Robert's Rules in Real Life

Do we have to obey the mayor?

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 23:20:00 GMT

After a dozen years in this business, it seems to me that questions of authority are some of the hardest to resolve.

Over and over I find city councils, boards of directors, and other governing boards struggling with the question, “Who’s in charge here, anyway?” If a group understands certain fundamental principles, it becomes much easier to resolve those tensions and move forward effectively.

During a recent consultation, this sentence from a set of “council rules and procedures” made my hair stand on end:

“All persons present at a meeting must obey the mayor’s orders.”

This rule is profoundly wrong. It may look legitimate, but it isn’t. The mayor, when running a meeting of the city council, is the presiding officer, not a dictator. The presiding officer runs the meeting as the servant of the members. The correct rule is similar to the one cited above, but has a subtle and essential difference:

“All persons present at a meeting must obey the legitimate orders of the presiding officer.”

The legitimate orders of the presiding officer are those issued in accordance with the rules and procedures adopted by the group, to serve the group. And according to Robert’s Rules of Order and common parliamentary law, those orders are subject to appeal by any two members of the group. For example, if the presiding officer declares that someone is speaking off topic and must stop forthwith, the member can say “I appeal.” If another member says “second,” then the group itself will vote to decide whether the member may continue.

Why don’t people know this? Why do councilmembers, county commissioners, directors of special districts and nonprofit board members allow the mayor, the chair or the president to ride roughshod over the group, acting as if he or she were the final authority?

We have lost the common understanding of meeting procedure that grew up in this country when America was alive with associations, astonishing the Frenchman de Tocqueville and English authors who toured the continent. We are used to the image of the “captain of industry,” the hard-charging boss who carries everyone in her wake. We want to be nice and “get along,” and it may seem safer to keep our heads down, letting a bully or an autocrat rule the roost without a challenge.

Members of our community, unite! Elected officials, citizens appointed to commissions and committees, long-suffering volunteers, seize your rights! Repeat after me, THE GROUP IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY. Yes, we have to obey the mayor when the mayor is enforcing the rules we chose, but when the mayor goes off-course or runs amok, he or she must obey US.

Ann G. Macfarlane, PRP

Supreme Court follows most important of Robert’s Rules of Order

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 21:58:00 GMT

When the nine justices met yesterday to discuss their ruling on health care, they followed the most important rule in all of Robert’s Rules of Order.

Each justice presented his or her opinion, and no one could speak twice until everyone had spoken once.

This simple rule is vital to good meetings. Too many times, when boards of directors or city councils get together, the discussion is run like a conversation. One person speaks, another answers, the first one answers back, and others sit around waiting. This violates the fundamental principle of fairness in discussion.

Groups that adopt and follow the rule that no one may speak twice until everyone who wishes to do so has spoken will find that they get a clear and complete picture of the group’s separate views. It is then easy to see where there is agreement, where the sticking points lie, and what issues should be taken up next.

This method also forestalls our natural tendency towards “groupthink” – going along with what everyone else seems to think. Learning the independent views of each individual first, rather than allowing folks to trim their sails to the prevailing winds, will result in much better decisions.

Introverts and minority members often have important insights for the group’s work as a whole. Let them speak! If it’s good enough for the Supreme Court, it ought to be good enough for us.

Ann G. Macfarlane, Professional Registered Parliamentarian

Blog

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:58:00 GMT

This item has no description. Follow link to view item.

Advancing City Clerks

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:10:00 GMT

We are pleased to offer advanced training in agendas, minutes and meeting administration for city clerks on April 11, 2012.

Jurassic Parliament and the Pierce County Clerks’ and Finance Officers’ Association will present a custom training for city clerks including advanced training in agendas, minutes and meeting administration.

Wednesday, April 11, 2012
8:15 am – 1:30 pm
Council Chambers, City of Auburn
25 W. Main St.
Auburn WA 98001

Learn more and download the registration flier here.

