Robert's Rules of Order: questions and answers

[vechorik]

I'm studying Robert's Rules of order.

No matter what state, it seems when meetings get unruly and personal attacks start happening, it's because Robert's Rules are ignored.
The first and most-important rule is that you address NO ONE other than the chairman. If everyone did this, order could be maintained.

So, the meeting is getting unruly and "point of order" is ignored (probably because the chairman is dumb, or intentionally wants to ignore you).
People are addressing one another, instead of addressing the chairman.
The chairman doesn't have the meeting under control.
What do I do?

 

[sailingaway]

good question. So far them selectively ignoring the rules seems to be totally fine with them and our people in Denver had to overwhelm them, essentially, and of course then they showed a clip starting in the middle saying we acted badly instead of them ignoring the rules.

I hope someone can give you some advice on this.

 

[nobody's_hero]

ATTN MODERATORS

ATTN MODERATORS:

Please sticky a thread on "Robert's Rules".

Obviously there are a lot of questions on this.

 

[gte811i]

I say you get the floor and make a motion to remove the chair due to his inability to obey robert's rules and maintain fairness.

Removal of the chair only takes 51% majority.

Vote a chairman in who understand the rules and maintains order and fairness.

 

[WilliamC]

Are all aspects of parliamentary procedure subject to simple majority rule?

If so this suggests two strategies, one where you have a majority of delegates and one where you don't.

If you don't then some sort of stealth delegate strategy is appropriate until such time as there is a majority.

Then simply change whatever rules by majority to favor the candidate of preference.

I know last cycle when these issues were discussed it was academic since Ron Paul wouldn't have had enough delegates anyway, but if there are indeed a majority of stealth delegates and we have a brokered convention then there's a real contest.

But again I see any real threat by Ron Paul supporters to take the convention as being countered by all of the other three candidates uniting to defeat him, so having enough delegates to overcome this seems unlikely.

Still, it's a real contest now, unlike 4 years ago, so hell yes play for delegates in every State, bound or unbound.

 

[gte811i]

Someone can correct me on this but, yes there is a junk load that is just a simple majority.

Some things do require a 2/3rd majority:

Important ones:

1) Suspend the rules (basically, let's do whatever the heck we want)
2) End debate

1 is important if you have the overwhelming majority. Basically toss the rule book and make your own rules.
2 is important if you don't have the majority but have at least 1/3. Debate occurs after a motion is made. Debate must end before the vote.
Prevent a motion from being passed by not ending debate (okay RR has some limits on this, basically no one can speak twice in 1 day and for no longer than 10 min. each). I believe limiting and extending the debate is also 2/3rds.

Robert's Rule is supposed to allow for discussion and debate. Too many people do not understand that.

From what I've gathered and I can't emphasize this enough. At the convention the delegates are the legislative body. They make the the rules.
I really think if people really understood the RR things would be quite, quite different.

There is real power in RR and in being a delegate. Speak Up, don't be afraid to be heard, if you have a question, some else does too!

It is hard, because on a broad cultural scale attending conventions and going by RR has been completely taken out. 100 years ago, town hall meetings, county meetings, etc were very common. I bet those people would probably congratulate us but also chuckle at our current attempts.

But that's just my thoughts.

 

[LostNFoundNTx]

RONR (11th ed.), pp. 650-651

If the chair ignores a point of order that is not dilatory, the member can repeat the point of order a second and third time and if the chair still ignores it, the member, standing in his place, can immediately put the point of order to a vote without debate. The question may be put as, "Is the point of order that ... well taken?" If the point of order was that the chair improperly ignored another motion, the member may, instead of repeating the point of order, repeat the original motion, and if it is seconded and the chair still ignores it, may, standing in his place, put the ignored motion to a vote without debate.

Likewise, if the chair ignores an appeal appropriately made and seconded, a member can repeat the appeal and if, despite its being seconded, the chair ignores it again, the member can repeat it a third time and if it is again seconded but still ignored by the chair, the member can immediately, standing in his place, put the appeal to a vote without debate. The question may be put as: "Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?"

RONR (11th ed.), pp. 651-653 deal with the removal of a chair for all or part of a session. If anyone ever goes that route, they'd better be sure the replacement knows the rules or they'll really look like fools.

 

[gte811i]

duplicate

 

[VanBummel]

Are all aspects of parliamentary procedure subject to simple majority rule?

Some require majority, some require 2/3. I'm still learning the rules myself, but here is a helpful chart that tells whether a motion can interrupt a speaker, requires a second, can be debated, can be amended, and how it is passed:

 

[WilliamC]

Someone can correct me on this but, yes there is a junk load that is just a simple majority.

Some things do require a 2/3rd majority:

Important ones:

1) Suspend the rules (basically, let's do whatever the heck we want)
2) End debate

1 is important if you have the overwhelming majority. Basically toss the rule book and make your own rules.
2 is important if you don't have the majority but have at least 1/3. Debate occurs after a motion is made. Debate must end before the vote.
Prevent a motion from being passed by not ending debate (okay RR has some limits on this, basically no one can speak twice in 1 day and for no longer than 10 min. each). I believe limiting and extending the debate is also 2/3rds.

Robert's Rule is supposed to allow for discussion and debate. Too many people do not understand that.

From what I've gathered and I can't emphasize this enough. At the convention the delegates are the legislative body. They make the the rules.
I really think if people really understood the RR things would be quite, quite different.

There is real power in RR and in being a delegate. Speak Up, don't be afraid to be heard, if you have a question, some else does too!

It is hard, because on a broad cultural scale attending conventions and going by RR has been completely taken out. 100 years ago, town hall meetings, county meetings, etc were very common. I bet those people would probably congratulate us but also chuckle at our current attempts.

But that's just my thoughts.

Ah, thank you. I didn't think it was simple majority rule, and the 2/3 requirement to suspend the rules and end debate changes strategy considerations considerably.

 

[gte811i]

Ah, thank you. I didn't think it was simple majority rule, and the 2/3 requirement to suspend the rules and end debate changes strategy considerations considerably.

Yeah, just learning about that myself. 2/3rds is tough to get . . . smoke 'em out.

 

[LostNFoundNTx]

Suspending rules is more complicated than most realize. There are varying rules for what can be suspended when. In almost all cases, suspension of rules is not necessary because the issue can be addressed in another manner. Also, suspending the rules can lead to serious disorder because the primary purpose of having the rules in the first place is not to restrict the abilities of the delegates but to encourage orderly, efficient business while preserving a number of rights of the majority, the minority, and the individual.

 

[gte811i]

The debate thing is tricky, from what I've gathered, you can't just have endless debate.

No one can speak twice until everyone who wants to speak has already spoken once. And it looks like you can't speak more than twice a day on the same motion;
but you can on a different motion.

In order to smoke 'em out, you've got to be highly organized.

 

[gte811i]

Suspending rules is more complicated than most realize. There are varying rules for what can be suspended when. In almost all cases, suspension of rules is not necessary because the issue can be addressed in another manner. Also, suspending the rules can lead to serious disorder because the primary purpose of having the rules in the first place is not to restrict the abilities of the delegates but to encourage orderly, efficient business while preserving a number of rights of the majority, the minority, and the individual.

Very, very true . . .
I would imagine suspension of the rules is tantamount to burning down the house and building a new one instead of just fixing a leaking roof.