Who's on First

When there is a power struggle at a meeting, there is often the problem of who is on first -- who has the ultimate power. If you take a simple look at RONR, this problem is solved easily as it is the chair of the meeting to whom all voices must yield. Does this yield to abuse? Yes, but in most cases it is not abuse of power but an abuse of understanding what is the proper procedure. I have seen people trying to browbeat the chair by claiming a right. Sometimes they have been right but the way they have gone about it is totally wrong. There are times when the chair is perfectly correct in getting away from normal procedure -- when the assembly is happy with what is going on. The debate has swayed over to what the assembly is really worried about and this is off topic of what the motion before the assembly is about. I have seen a chair insist that it be allowed despite the one member raising points of order. To me, this is a case where the assembly is correct, not the individual insisting to go back to exactly the motion that does not solve the need of the minute. Yep, I am a heretic -- here tics what is needed and that is the purpose of meeting.

Procedure is not everything. It is a tool to get to what the assembly wants and sometimes that tool just cannot carry the day. It is up to the assembly to either vocally or subtly express the need it has. That is more important than any point of order.

Giving Notice

Some items require notice before the assembly can consider them. Notice (more technically, Previous Notice) means that the members are notified ahead of time that an item will come up before them. This is often done by announcing at a meeting that something will be brought up the next time. If the society is meeting less often than quarterly or if the bylaws require it, the notice is included in the Call for the meeting that is sent to the members.

To count the days for the notice, the day that the notice is sent out is counted but not the day of the meeting. So for a notice that requires ten days and a meeting that is scheduled on the 23rd of the month, notice needs to go out no later than the 13th of the month -- the 13th is counted as day 1 and the 22nd would be day 10. So if the notice was sent on the 14th, it could not be considered on the 23rd; if sent on the 13th, it could be considered on the 23rd.

In counting the days, it is based on "sent" and not on "received". The society has no control over the postal system.

How is the notice sent? By mail unless another way is authorized.

The purpose of notice is to ensure that the members know that some serious topic is coming up at the meeting. Notice is not perfect as you cannot ensure that everybody will receive the notice (some mail gets delayed) or that they will read it either partially or completely.

Your Rights in Debate

You actually have a lot of rights in debate. First, and foremost, if you are a member, you have the right to participate in debate without hindrance. If you are speaking, you have the right to say what you have to say without interference from others subject to the rules of Decorum. Nobody has the right to shout you down. Nobody has the right to interject into your talking time. Nobody has a right to comment while you are talking. All of these are subject to the legitimate right of the chair to come in when an issue arises.

You also have the right to take many sides of an argument (limited to the affirmative side for the mover of the motion). What you say in debate cannot be held either for or against you in the future.

You have the right to timeness -- a point of order about your comments must be made at the time they are said and not a month, a year, a decade later. This is an important reason why minutes contain what was done and not what was said. You can debate in favor of one opinion and then come back, appropriately, later and take the other side. Neither should be held against you -- it is debate which is the presenting of arguments.

Debate should be informative and constructive for you; not destructive.

When to Meet

This seems like a very minor question but it actually one of great importance. Meetings are held according to established schedules found in the bylaws, according to procedures established by the bylaws.

You cannot just order up a meeting although many in organizations think that this can happen. You need to follow the rules for calling meetings. These are going to vary from one organization to another.

So look to the bylaws as to when you are required to meet -- either a date, a period, or by special calling of the rules. Outside of these, nobody can order up a meeting. Oh, if you are a non-profit in Japan, the Kanji can order a meeting -- it's the law.

Executive Session

Quite a few people I know have no idea as to what is meant by Executive Session. Basically, it means a session that is to be kept secret from those not entitled to attend. For an Executive Session, nonmembers are usually asked to leave the room. If they are not asked to leave, they are expected not to divulge what goes on in the Executive Session.

What about the results of votes taken in Executive Session? They are not released unless the body votes to release them. Often this is done but it is not automatic.

Executive Session is often used for debating controversial topics. This allows the body to discuss all the various aspects of a topic without worrying that others will find out what was said. It does not mean that the rules of Decorum do not apply -- they still apply. But the body can explore controversial ideas without worrying about their statements being exposed to the world -- if the people attending stick to the secrecy of Executive Session.

To Follow or Not Follow Parliamentary Procedure

Some people think that following parliamentary procedure wastes time at meetings. I usually find that those people are slowed down as they cannot move their ideas through as others are given the full right of participation. Parliamentary procedure works to give all members a fair chance to participate and to do things based on a majority vote.

Some organizations have a tradition of not following a parliamentarian authority. New people are often left out of the decision making process and the organization is run by a click. The click only lets those who agree with it advance to positions of authority. The organization starts to eat it self apart from the inside as new potential members don't want to be part of the group. Others leave as they never have a chance to present their ideas or to advance.

Groups need to have a fresh perspective coming in or they die of stagnation. Following parliamentary procedure can never guarantee that such freshness will be available. Lack of parliamentary procedure does guarantee that such freshness will never exist.

Changing Procedures

If an organization wants to change some procedure, it had better take a good look at its bylaws. That is often where a change in procedure needs to be made. But many organizations do not want to do that. They think that they can just decide on the change and let it go at that. What do I mean? below is an example.
Imagine that an organization wants to add a permanent committee to handle publicity. They have never done this before. Publicity had been handled informally but members were finding that this was not working. So they pass a resolution creating the committee and say that it is permanent.
One member looks at the bylaws and sees that there is a provision for certain standing committees and the bylaws are silent about adding new standing committees. This member points out that it is improper to establish a standing (permanent) committee for publicity. This member is right. Since there is a definite list of standing committees, a new one can only be created by adding to the list in the bylaws -- amending the bylaws to do so.
Even if a majority want the committee to be a standing one, they have to follow the procedures in their bylaws to amend them. Caution in making changes is important. You need to follow the rules as they are the rules that your society adopted.
Hope this helps.

The Agenda

It is funny that many people think that the Board or the President sets the agenda for a meeting. Neither of these is true unless the bylaws contain a provision saying so. So how does the agenda get set?

If the organization just follows the general order of business stated in Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised or in one of the other standard works, no agenda is needed. A clear order of business is established. But this is not enough for many organizations. They want a clear indication of when matters will come up.

If an agenda is needed or wanted, it is the meeting that establishes it. The appropriate officer, often in consultation with others, proposes an agenda. This isa main motion and can be amended by proposals. Most amendments are handled by unanimous consent. If there is not unanimous consent, the change is usually voted on. If a member is proposing to bring up an idea under New Business, no vote is needed. The assembly, often by unanimous consent, votes to accept the agenda.

So if somebody tells you that the officers set the agenda, just ask them where that rule is written down. If they cannot give an exact citation that you can check out, ignore them.

The Reason for ParliamentaPstrry Procedure

Parliamentary Procedure is designed to give all at a meeting a fair share in the action. It is not designed to limit people; it is designed to give people a chance to bring forth their ideas in a fair way. It is designed to make the playing field fair and equal. Trouble is that many organizations have people who don't want to play fair. These are the people who afraid to let others bring forth ideas or who are afraid to let people stop debate because they have heard enough.

Parliamentary Procedure also works to let the majority rule and decide things as opposed to some minority which thinks that they are right about how things should be.

Yes, it is complicated at times as it is dealing with human relations -- not the easiest thing in the world. But a little knowledge can help all.

Web Site

My web site, where there is a lot of study material for Parliamentary Procedure, is www.parliamentarycorner.com.