Psychlotron IV: Swords vs. Dinosaurs

Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:38:00 GMT

Smashing ideas together at high speed just to see what happens – Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Geof Alm, actor and stage combat choreographer, and Ann Macfarlane, Professional Registered Parliamentarian, are featured in Infinity Box Theatre Project’s presentation of Psychlotron IV. They will briefly present ideas related to their work. The audience is then invited to join the conversation, smash the ideas together and see what comes out. David Mills, Infinity Box Artistic Director, will moderate.

Join us in the Fireside Room of the Sorrento Hotel

900 Madison St., Seattle, Washington

Tuesday February 21, 2012

Happy Hour from 4 – 6 pm

Psychlotron from 6-7 pm

No tickets or reservations are required; the event is free of charge.

Resolve that it won't happen to you

Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:48:00 GMT

The Seattle Times describes today how a former program manager for Senior Services has been charged with theft of $91,000.

We thought blog readers might find our recent newsletter article on this topic of interest, as given below:

The weekend paper brings yet another sad story of theft from a nonprofit – sadder in this case because the thief was a deaf employee, working for the Vancouver Association of the Deaf. Fortunately the amount involved was small, only $6,527. It’s not like the national nonprofit organization I was a member of some years ago, whose energetic and simpatico treasurer was funding her condo in Hawaii and her fancy car from the accounts.

What is it about the nonprofit world that makes its board members so trusting? We are working to improve the human condition, I guess, and don’t like to look at those aspects that need correction rather than improvement. It’s also true that thinking about money is unpleasant, because there’s never enough. And it’s usually a challenge to make sense of the financial statements. If you’re not a trained accountant, you may want to throw up your hands and take the executive director’s word that all is in order.

But embezzlement is all around us. If you serve on a nonprofit board of directors, you have a duty to make sure that theft isn’t taking place under your nose. Make it your New Year’s resolution to get a firm handle on your nonprofit’s financial workings. All that’s necessary is to pay attention and ask questions. Here are some useful resources, all available without charge:

We salute Blue Avocado, which offers great information on this topic, and wish you a productive year that betters the lot of humankind while seeing all the affairs of your nonprofit organization in good order!

Ann G. Macfarlane
Professional Registered Parliamentarian

Holiday Gift Exchange and Robert's Rules of Order

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 18:01:00 GMT

A friend and I were chatting recently about the challenges we encounter in gift exchanges. These customs, which seem like a friendly, easy way to engage members of a group and celebrate our togetherness, don’t always live up to their promise.

Whether it be a cluster of relatives, a book club, or a different social group, the possibility of disintegration and chaos can rear its ugly head. We thought our readers might enjoy a few simple guidelines, inspired by Robert’s Rules of Order and modified to suit this particular long-established holiday activity.

1) Members shall read the instructions. When you send out an email saying that your family will hold a “white elephant” gift exchange on Christmas Eve, each person to provide one gift worth $10 or less, your brother-in-law shall not show up with $30 trinkets from Brookstone for the relatives he likes best.

2) If they didn’t read the instructions, members shall listen up when the rules of the game are explained. It’s hard to get everybody to settle down and concentrate on who is allowed to “steal” a book from whom, and how many times a gift can change hands, but if you don’t know the rules you can’t play the game.

3) The organizer shall keep things moving. A certain amount of energy and enthusiasm on the part of the organizer is critical to the enjoyment of all.

4) Members shall not gab during the gift exchange. How can you tell whether you want to “steal” a book opened by someone with a lower number than yours, if everyone is talking at such high volume that nobody can hear what the book is? Self-restraint will improve the game for everyone.

5) Members shall not take offense when the rules are followed. Since the option to “steal” a gift introduces an element of surprise (including, perhaps, suppressed hostility!) everyone has to take it all in the right spirit – or at least pretend to.

6) Members shall not lecture other members on how much better it would be not to waste time and money on silly games, but instead make a donation to a mutually-agreed upon charity. Let your righteousness speak for itself, and don’t inflict it on your long-suffering friends and relations.

