Revising Robert’s Rules National Association of Parliamentarians 2009 Convention Henry M. Robert III, PRP Thomas J. Balch, PRP
Revising Robert’s Rules
National Association of Parliamentarians
2009 Convention
Henry M. Robert III, PRP
Thomas J. Balch, PRP
Henry M. Robert :
“[T]he hints and criticisms that would
naturally be received would be of great value
in improving the second edition.”
Henry M. Robert:
“[I]n less than a month Mr. Griggs [the first
publisher] requested Gen‟l Robert to
immediately prepare his revision, which was
provided for in the contract. . . . Under date
of March 22, 1876 Gen‟l Robert wrote Mr.
Griggs that he would begin the revision
immediately. Three weeks later he was in
Chicago with the copy for the main part of the
revised work.”
Second Edition 1876
Page-by-page Alterations
Common Errors
Table of Rules revisions
Alternation of floor between proponents &
opponents
Rule against interruption of speakers more
specific
Second Edition 1876
Page-by-page Alterations (continued)
Fuller explanations
Subsidiary motions
Questions of Privilege
Orders of the Day
Previous Question
Reconsider
Second Edition 1876
Page-by-page Alterations (continued)
Fuller explanations
Reception of committee reports
Notice of bylaw amendments
Stating questions & announcing vote result
Rationale for greater than majority vote
Second Edition 1876
Page-by-page Alterations (continued)
Tie vote sustains chair on appeal
Rules protecting minority < 1/3 suspension
requires majority vote
Minority reports in committee
Third Edition 1893
Use of Lay on the Table to kill motion
condemned
More time to Reconsider
Clarify obtaining floor & seconding
Filling blanks order changed
Third Edition 1893
“The additions cover nearly every point
referred to me for decision in seventeen years
that was not already covered by the book.” Henry M. Robert
Fourth Edition (ROR) 1915
“[T]he work has been thoroughly revised and
enlarged and . . . is published under the title
of „Robert‟s Rules of Order Revised.‟ ” Henry M. Robert
Fourth Edition (ROR) 1915
Doubled space devoted to many motions:
Privileged Motions
Incidental Motions
Lay on the Table
Postpone
Commit
Amend
Fourth Edition (ROR) 1915
Doubled space devoted to many motions:
Take from the Table
Reconsider
Rescind
Voting
Amendment of constitutions, bylaws & rules of
order
Organization & meetings of societies &
conventions
Fourth Edition (ROR) 1915
Boards & Executive Committees introduced
Additional incidental motions
Simplified Previous Question
General Robert 9/17/1922
“After my death I expect my son, Prof. Henry
M. Robert, Jr., of the Naval Academy to
continue my work. He has delivered lectures
on parliamentary law and is now preparing the
index to „Parliamentary Law.‟ He is
enthusiastic about both these books, and I
expect him to revise them when, say in twenty
years, it may be advisable.”
Editions of Robert’s Rules
Editions Years Authors
1 – 4 1876 – 1915
1923 – 1937
Henry M.Robert
Henry M. Robert, Jr. – Q&A
5 – 6 1943, 1951 Isabel Robert
Sarah Corbin Robert
7 1970 Sarah Corbin Robert
Henry M. Robert, III
William J. Evans
After General Robert‟s Death
5th Edition 1943
Incorporated only changes planned by General
Robert
6th “75th Anniversary” Edition 1951
In-text changes
Expanded index
New matter inside covers
Editions of Robert’s Rules
Editions Years Authors
1 – 4 1876 – 1915
1923 – 1937
Henry M. Robert
Henry M. Robert, Jr. – Q&A
5 – 6 1943, 1951 Isabel Robert
Sarah Corbin Robert
7 1970 Sarah Corbin Robert
Henry M. Robert, III
William J. Evans
7th Edition (RONR) 1970
SCR: Postpone Indefinitely as model
Brief statement explaining motion
8 Standard Descriptive Characteristics
Further Rules and Explanation
Form and Example
WJE: Drafts for other motions
7th Edition (RONR) 1970
“Almost ten years and [echoing General
Robert‟s statement about the 4th edition in
1915] perhaps more work than on all six
previous editions combined, have gone into
the preparation of Robert’s Rules of Order
Newly Revised.” Preface
General Robert PL Preface
“While engaged in writing the „Rules of Order
Revised,‟ the author was strongly impressed
with the impracticability of making a book
which would fill the needs of societies and
deliberative assemblies for rules of order, and
which at the same time would be readable and
adapted to the needs of those unfamiliar with
parliamentary law.”
7th Edition (RONR) 1970
Fundamental Concepts – Chaps. I – V
Motions -- Chaps. VI – IX
Renewal of Motions; Dilatory & Improper
Motions – Chap. X
Chaps. XI – XX – Rest of parliamentary
procedure
Tinted pages of Charts and Tables
Editions Years Authors
8 1981 Henry M. Robert, III
William J. Evans
9 1990 Henry M. Robert, III
William J. Evans
Daniel H. Honemann
10 2000 Henry M. Robert, III
William J. Evans
Daniel H. Honemann
Thomas J. Balch
8th Edition 1981
Board as form of deliberative assembly
Previous Question -- dealing with “I call the
question”
Lay on the Table -- procedure to reduce
misuse
Interruption of Voting
9th Edition 1990
Quarterly Time Interval
Removal of committee members
Conflicting bylaw amendments
Principles of Interpretation
Suggestions for Inexperienced Presiding
Officers
Editions Years Authors
8 1981 Henry M. Robert, III
William J. Evans
9 1990 Henry M. Robert, III
William J. Evans
Daniel H. Honemann
10 2000 Henry M. Robert, III
William J. Evans
Daniel H. Honemann
Thomas J. Balch
10th Edition Procedure of Revision
Accumulate lists of potential items to change
Submitted by parliamentarians and others
Proposed by authorship team members
Circulate wording proposed by team members
Debate, amend, and vote on face-to-face
Review tentatively adopted changes, possibly
reconsider; make conforming changes
Forthcoming11th Edition
Possibly at National Training Conference in
Minnesota 2010
Probably at Convention in Florida 2011
(precedent of 1981 edition)
Role of Authorship Team
interpret, clarify, and apply
not change
– make changes simply in accordance with the
policy preferences of its members, without
regard to precedent or common practice
•Common Law Court Analogy
•Not Legislature
Principles of Revision
1. Apply existing principles of parliamentary
law to newly arising questions, resulting
in more fully developed rules derived
through the technique of interpretation.
