Robert's Rules in Real Life

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

(c) Jurassic Parliament 2012. All rights reserved.

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

(c) Jurassic Parliament 2012. All rights reserved.

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...

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

© Jurassic Parliament 2011.  All rights reserved.

This article was first published in the ”Council/Commission Advisor” series for the Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington, April 2011.

The State of Washington gives city councils wide authority to decide how they will carry on their business:

“The council shall determine its own rules and order of business, and may establish rules for the conduct of council meetings and the maintenance of order.” RCW 35A.12.120

Some councils have adopted, by resolution or ordinance, a set of guidelines for this purpose, and others have not. Many of these guidelines include reference to Robert’s Rules of Order, using such language as “meetings shall be governed by Robert’s Rules of Order and these council rules of procedure. In case of a conflict, the council rules of procedure shall prevail.”

Recently it was suggested to Jurassic Parliament that Robert’s Rules of Order is too complicated for small cities and towns, and they would do better not to adopt it. We agree that the book is complicated, but we believe that Robert’s Rules still provides the best and most useful set of rules of order for civic bodies in our state – provided that folks are willing to do a little work and learn how to use Robert’s Rules properly. Our argument runs like this:

(1)   The fundamental principles in Robert are common to all our civic discourse and are not hard to learn. Everyone participating in council debate and discussion should understand that the majority will rule, that the minority have rights that must be respected, that members have a right to information to help make decisions, that courtesy and respect are required, that all members have equal rights, privileges and obligations, and that members have a right to an efficient meeting.

(2)   The use of written motions and amendments provides an efficient and fair way to consider proposals and modify them in accord with the group’s preferences. The method is a little unusual, in that amendments are taken up before the motion is voted on, but once groups get used to it, the system works well.

(3)   Robert’s rule that no one may speak a second time until everyone who wishes to do so has spoken once is vital to equalizing power imbalances and giving everyone a fair shake in discussion. We believe that it should be observed by all groups, whether or not they have formally adopted Robert.

(4)   Robert provides “special rules for small boards” that can be useful for smaller councils, should they choose to apply them.

(5)   Robert also allows groups to develop and apply their own “special rules of order,” so if a body wishes to change something in Robert, it is perfectly free to do so.

(6)   In sticky situations, “do-it-yourself” rulemaking can lead to ad hoc invention of rules, likely supplied by the chair on his own authority. A chair who makes up rules or improvises on the basis of vague memories from student government days is a sure path to problems, especially if the rule-maker has an air of authority about him (or her).

(7)   While councils often rely on their attorney for advice in this arena, in our experience few attorneys have had serious training in parliamentary procedure and few correct the common and widespread misunderstandings about Robert’s Rules.

(8)   A body cannot do its work without some guidelines. Failing to adopt Robert doesn’t mean that there are no guidelines – but without a specific “parliamentary authority,” in times of conflict a group will be driven back to rely on “common parliamentary law.” Finding out what “common parliamentary law” requires and how it applies to a given situation is likely to be complicated and expensive, requiring time and attention from legal counsel and qualified parliamentary consultants. Far better to have set the terms of discourse in advance, so that everyone knows and agrees to the way they will consider matters.

We believe that adopting a set of common-sense guidelines based on Robert’s Rules, incorporating Robert by reference for the more unusual or complicated situations that may arise, and then committing to the education necessary to get everyone on the same page, will pay big dividends for every council willing to make the effort.

That education can be quite affordable. Every city budget ought to be able to provide a copy of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised in Brief to each council member. This little book is a splendid summary of the rules applicable to all but the most exceptional situations. At $7.00 it’s an amazing buy, and you can read it in an evening.

Ann G. Macfarlane, PRP

(c) Jurassic Parliament 2011. All rights reserved.

In the spirit of April and the advent of spring, we offer some historical tidbits for a change of pace.

• April is Parliamentary Law Month, chosen because Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the first Manual of Parliamentary Practice for the U.S. Senate, was born in April.
• Henry Martyn Robert, the author of the great Robert’s Rules of Order, completely flubbed his first meeting. He wrote, “I plunged in, trusting that the assembly would behave itself” – but it didn’t, and fourteen hours later, had come to no conclusion.
• Anthony Trollope, the Victorian novelist, wrote that his character Phineas Finn, an Irish member of the House of Commons, objected to being called a “belligerent Irishman.” The objection was overruled, on the grounds that the words were a description, not an insult.
• The infamous motion “call for the previous question” had roughly the opposite of its current meaning in the 19^th century.
• The  rule that the Committee of the Whole must be chaired by someone besides the usual presiding officer goes back to 1604, when the House of Commons believed that the Speaker was following the orders of King James I, and wanted to be able to talk about things without being directed by a “king’s man.”
• The rule that a group can only discuss one topic at a time was first written down in the notebook of the Clerk of the House of Commons in 1581.

