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...

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

 

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.

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

© Jurassic Parliament 2011. All rights reserved.

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.

 

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

© Jurassic Parliament 2011. All rights reserved.

We’ve all heard of indicator species. Dying crayfish indicate fresh water pollution and fading corals indicate that saltwater habitat is silting up. Three police cars indicate that a school board is broken.

Last week the Everett, Washington School Board was meeting in executive session when a fight broke out. The grabbing, pushing and shoving over a paper copy of the superintendent’s evaluation were severe enough that two calls were made to 911. The police who arrived took statements, the newspaper has written it up, and you can see the video of the whole thing on YouTube.

Knowledgeable readers may wonder how a video of an executive session (a closed or secret session) is available to the public. Well, it’s a long story, but the essence seems to be that one director doesn’t accept the standard way of doing business. In her 2009 election campaign she set herself against the then-current members of the school board, and she’s kept it up ever since. She’s a rebel regarding both the substance of many decisions and the way that they are arrived at. Waving the flag of transparency, she brings her fight to the public.

Jurassic Parliament suggests that groups facing similar situations call Robert, before they are driven to call the police. Robert’s Rules of Order create a structure in which orderly disagreement is possible. They establish rules for minority points of view while allowing the majority to govern, which is fundamental to our society and our values. A presider who understands the fundamental principles of Robert’s Rules and group members who agree to abide by them can handle dissent and prevent the collapse of discourse and civility. Obviously a situation like the Everett School Board's presents special challenges, but it can be done.

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.