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.

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. 

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.

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:

• Who’s responsible for the money?
• Nonprofit embezzlement: more common and more preventable than you think
• Five internal controls for the very small nonprofit

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

(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...

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

(c) Jurassic Parliament 2011. All rights reserved.

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

© Jurassic Parliament 2011. All rights reserved.

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.

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

© 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.

The passing of former Seattle City Council Clerk Theresa Dunbar was noted in a detailed obituary published on Saturday, June 4, 2011. The Seattle Times described the significant role that the late Ms. Dunbar played in Seattle government. “Both sides of any political squabble trusted her…She really transcended any kind of politics in the city.”

This story highlights yet again the importance of the clerk, often mistakenly seen as a lowly functionary , to our democratic system and our society.

We extend our condolences to Ms. Dunbar’s family on their loss.

Ann G. Macfarlane, PRP

(c) Jurassic Parliament 2011. All rights reserved.

Hilary Beehler of Washington Youth Soccer has written a heartfelt blog entry on the benefits of following Jurassic Parliament’s “Three Golden Rules for Discussion.” In particular, she points out that the rule “No one may speak twice until everyone who wishes to do so has spoken once” sounds like common sense. “But if I think about the last board or committee meeting I was in, did this happen? I can honestly say that I’ve sat in multiple meetings where one or two members dominate the conversation at the expense of quieter voices in the room. It’s not ill will that drives this…”

Readers who struggle with board meetings in which some folks speak out much more than others will find her comments illuminating.

Ann G. Macfarlane, PRP

(c) Jurassic Parliament 2011.  All rights reserved.

A reader sent us this message today:

“I came across your web site while searching for an explanation of a ‘friendly amendment’ and I saw the following sentence:

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.

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.

If you are not already a David Brooks fan, run, don’t walk, to read today’s New York Times column entitled “The New Humanism.” Brooks lays out with clarity and grace the way our culture fails to value— or even recognize—the totality of a human being in many of our social structures and ways of interacting.

At meetings above all else, we are not disembodied heads around a table, but full persons. If the atmosphere and structure of a meeting fail to recognize the importance of the non-conscious, the emotional, and the unspoken aspects of the people attending, that meeting will accomplish far less than it could or should.

Jurassic Parliament has been talking about this side of leadership and meeting management for ten years. It gives me hope to see a nationally recognized figure writing and speaking about this dimension of our humanity.

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.

One of the trainings Jurassic Parliament presented this year was for nine sharp students at a community college, who constitute a student government without a head. There are directors for administration, for academic affairs, for clubs, etc. but no president, no single person who is “in charge.” Each member will take it in turn to chair a meeting, so that each student has three chances to do so during the year.

It’s an interesting model, but the curmudgeon in me feels skeptical. How well can an organization function without a head? Perhaps, in this instance, the advisor or faculty member carries the burden of arranging the schedule, reminding the secretary to finish the minutes, making sure the agenda is posted, and taking care of all those little details that are essential to the functioning of any leadership group.

As I hope the minutes make clear, we had a good time:

• Motion to require pterodactyls to park on the roof of dormitory for safety reasons – approved
• Motion to build a sports complex with 4 football fields, 3 baseball/softball fields, bowling alley, golf course including driving range and miniature golf, skateboard park – approved
• Motion to build an electrified perimeter fence to protect students from drunken woolly mammoths – defeated
• Motion to build moat for same purpose – defeated

The students were engaged, sharp, and knowledgeable. I wager they’ll do just fine this year, but I’m curious about how their unusual governmental structure functions in practice.

Ann G. Macfarlane, PRP

(c) Jurassic Parliament 2011. All rights reserved.

One of the trainings Jurassic Parliament presented this year was for nine sharp students at a community college, who constitute a student government without a head. There are directors for administration, for academic affairs, for clubs, etc. but no president, no single person who is “in charge.” Each member will take it in turn to chair a meeting, so that each student has three chances to do so during the year.

It’s an interesting model, but the curmudgeon in me feels skeptical. How well can an organization function without a head? Perhaps, in this instance, the advisor or faculty member carries the burden of arranging the schedule, reminding the secretary to finish the minutes, making sure the agenda is posted, and taking care of all those little details that are essential to the functioning of any leadership group.

As I hope the minutes make clear, we had a good time:

• Motion to require pterodactyls to park on the roof of dormitory for safety reasons – approved
• Motion to build a sports complex with 4 football fields, 3 baseball/softball fields, bowling alley, golf course including driving range and miniature golf, skateboard park – approved
• Motion to build an electrified perimeter fence to protect students from drunken woolly mammoths – defeated
• Motion to build moat for same purpose – defeated

The students were engaged, sharp, and knowledgeable. I wager they’ll do just fine this year, but I’m curious about how their unusual governmental structure functions in practice.

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.