Notes and Comments on Robert's Rules, Fourth Edition

Introduction

ix Introduction Organizations that need a parliamentary authority typically adopt Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised. While Robert’s1 serves with distinction in this role, it can also intimidate members. Complaints about the complicated and archaic aspects of parliamentary law have long prompted cries for simplification.2 The pleas have not fallen on deaf ears. In fact, so many books, booklets, charts, manuals, and articles have been written that one author was moved to begin, “There are hundreds of books about parliamentary procedure. Surely there can be no valid reason for another.”3 Generally, though, these efforts have made little impact on the public not because the attempts to simplify are inadequate but because they are not Robert’s.4 Recent books on parliamentary procedure generally fit into two categories. The first are introductions to the procedures for meetings and are intended as an alternative to reading Robert’s. In contrast, Notes and Comments emphasizes the simple machinery in Robert’s, relates Robert’s to the procedures most commonly used in meetings, and elaborates on concepts found in Robert’s in an easy to follow question-and-answer format. Notes and Comments encourages members to obtain and study, rather than avoid, Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised. The second type of book encourages simple rules as a replacement for formal procedure, generally focusing on the small board, committee , or informal group.5 The impression is left that larger membership meetings and conventions operate under incomprehensible rules. Few books assist members of such organizations, who can be overwhelmed and threatened by the size and apparent complexity of the rules. Notes and Comments is not a replacement for the predominant manual in parliamentary law but is intended to supplement it for participants—those who attend meetings and conventions. Notes and Comments addresses the procedures specific to larger assemblies , such as annual meetings and conventions, and suggests where modifications to Robert’s practices might help. In addition, Notes and x Introduction Comments provides commentary on and comparisons with other major parliamentary authorities, especially in the notes. The premise of Notes and Comments is that parliamentary procedure should enable members to achieve their objectives rather than intimidate them, On Robert’s Rules Robert’s Rules of Order was first published in 1876; the first major revision , Robert’s Rules of Order Revised, appeared in 1915. Throughout the 1960s, hopes for a modern and simplified Robert’s were heightened by the knowledge that a second major revision was under way. It was not to be. Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised appeared in 1970 as a significantly expanded work (almost doubling in size). One reviewer, Marshall Soren, began, “The long heralded and long awaited new revision of Robert’s Rules of Order . . . is, in many ways, extremely well done. Yet, a sigh of regret is . . . appropriate, for the book is painfully out of date.”6 After praising the thoroughness of the book, the writing style, and the organization, Soren complained, “it is reasonable to expect authors to use the English language as it is understood today,” and added, “but there is a worse problem in the book than the retention of obsolete language, and that is the retention of obsolete and awkward concepts. Many motions discussed in the volume are either unused or unnecessary for modern practice.”7 Speaking for the leadership of the American Institute of Parliamentarians , Emogene Emery praised the 1970 edition for “organization , the style and lucidity of the writing, the clarity of the charts, its additional explanation and illustration,” but she too expressed disappointment that the “terminology had not been modernized” and “the rules had not been simplified.”8 Others joined in the lament that Robert’s had been neither modernized nor simplified.9 The authors of the revision had given warning, prior to publication , not to expect a Robert’s abridged. Coauthor James W. Cleary had previously stated that a hallmark of the revision would be its “continuing completeness and comprehensiveness” and that it would “not exclude motions or rules on the presumption that infrequent use in certain circles makes them unnecessary.”10 Coauthor William J. Evans flatly stated, “We are not trying to simplify the subject matter,” but that instead their edition “aims to be the last word.” Lest anyone wonder, he noted that “It is not a novel; it is not designed to be used xi Introduction quickly.”11 Coauthor Henry M. Robert...