Yesterday, at a formal meeting of academics I got appointed Parliamentarian (mainly on account of having served a decade or so ago as secretary of a previous such formal meeting) which I tried to get out of, but failed.
chairperson: “I nominate PPR as parliamentarian. He knows Roberts’ Rules of Order.”
Me; “Uh, not really…”
Chair: “Sure ya do. You were secretary of xxxxx…”
Me: “Yah, but…”
Someone else: “Seconded…”
Chair: “Unanimous…”
Me: “Yah, but…”
I suspect that if DID know Roberts’ Rules of Order I could have easily protested the whole nomination process, but it’s done. My question now is, does anyone know a shortcut to Roberts’?
As I recall, the prose is dense and tricky, but most of the issues that come up are fairly simple (I got through my previous stint by focussing on those few areas that actually came up in our meetings and memorizing some simple guidelines, which I’ve forgotten completely.) Any shortcuts, summaries of main points, FAQ pages, webpages dealing with Roberts’, tips, articles, etc. appreciated.
Oh, and you could have made a point of order that you had the floor, and that a vote was not in order until you yielded. The others had no basis to interrupt you while you were discussing your unsuitability for the job.
Heck, I got my copy of the whole Robert’s at a used book store for $3.
<parliamentarian geek hat on>
If you’re part of an organization that has use for Robert’s at all, take the time to really learn Robert’s, and you’ll be doing the group a huge favor.
Rules of Order keep things flowing and fair.
</parliamentarian geek hat on>
Seriously though, really understanding everything would take about… 3 hours for you to be useful, 5 hours for you to be competent, and probably 20 hours for you to ACTUALLY KNOW 99% of parliamentary questions when they come up.
I was the president of our Church Council at one time. After one particularly ill-considered motion had passed, I expressed surprise that it had. Somebody else on the council said “well, why didn’t you say so?” When I explained that the presiding officer is not supposed to engage in debate, everyone else in the room was surprised.
I think you’re misunderstanding the rules. The chairman or president of an assembly may engage in debate. It is expected that the chair would call another member to assume his duties while he engages in debate, however.
Correct. The Chair passes the gavel to the next party in the chain of command, and leaves the dais before engaging in debate. Part of the responsibility of the Chair is the preservation of order in the organization, including taking action to defeat motions not in the organization’s best interests. I like the Webster’s New World Robert’s Rules of Order as it covers the rules and offers plain language explainations to many entries.
I’ve found robertsrules.org, which has a brief synopsis which may be useful.
Back in school, we had a pamphlet with nice, friendly drawings illustrating Robert’s Rules. I have no clue what it’s called or where you could find it.
… the larger point being was that the chair moved to a vote on a debatable motion without recognizing anyone.
The irony, of course, is that if he had raised a point of order about this whole parilamentary mess, the OP would have instantly proved that his parliamentary skills were head and shoulders above anyone elses, thus proving himself up to the job. :smack:
Indeed, the chair offered the nomination, which was improper. The chair could have invited the nomination from the floor, or handed the gavel to another officer to preside and then nominated the OP… but, as you say, the proper way to challenge this is by a point of order.
Quiz: assuming the chair overrules your claim of a point of order, what is the next move, assuming you feel the decision is in error?
You’ll want a printed copy of Robert’s Rules to keep with you at the meetings, not just an online reference. Virtually every bookstore stocks the book. It’s a cheap paperback. You can get them in used bookstores for two or three bucks.
In the parliamentary world, I’d offer a motion to appeal the decision of the chair, which I believe is a debatable motion.
Judging by the way that session turned out, however, I’d probably just say, “Hey! You can’t do that!” and throw a tantrum until the others relent that the vote wasn’t fairly taken.
It’s been my impression (from sitting on a lot of committees and in a lot of school board meetings) that Robert’s Rules gets abused by all but the most formal meetings (e.g., annual meetings and the like). Yes, it’s nice to say that you’re following the Rules, but most groups follow them about as close as most office softball games follow the Official Rules of Softball. Unless you get a serious buy-in from the president or chairman and most of the committee members, you have to really water it down or people start ignoring most of the piddly rules.
Know the big ones (when a motion can be made, when discussion should happen and when it should end, when a vote can be taken, etc.) but don’t stress about many of the other ones.
No, I understood the rules perfectly well. Note that I said I was *surprised * the motion passed - I didn’t think the likelihood of its passing was high enough for me to bring my high-powered debating skills :dubious: to the fray. The point of the story was that nobody else in the room had any idea what the rules might be.
Which would have made passing my duties on to somebody else problematic. . .