7) The organizer shall display forbearance when these rules are broken. It’s a universal rule of human groups that we need an organizer, and it’s a universal tendency of group members to resent her for being bossy. When the milk of human kindness flows freely, everyone can enjoy the spirit of the season, despite the likelihood that the rules will not be followed to perfection.

What rules would you add to this list? All suggestions welcome...

Ann G. Macfarlane, PRP
© Jurassic Parliament 2011. All rights reserved.

Do gadflies have the right to speak before the vote is taken?

Fri, 02 Dec 2011 03:50:00 GMT

Tuesday’s training session brought many questions. For example, if an eager (not to say obnoxious) citizen gives his comment, and then raises his hand before the vote, does he have the right to speak again?

For members of the Association of California Water Agencies Joint Powers Insurance Authority, it is the Ralph M. Brown Act that determines the answer to this question. Section 54954.3(a) begins, “Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body’s consideration of the item, that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body…” Reading this clause as a lay person and not an attorney, I would think that “an opportunity” means “one opportunity.” If the agenda includes a designated period, and a member of the public speaks, he’s had his chance. The council is not obliged to listen to him again before voting - although it may choose to do so, by majority vote, if it wishes.

The Brown Act further allows legislative bodies to adopt regulations limiting the total amount of time allocated for public testimony on particular issues and for each individual speaker. That’s a darn good thing. It is not easy to enlist capable and dedicated citizens to give their time to the special districts, commissions, councils and committees that make our web of governance hum. Providing for some kind of reasonable balance in time allotted to public input versus time spent in actual deliberation seems essential.

The key point that we urge on all elected and appointed officials is to distinguish between getting the public input necessary to make good decisions, and holding the council discussion that leads to making the decision itself. Public input is vital, but it is not the same as deliberation – when the members of the body discuss the question, weigh its different aspects, and then decide. Allowing the public to speak during the council discussion period confuses people about who has the actual authority, and makes it harder for the body to do its work. We say, let the gadfly have his full allotted time, but no more than that.

Our Tip Sheet “Running Successful Public Comment Sessions at Council Meetings” offers a host of suggestions for councils, commissions, committees and other bodies. It’s a great starting point – and do be sure to consult with your attorney, to make sure that the guidelines you adopt conform to your state’s law and regulations.

Ann G. Macfarlane, PRP

"We shouldn't seek a dime until we change this bylaw"

Wed, 23 Nov 2011 09:53:00 GMT

The Lewis County Historical Museum is in big trouble, and the secretary proposes to change a bylaw. Is this the right way to go?

Jurassic Parliament is always glad when boards think about their bylaws. Too often, bylaws are regarded as boilerplate, verbiage that has to exist but is not interesting. We believe that bylaws are fascinating and we know that they are vital to your work on a nonprofit board of directors.

Bylaws are the foundation on which any serious nonprofit organization conducts its work. They set out the terms and conditions under which the good purposes of your group can be pursued. They need to be carefully written and frequently referred to. Bylaws moldering in a file folder do nobody any good at all.

In the case of the Lewis County museum, over the last four years the endowment has shrunk from about half a million dollars to a couple of grand left in the checking account. Three employees have been laid off indefinitely, the police locked the building up tight in order to get the financial records, and the board has been meeting in emergency session. The board secretary proposed to change the bylaws to require that any future activity with any future endowment money must be signed off on by all members of the board of directors.

In our view, this would be a clumsy way to ensure probity in a nonprofit’s financial dealings. Any responsible board must undertake a series of steps regarding its finances, some of which we outline in our article “Who’s Responsible for the Money?” For example, one of the laid-off employees was the bookkeeper, who was also serving as treasurer – it is not a good idea to have a single person fulfill both roles.

When you are elected or appointed to a nonprofit board of directors, take the time to read the bylaws and to review the financial arrangements. Don’t allow the pleasure of joining a worthy endeavor to keep you from examining how things are done, and asking questions to become informed. Whether you serve as treasurer, chair, or “just” an ordinary director, you are responsible for using that money wisely. Best to think about the bylaws before the crisis, rather than after.