10th ed. e.g.: Electronic meetings
Principles of Revision 2
2. Take account of new practices that,
through repeated and widespread
use, have become established.
E.g. “Stand at ease”
Principles of Revision 4
4. Improve method of presentation.
E.g.: separate Request to Be Excused from a
Duty from other Requests and Inquiries
Principles of Revision 5
5. Correct common misunderstandings doing
widespread harm.
E.g.: Deal with “friendly amendments”
Greg Phifer: “Robert‟s Heirs Blew It”
“Robert is a useful reference manual for the
accomplished parliamentarian, but an almost useless
guide for the general public. …
“John Q. Member will be turned off by [its] size and
complexity... – to say nothing of its antiquated and
jargonistic language. Most organizations have no
business recommending this volume to their
members.
Greg Phifer: “Robert‟s Heirs Blew It”
“Those who produced the 1970 version of RONR had a
wonderful opportunity to bring parliamentary law into the
twentieth century and the service of contemporary
organizations. They blew it.
“Clear, contemporary language could have been used; they
elected not to do so. Unused and unnecessary motions could
have been eliminated or at least reduced to footnote status;
the bulk of motions and rules has been expanded rather than
reduced.”
Emogene Emery: “AIP‟s Response to
RONR”
“[S]omeone must pioneer and we are sorry it
was not your book since it is the most widely
adopted authority. Please bring us a future
edition that will be more acceptable to ...
those many others who would like to
understand what is going on in the average
meeting.”
The Case for Simplification
RONR too complicated
Much of content archaic/ unnecessary
Too difficult to learn
Too difficult to use
Largely shunned or ignored
People reject and abandon parliamentary procedure
The Case for Robert
Growth since 1st edition was response to actual
questions to General & successors
Problem w/ ambiguity & gaps: interpretation of
unclear rule contended for by each side is based on
desired substantive outcome
Chair imposes
Assembly gets tangled in procedural disputes in which
generally “might makes right”
The Case for Robert
Quote from preface to 1st edition: “Whether these forms be in all cases the most rational
or not is really not of so great importance. It is much
more material that there should be a rule to go by,
than what that rule is, that there may be a uniformity
of proceeding in business, not subject to the caprice of
the chairman, or captiousness of the members.”
[Robert quotes Jefferson who quotes Hatsell who
quotes ?]
CAN Robert Authorship simplify the
rules?
Legitimacy of authorship function rests on its
largely reporting rather than making law
Common law courts rather than legislative
tradition
Critical to stability
The Paradox
Failure to simplify makes rules hard to use,
“turns off” public, and may lead to rules being
ignored altogether
Simplification of rules introduces ambiguity
empowering tyrannical chairs or majority
and/or tying organizations in knots of
procedural dispute
The 80% Solution
“Both/and” rather than “either/or”
Simple introductory book
Comprehensive parliamentary authority
Simple book keyed to complete work
Features of RONR In Brief
Short
176 pages text
198 pages with tables and index
Inexpensive ($6.95)
Brief reading time
Half hour for minimal
90 minutes for basics for member
Features of RONR In Brief
Simple language attempted
“Layered” method of learning
1st, simple meeting
Simplified Standard Order of Business
Compressed handling of motions
Amendments – focus on primary only
Thereafter, essential motions, basics of elections
and rules
Features of RONR In Brief
Examples and illustrative dialogues
Summaries and reviews
“Beyond the Basics”
Skeleton key to RONR
Frequently Asked Questions
Summary of motions
Features of RONR In Brief
Chapters for officers, delegates
Chapters for committees, boards
Tables for Meeting Quick Reference
Much Omitted
Order of Precedence of Motions covered only in “Beyond the Basics” intro to RONR
Bylaws drafting and amendments
Postpone Indefinitely, Lay on and Take From the Table, Call for the Orders of the Day, Raise a Question of Privilege, Discharge a Committee and most incidental motions
Secondary amendments, reconsideration of secondary motions, Committee of the Whole & its iterations
Criticism
Makes possible outmaneuvering of those with
introductory knowledge by those with more
sophisticated awareness
Not a “level playing field”
Which is worse?
Some know rules better
than others
Standard Rules exist,
available to be looked
up/ studied
Vacuum in rules
Procedural wrangling
Result imposed
By chair
By stronger party in
assembly
Terminology
Only “controversial” term in basic part of In Brief
probably “Previous Question”
Question of familiarity
Few object to Adjourn, Quorum, Point of Order, Table
Terms of art common to many fields
Even sports:
Foul ball
Stealing base
First down
Stealing base
“Running from one point on which the runner
cannot be touched with the ball so as to be
disqualified from advancing to score to the
next such point immediately after the pitcher
has thrown the ball.”
Previous Question
Immediately to close debate and the making
of subsidiary motions except the motion to
Lay on the Table.