Robert's Rules in Real Life

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.

Unfortunately sometimes people claim to know parliamentary procedure but are mistaken about specific points, such as the friendly amendment…”

I wonder if it would be possible for you to explain what you mean by that? I read that there is a friendly amendment, then I read somewhere else that there is no such thing. How frustrating! I would appreciate any insight you can offer.”

So here goes our best effort at explanation.

1)   An amendment is a proposal to change a motion – a proposed action – being considered by a group.

(2)   Sometimes people suggest amendments with the intention of making the original motion ineffective, or defeating its purpose. These are hostile amendments, offered with negative intent.

(3)   Sometimes people suggest amendments that they sincerely believe will improve the original motion. These are friendly amendments, offered with positive intent.

(4)   An unfortunate custom has arisen whereby when a person suggests a “friendly amendment,” the presider often turns to the maker of the motion to ask him if he would accept the amendment. If he agrees, the presider sometimes also asks the seconder if she would accept the amendment.

(5)   This is wrong!

(6)   Once a motion has been made, seconded, and stated by the chair, it belongs to the group as a whole, not to the individual who first proposed it. It is the group as a whole that must accept or reject any proposed amendment, whatever the intent of the proposer. The maker of the motion, and the seconder, have the same rights as the other members of the group – no more and no less.

(7)   When someone offers a friendly amendment, we suggest that the presider say, “A friendly amendment is handled just like any other amendment. Is there a second?” This language doesn’t make people feel stupid, but sets the group in the right procedural path.

(8)   If the presider turns to the original maker of the motion to ask if he approves of the proposed change, any member can say “point of order.” This stops the action. The member can then explain the error.

Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 10^th edition, the most widely accepted authority on parliamentary procedure, offers a clear discussion of this issue on page 154, lines 24-35. The section is entitled “Friendly Amendments.”

Gentle reader, we hope this helps!

Ann G. Macfarlane, PRP

(c) Jurassic Parliament 2011.  All rights reserved.