Ann G. Macfarlane, PRP

You're Invited to our Online Housewarming Party

Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:29:00 GMT

Those who know us well appreciate our passion for making Robert’s Rules work well for everyone, not just parliamentarians. To that end, we’ve recently concluded a thorough renovation of this website.

In appreciation of your visit, we are offering a housewarming party favor. When you check out, use our special discount and type in PARTY. You’ll save 20% on all your purchases through December 16, 2011.

We’ve also widely expanded our content library. This labor of love not only delivers a more intuitive experience for our guests, but also provides access to a comprehensive set of resources designed to demystify Robert’s Rules and enable you to easily apply its basic principles in your own home, or at least in your meetings.

When you explore you will find:

Articles providing insightful nuggets on Robert’s Rules
Tip Sheets for use during sessions calling for Robert’s Rules of Order
Mastery Lessons for building a comprehensive knowledge base
Online Courses for those wanting on-demand access to training
Money-saving Bundles collecting great resources in one package
General information you can come back to time and again, as needed

We hope you visit and enjoy what we’ve built. Our architect and builders are all open to hearing your opinions, so please let us know what you think.

We look forward to seeing you.

Your neighbors at Jurassic Parliament

Supreme Court affirms you can’t take action without a quorum

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 23:21:00 GMT

Today’s news story on the National Labor Relations Board reminds that the Supreme Court has affirmed one fundamental principle of Robert’s Rules of Order: you must have a quorum to take action.

While the word “quorum” looks esoteric, its meaning is basic. A “quorum” is the minimum number of voting members of a group who must be present to take action. In a small group, the quorum is often a majority of the members. (“Majority” means “more than half.”) For a nonprofit board of ten people, for instance, the quorum would be six.

Ordinarily the bylaws say what the quorum is. Bylaws can establish a different quorum, and for larger groups, they should. In the American Translators Association, which I served as president, the quorum for the meeting of voting members is either 100 voting members or 10% of the voting members, whichever is lower.

It’s important to be aware of what your state law says, though. In Washington State, the minimum quorum for a nonprofit board of directors is one-third of the members. This sets a floor, and your specific bylaws may not go below it.

The National Labor Relations Board has five members, and due to political shenanigans, it has been functioning with three members. Three is a majority of five, so the board is able to act. The Supreme Court ruled last year that two members were not sufficient to take action. So when the term of one appointee expires at the end of this year, if politics blocks the appointment of a successor, the NLRB will be stuck.

Purchase our Mastery Lesson, “Voting and Quorum Issues in Nonprofit Organizations,” to learn more about these issues.

Ann G. Macfarlane, PRP

Running better meetings by making mistakes

Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:28:00 GMT

What do mayors, trapeze artists and board chairs have in common? An article in the Seattle Times about the aerial troupe Cabiri, rehearsing for their Halloween show, suggests the answer.

Personally I’ve never been tempted to try out a trapeze, but a feature about Cabiri caught my eye the other day. This is a troupe of dancers, athletes and gymnasts who bring myths from around the world to life. They practice in the Georgetown area of Seattle, and rehearsals are videotaped. Not only are the sessions videotaped, all the members of the troupe review the tapes and offer tips on what works, and what needs more practice.

Like these folks, mayors and board chairs are, in one sense, performers. They engage in activities in front of others which require the use of the whole person, and in which mistakes are inevitable. Unfortunately in the world of meetings, we don’t have the friendly custom of reviewing tapes of performances and offering “constructive criticism.” I suppose it’s because meetings are so ubiquitous that they seem easy. But they’re not.

Anybody who gets elected mayor of a city or chair of a board is going to make mistakes while running the meetings, unless she has had a most unusual background of training and experience. So why not ease up on ourselves, and accept that mistakes are inevitable? Getting feedback from councilmembers, board directors and meeting attendees might be a good way to improve fast.

