hand palm-forward to “stop” the member and say, “Charlie, you’ve already spoken twice. Let’s hear from Mary.”
◾If a matter is likely to be lengthy, consider setting a total debate time by vote of the body.
◾If discussion appears to have reached diminishing returns, the chair can always ask for a motion to close debate.

While true filibusters only exist is some legislative settings, the above suggestions can help move discussion and keep debate from seeming to be never-ending!