Roberts Rules of Order

For a board or committee of 3-15 people, Roberts' is overkill from my perspective. There are a number of other options to choose from, if rules are needed at all. Boards of that size can best operate informally with a minimum of rules of procedure and order.

Let me suggest a book, "Breaking Robert's Rules: The New Way to Run Your Meeting, Build Consensus, and Get Results" as something to consider.

I know few if any association or corporate boards that adhere to Robert's Rules.

The key is to have SOME kind of parlimantary procedure in place for meetings. So it's good for the bylaws to state that meetings will be run that way. Otherwise, there is the potential for unforeseen problems.

To see the various parliamentary procedures, just Google "parliamentary procedures for meetings."

Roberts Rules does have options for boards which have less than 12 people, giving the presient the right to make motions, vote and enter intothe debate process.

And of course, you know that any pariamentary procedures come after the documents of the HOa in terms of "power."

RRs for BOARD meetings?

The only rule we have is that the hosting BM has to provide (an at least) 12 year old scotch, glasses and ice. But that's just the three of us.

George,

You’d get on well with my 2 fellow BMs. Both are aficionados of all things Scotch (and Whiskey, and Bourbon). They dazzle me with stuff I’d not been aware of, and very pricey at that, and very tasty. Single malts all the way. Best I come up with is Chivas Imperial, the brand’s 18 year labeled batch, blended, I suppose, like the regular 12 year stuff (my favorite), though the bottle doesn’t state one way or the other. Whatever is served, however, our meetings are very pleasant and productive.

Mary,

Scotch and milk? Is there a name for that combo? I recall awhile back there was a popular Scotch and...Ameretto concoction? Was that a Black Russian? And there was a variation with some dairy-based product added, making it a White Russian? Whatever.

But no, we don't invite Membership because we ain't required to, plus nobody would show up anyway. Having said that, I'd enjoy seeing a few of them with a couple of shots down the hatch.

Do you serve cocktails at your meetings?

John,

I don't recall there was a name for the Scotch and milk.

Perhaps if the members knew drinks were being served they "would" attend! LOL

George - that recipe calls for sugar and nutmeg along with the milk and scotch. ARe you prepared to add that to your fine schotch?

We have tried to to ROberts Rules, but now practice a very custom form of it. Our meetings never followed an agenda, or order prior.. so we have had a huge improvement.

Look up (or Google) Alice Sturgis' Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedures, too.

Have fun in your new role!

Susan and Dana,

Thanks to both of you for your good wishes (and condolences, Dana). I will definitely look up Alice Sturgis' Code of Parliamentary Procedures. My questions about conducting an orderly meeting are really more about the annual meeting next Oct rather than the monthly BOD meetings. I am fortunate to have four excellent and skilled board members working with me. It should be a year of challenge and I hope a little fun along the way. BTW, Susan, I like the happy face. That's a real accomplishment to insert a happy face here!! Marianne

There is a natural tendency of groups not wanting to be "burdened with procedure". Procedure provides a method for handling the business in an effective and fair manner. The introduction to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) defines the principles in parliamentary law which explain the reasons. (The Scott, Foresman Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised,, 1990 Edition, 9th edition, p xliv)

"PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING
PARLIAMENTARY LAW

The rules of parliamentary law found in this book will, on analysis, be seen to be constructed upon a careful balance of the rights of persons or of subgroups within an organization's or an assembly's total membership. That is, these rules are based on a regard for the rights:

• of the majority,
• of the minority, especially a strong minority — greater than one third,
• of individual members,
• of absentees, and
• of all these together.

Fundamentally, under the rules of parliamentary law, a deliberative body is a free agent — free to do what it wants to do with the greatest measure of protection to itself and of consideration for the rights of its members.

The application of parliamentary law is the best method yet devised to enable assemblies of any size, with due regard for every member's opinion, to arrive at the general will on the maximum number of questions of varying complexity in a minimum time and under all kinds of internal climate ranging from total harmony to hardened or impassioned division of opinion."