It is certainly true for me that I’ve learned the most about good meeting process when I messed up. People who are willing to set aside what T.S. Eliot called “the endless struggle to think well of ourselves” and analyze their mistakes can make marked improvement. Hmmm, maybe that trapeze isn’t so alarming after all…

Ann G. Macfarlane, PRP

Want efficient meetings? Imitate the House of Representatives

Sat, 01 Oct 2011 08:34:00 GMT

Seldom do we feel inspired to recommend imitating the U.S. Congress, but the House of Representatives did something yesterday that can work for your board or council too.

In the face of a threatened government shut-down (again!), three representatives agreed to a budget extension by saying nothing. The method is called “unanimous consent,” and it is fully supported by Robert’s Rules of Order. In this instance, the chair said, “I ask for unanimous consent to concur in the Senate amendments.” Those members in attendance – all two of them – said nothing, which meant that the motion passed. The government has money through the weekend, and we can all breathe easier.

Similarly, at a nonprofit board meeting or a city council session, the chair can say, “Is there any objection?” If no one speaks up, it means that all the members agree. They have all voted in favor, and the motion passes. When properly used, this is a great way to speed up business.

We’re not thrilled that our representatives had to resort to this procedural work-around to keep the government going. The incident does give us the chance, though, to recommend “unanimous consent” for smaller-scale issues. Learn how to use this technique from our free article, “Unanimous Consent Is a Chair’s Best Friend.”

Ann G. Macfarlane, PRP

Did PAC-12 really vote "to not expand"?

Thu, 22 Dec 2011 19:31:00 GMT

Sports news this week raised a question for those of us who love Robert’s Rules of Order. Did the PAC-12 vote on Tuesday "to not expand"? If so, they might need help in using Robert’s Rules.

One of the basic rules for writing motions – proposals for action – is to write them in positive form. In other words, don’t use the word “not” in setting out what you plan to do.

If your city council doesn’t like the mayor’s proposed appointee to the planning commission, write a motion that says “that Ms. X be appointed to the planning commission,” and then vote it down. Do not phrase your motion this way: “that the council does not approve the appointment of Ms. X.”

If your student senate wants to protest proposed cuts to the university budget, write a motion that says “we deplore these cuts” or “we condemn these cuts.” Do not phrase your motion to say “we do not approve of these cuts.”

And, if you’re a sports body that doesn’t choose to expand, your motion might say “that our conference expand to 14 teams” – and the board would then defeat the motion. This is clearer than saying “that our conference not expand” and then voting in favor, or, even more ambiguous, voting against. If we vote against not expanding, what action have we taken?

Phrasing motions in the positive helps keep everyone clear about what is intended. You can learn more about this in Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised 10^th edition, page 100.

Striking Tacoma teachers illustrate key voting issue

Sat, 01 Oct 2011 06:44:00 GMT

Voting is so much a part of our society that we take it for granted. But voting sometimes presents challenges it’s important to know about. The teachers in Tacoma, Washington, on strike since last Monday, highlight just such an issue.

Yesterday 1585 teachers gathered in the Tacoma Dome for a union meeting, and 1478 voted to keep their strike going. There were 93% in favor, a huge majority. This is the ordinary and normal way we count votes. Under Robert’s Rules of Order, “a majority of the votes cast” is the “default setting.”

The interesting point comes with last Monday’s initial vote to call the strike in the first place. Union rules required that 80% of the entire membership vote in favor. Since it is often the case that people who are eligible to vote don’t bother to do so, getting four-fifths of your members to vote in favor is a high hurdle to surmount.

In a case like this, where the legality of the strike action is being fought out in the courts, it’s reasonable to expect that most members would take their responsibilities seriously and participate in the vote. We have seen bylaws, though, that call for “a majority of the entire membership” or “two-thirds of the entire membership” to approve actions. That is a recipe for disaster. Very high requirements can paralyze a body and make it impossible to move forward.

Knowing your bylaws and paying attention to their details is a major responsibility of boards of directors. Developing awareness and knowledge now can prevent sticky situations in the future. Do your bylaws include the Robert’s Rules of Order default requirement on voting, or do they say something different? It’s worth taking a look… More information on these and related issues is available in our Mastery Lesson on Voting and Quorum.

Ann G. Macfarlane, PRP