All Rules Are Connected Lorenzo R. Cuesta, PRP

All Rules Are Connected

By Lorenzo R. Cuesta, PRP

The beauty of Robert’s rules is that all of the rules make sense. There are no arbitrary or capricious rules anywhere, just as there are no independent or isolated rules. Every rule impacts many other rules, and every rule is impacted by many other rules. This web of rules creates a solid substructure.

When one learns one parliamentary attribute in one part of the book, one finds that knowledge of that attribute facilitates the understanding of other concepts in other parts of the book. The connection is clearly evident among the rules even if some connections might be somewhat subtle.

For instance, what is the unique or uncommon parliamentary attribute within each of the following examples of rules from Robert’s rules?

Answers can be found on page 10.

First example:

1. Lay on the Table 2. Reconsider the Vote 3. Recount a Vote

Second example:

1. Amend an Agenda 2. Amend the Minutes

Third example:

1. Polls 2. Nominations

Fourth example:

1. Required Notice 2. Object to the Consideration of a Question

Fifth example:

1. Write-in Vote 2. Remove from the President the Authority to Preside

Sixth example:

1. Consent Calendar 2. Convention Standing Rules

Lorenzo r. Cuesta is a Professional registered Parliamentarian.

He has served as a parliamentarian for boards, conventions, and annual meetings in and beyond California for more than 20 years. He is a frequent contributor to the National Parliamentarian and an annual workshop presenter at the NAP convention and conference. (http://www.roberts-rules.com, parliam@roberts-rules.com)

All Rules Are Connected

Continued from page 9

ANSWerS:

First example: The motions “Lay on the Table” [RONR (11th ed.), p. 214.] and “Reconsider” (p. 321) die at the close of the subsequent session, unless action is taken before that time. A majority vote may order a “Recount” after the voting results are announced. But, the power to order a “Recount” (p. 419) also expires after the close of the next session if no motion is made by that time. Second example: After the adoption of the Agenda or the Minutes, both “Amend the Agenda” [RONR (11th ed.), p. 373.] and “Amend the Minutes” (p. 475) require a 2/3 vote to adopt. But both motions are among the ten motions that one could adopt with the lesser threshold of “Majority of the Entire Membership.” Third example: Motions related to “Polls” [RONR (11th ed.), p. 284.] and “Nominations” (p. 287) share a unique voting threshold not common in other rules. It takes a majority of the votes cast to open either, but a higher 2/3 vote to close either. A higher threshold is common among motions that seek to deny members certain rights. Fourth example: The right to interrupt a pending motion to give “Notice” [RONR (11th ed.), p. 123.] is similar to the right to interrupt a speaker in order to make the motion, “Object to Consideration of a Question” (p. 270). Though many interrupting motions exist in Robert’s rules, only these two situations allow a member, without the need of a second, to interrupt a speaker even if the speaker has been assigned the floor—just as long as the speaker has not begun to speak. Fifth example: The right to a “Write-in Vote” [RONR (11th ed.), p. 431.] and the authority to deny the president the right to preside (p. 652), regardless of what the society’s bylaws state, are both identifiable as in the “Nature of Rules of Order” (p. 17). As a consequence, these two rules, even if written into the society’s bylaws, may be suspended. Sixth example: A lone member of the assembly has the power to demand that certain items on the “Consent Calendar” [RONR (11th ed.), p. 361.] or in the “Convention Standing Rules” (p. 619) be considered separately from their respective documents. The lone member’s demand does not require a second nor a vote. This demand does not even allow for any debate or any amendments to be executed. There are at least eight demands described in Robert’s rules.

Robert’s rules, by its multilevel structure and sensible framework, facilitates understanding and learning of even the most complex parliamentary concepts. As I have illustrated above, even separate motions are connected by sharing some parliamentary attribute that makes one feel so familiar and comfortable with distinct concepts.