Ann G. Macfarlane, PRP

(c) Jurassic Parliament 2011. All rights reserved.

As the Wisconsin saga continues, it turns out that the Senate rules on quorum vary, depending on the type of bill being considered. In Tuesday’s New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger writes: “At issue is a normally obscure Senate rule that requires a quorum of 20 senators to vote on fiscal matters but just 17 to vote on other matters.”

18 Republicans and 14 Democrats were elected to the Senate in the last elections. See our previous post for more detail.

Ann G. Macfarlane, PRP

(c) Jurassic Parliament 2011. All rights reserved.

The recent shenanigans in Wisconsin have demonstrated a distinction people often have trouble with. There is a key difference between the “quorum” and the “number of votes needed to win.” While regretting that political disagreements led all the Democrats in the Wisconsin Senate to flee to Illinois this week, we have to seize the opportunity to comment.

A “quorum” is the minimum number of voting members needed for a body to take action. The existence of this concept is due to the obvious fact that everybody who belongs to a certain group is not going to attend every meeting. We need to be sure that a small group of people don’t act in the name of the whole, taking action which the larger group might not approve of.

The smaller the group, the larger the percentage of members who ought to be there. Bylaws, state law or regulations usually state what this number is. In the case of the Wisconsin Senate, with 33 members, 20 members must be present for action to be taken. (If no quorum is specified, then the quorum is a “majority” – more than half of the voting members.)

The November 2010 election produced a Senate with 19 Republicans and 14 Democrats. The astute reader quickly notices that 19 is less than 20 – so the Republicans by themselves don’t make up a quorum. There has to be at least one Democrat present for the body to be able to act.

“Votes needed to win” is  a whole ‘nother thing. Once a quorum is present, members discuss issues and may take action on them. In order for an action to be approved – for a motion to pass – a majority of those voting must vote in favor. Half of 33 is 16.5, and since votes are cast by whole people, not by fractions, 17 members of the Wisconsin Senate must vote in favor for a motion to win. You, careful reader, have no doubt already seen that since 19 is more than 17, it should be easy for the Republicans to approve a measure and therefore to win.

PROVIDED that any voting can take place at all – that is, provided that a quorum is present.

And if 14 Democrats decamp en masse to a neighboring state, taking refuge in an “undisclosed location,” then there are 19 members  present in the room, there is no quorum in the Senate, no voting can happen, and hence no victory for the Republicans.

The political disagreements are severe on the legislation at issue, and the refusal of the Democrats to appear is prolonging public demonstrations. The press reports that the angry citizens with sleeping bags have camped out, and are literally beating drums in the halls of the capitol. The Senate sergeant-at-arms was peering into offices and restrooms, trying to locate a Democratic Senator. A state policeman traveled to Senatorial homes with the same mission. In our view, people who think that meeting procedure is boring don’t grasp the depth, breadth and complexity of Robert’s Rules in real life.

Ann G. Macfarlane, PRP

(c) Jurassic Parliament 2011. All rights reserved.

One of the neat features of WordPress, which hosts this blog, is the ability to see what readers have searched for. Recently someone searched for “first reading Robert’s Rules.” My visceral reaction was “be careful!”

At Jurassic Parliament, we believe that it is unfortunate that the authors and owners of Robert’s Rules have allowed the authoritative book, Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised 10th edition, to become so large and intimidating. A reader who is new to the book is likely to feel overwhelmed on picking up its 800+ pages. Though the cover is gold and beautiful, the text is dense and hard to navigate.

And yet, we also believe that the heart of the book, its core, is vital for good group decision-making. The principles enshrined in Robert’s Rules are essential to a democracy and can help any group make better, fairer decisions.

We encourage readers to start with Robert’s Rules Newly Revised In Brief. This modest paperback, about 200 pages long, can be read easily. It offers a clear introduction to the full Robert’s Rules, and includes useful supplementary material.

One word of caution, though – IN BRIEF cannot be adopted as a “rule of order” for meetings. It is a signpost to the big book, not an independent authority.

We also encourage readers to check out some of the free downloads and other papers offered on our website and online store. Jurassic Parliament strives to provide comprehensible, reader-friendly and useful materials that will guide the user through the golden tome of the current edition, and on into meetings that function fairly and well.

Ann G. Macfarlane, PRP

(c) Jurassic Parliament 2011. All rights reserved.