THE (COMPETING) RULES OF ORDER
Now that in-person meetings are a thing again (for now), how is the Chair (or President) to navigate to possible chaos and confusion packing dozens of opinionated folk into a room might create? The answer -- Rules of Order.
Parliamentary procedure is designed to maintain a semblance of order within a public meeting setting. Now that Neighborhood Council meetings are back to in-person affairs, it’s time to go back to school and revisit some of the most basic aspects of the Rules of Order.
Firstly, there are two governing publications which dominate parliamentary procedure — Robert’s Rules of Order, and Rosenberg’s Rules of Order. Robert’s is more established. but can be overly formalistic and daunting to understand. Rosenberg’s is a more simplified set of procedures designed by a former California Superior Court judge. Because of this, many small municipalities and departments utilize Rosenberg’s over Robert’s. When determining what your respective NC utilizes, refer to their By Laws. it should be listed under “Governing Structure”, or a similar heading.
There are differences between the two, especially when it comes to the power bestowed upon the Chair of the meeting. “They have been simplified for smaller governing bodies and slimmed down for the 21st century, while retaining the basic tenets of order,” according to the League of California Cities. In fact, Rosenberg’s is barely a dozen pages long, whereas Robert’s pushes past 700 pages in length. Yet, by whittling basic parliamentary procedure down to the bare minimum, thus making such rules more accessible for both the Board and the community, Rosenberg’s creates a double-edge blade of sorts: Everybody can follow the Rules, since the Rules are easy to understand, yet one may take liberties with such Rules due to the gray area created BY simplifying such Rules.
According to Jurassic Parliament, some of the issues with Rosenberg’s are as follows:
1. Rosenberg gives too much importance and latitude to “substitute motions.” This could be very confusing for the body. Jurassic Parliament recommends against the widespread use of substitute motions. Better to defeat a motion and then propose a new one.
2. Rosenberg approves the common usage of “friendly amendment.” This goes against the principle that a motion, once made, seconded and stated by the chair, belongs to the body as a whole. The maker and seconder should not have the right to accept an amendment during discussion
3. Rosenberg allows members of the body to interrupt debate and withdraw a motion unilaterally. This is disruptive and undemocratic.
4. In Rosenberg, only three motions may be on the floor at the same time. This greatly restricts the number of actions a body may take.
5. Robert’s provides information on many motions, situations and issues in its 716 pages that are not covered in Rosenberg’s 10 pages.
Yet, with a proper Chair at the helm, Rosenberg’s can be an effective set of standards to guide a Neighborhood Council meeting. In fact, municipalities like Hermosa Beach and Santa Clarita have switch to Rosenberg’s over the past few years.
Enough with the differences. Let’s get to a few of the basic procedures BOTH Rules of Order share. There are other similarities,
QUORUM — A quorum is a majority of the voting membership present, which is required to begin any Council meeting, Board or Committee. For example, if there are 12 Board (or committee) members, then a majority of that is 7. 14 would be 8. 16 would be 9.
ALL MOTIONS REQUIRE A SECOND — Every motion brought before the voting body requires a “second”, unless the motion has already been seconded in Committee. If there is no second, the motion immediately fails. The person who made the motion cannot also second it.
ALL MOTIONS ARE DEBATABLE BY THE COMMUNITY — Whether it be a main motion, an amendment, or a substitute motion (replacing the main motion), every motion before the Board MUST include public debate.
INTERRUPTIONS — There are three “points” in Robert’s and two in Rosenberg’s, though the third is routinely used within Rosenberg meetings without controversy. Points can interrupt a speaker, but the one making the point MUST wait for the Chair to recognize them before addressing the body.
• Point of Order — When a member withes to address that procedure is not being followed.
• Point of Privilege — When a member wishes to address noise interference, can’t hear the speaker, or must temporarily step away for anther reason.
• Point of Information — This one is a Robert’s thing, but is also used in Rosenberg meetings as well. This is used if one has information that can better inform the voting body.
MOTION TO TABLE — A motion to place an agenda item on “hold”. This might be due to new information revealed during discussion, or that the motion has been presented too soon. This requires a second and a majority vote.
MOTION TO OBJECT TO THE CONSIDERATION OF THE QUESTION — This motion is rarely utilized, since it prevents the motion from ever reaching the Board for discussion. As with all motions that prevent or end debate, it requires a two-thirds vote. Moving the Previous Question, or the “can we get to a vote already” motion, also requires a two-thirds vote.
A two-thirds vote is called a super-majority.
CALL FOR THE ORDRS OF THE DAY — A fancy way of saying that the body has strayed too far from the agenda, and it needs to get back on track. No vote is required if the Chair agrees. If they don’t agree….
APPEAL — The decision of the Chair may be appealed by a voting member. It requires a second, debate, and a majority vote. Robert’s parses this procedure into some examples that cannot be debated, (indecorum, the priority of business, or an undebatable question), but it’s always a good rule of thumb to offer debate.
The issue with some in-person meetings are squabbles between Board or Committee members. It is the Chairs responsibility to understand the tools bestowed upon them, and how to use them judiciously and dispassionately. Board or Committee members, ESPECIALLY at in-person meetings, should always address the Chair. Everything runs through the Chair. As noted previously with the Jurassic Parliament argument, Rosenberg affords the Chair of a meeting far greater privilege than Robert’s, whereas Robert’s leans more toward the Governing Body owning that privilege, so a Chair who can leave their ego at the door and place the good of the order ahead of personal feelings and affiliations, who limits their interjections so that they do not dominate the proceedings, may find the Rules of Order natural to them.
