Robert's Rules in Real Life

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.

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.

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.