As SusanW1 and others have noted, RONR includes a section for small groups. I find "The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure" by Alice Sturgis a better reference than RONR because it provides more explanations. However, it does not have a section for small groups.

A board operating without defined procedures is an invitation to abuse. The discussion and actions can be overly influenced by a forceful and dominant board members. Group think may easily become the pattern for the board.

My preference is for the Association to develop its own procedure for board meetings based on the principles in parliamentary law. The procedure should preserve the rights of minorities (those that don't share a majority view), particularly significant minorities by requiring 2/3 votes whenever rights and rules are concerned. Policies and other significant actions should require three readings. The level of participation by members should be defined, etc. The conditions for a closed session should be carefully defined and require a 2/3 recorded vote. My reason for a closed session is that the open session would cause material harm to the Association. Everything else should be open to members.

I don't think the adoption of any set of rules on parliamentary procedure has much affect on the dynamic of the group at hand.

Our bylaws formally adopt Robert's Rules. But I am quite certain that none of the BOD has read any book or guide to what is actually in the rules. I can definitively say that nobody has shown up with a copy of them.

We did have one member at the end of our last annual meeting inform us that she is a qualified parliamentarian. I really don't know what qualifications she has. But I have kept the information she gave us and will bring it up for the next annual meeting. Having someone who understand all the workings can help.

Reply to post by RichardW4

What you have described as the view of CAI is consistent with CAI's views of members' rights. Members' rights are not defended by CAI. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (meaning latest edition and designated by RONR), or The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure (by Alice Sturgis), clearly define rights of members. These rights apply not only in meetings, but for many other aspect including notices for meetings, amendments to bylaws, overall governance, etc.

In effect, the result of treating any parliamentary authority as a guide is to not have any parliamentary authority at all. Who decides when the guide is to be followed and when not?

I listened to the audio tape and found that it misquotes Robert's Rules of Order. The 10th (latest) edition states on page 469, "In an organized society the board operates under the bylaws, the parliamentary authority, and any applicable special rules of oder or standing rules of the society, except as the bylaws may authorize the board to adopt its own rules (see 2, 56)." On pages 470-1 of RONR, procedure for small boards is defined. I cannot find any statement in RONR that authorizes a board to define its own rules without limitation, as the CAI presenters state.

Sturgis provides similar requirements at page 182, "The duties, responsibilities, and powers of the board of directors should be clearly defined in the bylaws. ... The final authority of any organization remains in its "members assembled." Any action of a governing board can be rescinded or modified by the membership except ... ."

If the Association has adopted a parliamentary authority, or if one is required by state law, then the board must operate within that authority. The CAI presenters in the audio tape merely state that Robert's allows boards to define their own rules (without any reference to RONR and which I can't find), and omit these other important parts.

This is another example of where CAI advocates actions that are inconsistent with preserving and defending the rights of members. It is the members who provide all of the funds for the association to function. I did not note a single instance by the CAI presenters indicating the importance of boards to preserve and defend members' rights. But I did note a number of anecdotes of members' actions that they didn't like. Yes, members can be pesky. But some members also ask the tough questions. The adherence to parliamentary law in the conduct of meetings — both members' and board — is part of good governance. It allows those pesky questions to be asked and provides a meaningful way for the board to respond.

What is also disturbing is the claim by the presenters that their presentation is part of CAI's Best Practices. They are clearly not doing their research. CAI is entitled to its own opinion, but not its own facts.

I don't think that rules of order are what the poster really wanted anyway. They seem to be more concerned about the meeting floundering along without direction. And this really is wholly unrelated to rules of order.

What is needed to keep things on track is an order of business. It need not be anything that special. You can simply write down all of the things that need to be looked at. The nice thing is that you can clump many "housekeeping" items into a single item. Place a "consent agenda" item at the beginning with any sub items under it. Then a member of the Board can ask to remove an item if needed. Otherwise a single vote can take care of several things. My City Council does this with items such as approving minutes, and accepting resignations.

When I have made an order of business I have tried to place them in order of importance. That way if things go too long we have covered the most critical items first.