The Philosophy of Robert's Rules
A: Robert's Rules are rules in favour of the shyest person in the room.
Robert’s Rules is a system of discussion that gives everyone their turn and no more than their turn. It appoints a chair trusted by the group to make decisions according to the rules but who also acts in accord with the group as a whole
B: Robert's Rules recognize that there are two kinds of votes.
Robert’s holds to the idea that some decisions require more "buy-in" than others. In some cases, a simple majority (half those who vote plus one) is enough to assure the group that the decision in question is supported enough to warrant their support. Things for us like whether we support the Rooftops initiative or what the Housing Charge will be are such decisions. In meetings, these proposals for action are debated under Ordinary Resolutions.
But there are matters -- like bylaws and constitutions -- that do effects on the way things are done that can outlast the participatory lives of the people who make decisions about them. For those decisions, Robert's argues, those motions express Special Resolutions which require a 2/3 majority vote.
C: Robert's Rules are only rules.
They're not laws, and they don't try to be. Admittedly, any group has its moments where the will of the majority, either expressly by vote or by extension through people voted into positions of authority, is imposed on everyone. In democratic institutions, there are protections against abuse of power, but such protections often take time to work.
But Robert's Rules are constantly in front of us while we are in a meeting. In a sense, they are the procedures for free decision-making, which, to my mind, is decision-making that can explain itself. They do allow for variations on themselves with consent of the meeting -- things like allowing the maker of a motion to answer a question during the discussion, or the raising of "Points of Information" and "Points of Order" that both break the flow of a discussion when they are invoked and reconnect when they're done.
It should be noted that Robert’s does allow a group to tailor things to their own needs, so even a consistent reference to Robert’s Rules will produce different results depending on how strictly or loosely the community chooses to use them.
2. The Mechanics of Robert’s Rules
Under Robert’s Rules, discussion is guided by a Resolution, which is expressed as a Motion. A motion is a statement about what the group should do. It is made by a member in the form of “I move that …..” . Once it is made, it needs to be seconded by another member in order to be discussed. If no one seconds a motion, it is dropped.
For seconded motions, the order of the discussion is this: The person making the motion speaks in favour of it.
Then the Chair opens the discussion to the members who signal their intention to speak. The Chair calls on each in turn. Each speaker can speak only once until the speaker’s list is finished; only then can someone who has spoken speak again. Each speaker must speak only about the resolution under debate. The Chair’s responsibility is to make sure that happens. No speaker can speak longer than 5 minutes/time they get to speak.
When the speakers have finished, the maker of the motion gets a chance to reply if they wish to.
Then a vote is called. Motions for Ordinary Resolutions require a simple majority vote to pass; for Special Resolutions it is a 2/3 majority.
Everything in Robert’s Rules stems from this core. It’s orderly, and if followed, efficient.
That said, there are variations on this theme that can complicate it and, if not checked, derail it and the meeting.
During debate, members can Move to Amend a motion. The motion they are proposing to amend is then known as the Main Motion. The amendment they make (if it is seconded), is considered a Subsidiary Motion and debated and voted on. If successful, it changes the wording of the main motion, if not, the main motion is unchanged.
There are several other motions that can also be made once a main motion is under discussion (or, as Robert’s calls it “on the table”). These are called Incidental Motions. The most-often used of these is Point of Order through which a member can raise a matter of procedure during a debate. The member can raise this point at any time during the discussion. However, the point of order must actually be a point about rules and procedure. Members cannot use it to add information or make arguments about the content of a motion or presentation under consideration.
The other is a Point of Information. Like the Point of Order, this can be raised any time during a discussion, but can only be used to request information the member making the request sees as knowledge essential to the discussion at hand.
When the debate about a motion is finished, the Chair, or a member can Call the Question. This is the call to vote on the motion.
These are the most commonly used subsidiary and incidental motions. You can go through a whole meeting without needing much more than these. The rest are fine points of procedure, and the Chair will do their best, in future meetings – and in future writing on the subject – to familiarize the membership with these.
3. Robert’s Rules and the Agenda
We’ve had some recent difficulties with the agenda that need addressing. The Agenda is a proposal. The Chair puts it forward for the membership to approve the content and order of the items to be discussed.
Since it is a proposal, the membership can modify it at the beginning of the meeting. However, it should be noted that every such modification, should, strictly speaking, require a vote by the membership in favour of including it before it is added. Likewise with items suggested for removal. Addition of items to the agenda may be spoken to by the member proposing them, but they are not debatable since debating them would automatically be putting them on the agenda.
4. Robert’s Rules, Civility, and the Mood of the Room
One of the reasons Robert’s Rules become loosely applied is that the Rules themselves acknowledge that people get used to each other, and that it is possible to read a room. So often things that technically require votes, usually procedural things, are dealt with without the cumbersome making of motions and voting on them. For the near future, in order to preserve the decorum of the meeting from the outset, the Chair will go by the book on all such matters.
Robert’s also assumes that, once accepting of the rules, people will not speak over one another or break the decorum of the discussion. However, as noted below in the section on The Philosophy of Robert’s Rules, the Rules, from Henry Robert’s first writing of them in 1876 on, knows that it is those who can be shouted down who most need protecting by them.
So the Chair has certain responsibilities to maintain order and a dialogue of respect. If a member speaks more than their time, uses language outside the bounds of parliamentary respect, becomes antagonistic towards another member, or behave in a way that disrupts the meeting, the Chair can cite that member as Out of Order and ask them to desist. If the Chair names the member, the naming of the member and the reason for it is recorded in the minutes; likewise if an apology is offered, and if a withdrawable remark withdrawn.
Also, if the Chair does not reprimand a member behaving in such a manner by name, another member can ask for that member to be called out of order.
If the behaviour persists, the Chair alone does not have the authority to reprimand a member further. That lies with the members at the meeting. The Chair can ask that a member move that the offending member be censured. Such a censure may be a demand for an apology or removal from the meeting. The motion to censure is not debatable, and it can be passed by a majority, voting, given the sensitivity of the case, by ballot. Those who have pointed out in their articles in the Newsletter are in line with and find support in this aspect of Robert’s Rules: the decorum of the meeting the responsibility of the meeting itself.
5. Robert’s Rules and Reading into the Minutes
Until these past issues with minutes, it’s been customary here for the Chair and recording secretary to add to the minutes anything a member requests be added. However, this, too, is a loose interpretation of Robert’s on the matter.
According to a strict interpretation of the rules, which will be followed for the next while at least, only additions to the minutes requested by a member and voted by the membership to be accepted as additions to the minutes will be included.
6. Robert’s Rules and the Chat Function
Remember when passing notes in class got you in trouble? Now it’s not only allowed, Chat encourages it. We’re still getting into trouble, only this time it’s the notes themselves that often cause the grief. There is no specific mention of Chat in the 11th Edition of Robert’s Rules, but online updates to Robert’s extend the Rules’ warnings against sidebar conversations within meetings. They divide the attention of the room, and with Chat, they can set up their own parallel, un-chaired and un-minuted meeting within the meeting.
As long as Chat remains incidental, and private between members as they share information about matters at hand, it can be useful. However, in the case where a Chat thread becomes diversionary or its language unparliamentary, it will need to be restrained. The Chair of the meeting cannot consistently follow two meetings at once. It will be up to members to monitor Chat, and if it becomes a detriment to the meeting, to draw the Chair’s attention to it. The Chair can call members to order and return to the main meeting, or, if the membership finds that the Chat is harming the decorum or purpose of the meeting, it can be disabled for a period of time.
