The Idea You Intend to Convey John R. Berg, PRP

The Idea You Intend to Convey

By John R. Berg, PRP

Gilbert & Sullivan’s opera “H.M.S. Pinafore” premiered in 1878, just two years after Henry M. Robert’s Pocket Manual of Rules of Order for Deliberative Assemblies. To assure that the audience did not miss an important plot point sung by the character Buttercup, the character Sir Joseph asks, “Then I am to understand that...?” and he summarizes the plot point. Buttercup then responds, “That is the idea I intended to convey.”

The important concept here is that the listener repeats back to the speaker what the listener understood from the speaker, followed by the original speaker confirming the correct understanding. This is referred to as reflective listening.

It is important for us as parliamentarians to assure that the meaning that we intend to convey is clear and that our words cannot be misunderstood. Similarly, the chair repeats the pending question to the assembly before debate, frequently during debate after there are amendments or other secondary motions, and again before the final vote.

In written bylaws, resolutions, or any other rules, the meaning must be clear enough so that it cannot be easily misunderstood or even intentionally misinterpreted. One effective method in translating documents into another language involves having another person translate the document back into the original language so that the original translator can determine if it still has the meaning intended to be conveyed.

Having more than one person reviewing a draft for clarity is a useful process, and this practice contributes to the value of committees in drafting documents.

Words often have more than one meaning, and meanings change over time.

If my grandmother back in 1920 said that her husband was gay, it would have a quite different meaning than my granddaughter today saying that her best friend is gay. Think of the traditional Christmas Carol “Deck the Halls” with the line “Don we now our gay apparel” as another example of how the word meaning changes.

Free and freedom used to mean primarily without compulsion or constraint, and the concept of without cost or obligation was only a minor usage. Today, with advertising being extensive, the term free is generally understood to mean without cost or obligation, with the former meaning limited to matters relating to police custody.

Cleave is actually two different words, with two different origins, which happen to be spelled and pronounced the same. Yet they have opposite meanings. Cleave, meaning to adhere firmly, closely, loyally, or unwaveringly, comes from the Old High German kleben, to stick. Cleave, meaning to divide as if from cutting, comes from the Old Norse klufa, to split. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, (11th ed.), 2014, p. 230. This can be confusing at a marriage ceremony at which the couple is admonished to cleave together and allow no one to cleave the marriage asunder.

Invalid means not valid. Ineligible means not eligible. Incoherent means not coherent. Yet inflammable means flammable, contrary to the usual usage of the prefix “in,” which typically negates the following part of the word. The currently increased usage of the term invaluable to mean valuable can be confusing and even irritating to those who think invaluable should mean not valuable.

The classic vaudeville routine “Who’s on First” made famous by Abbott and Costello is a classic example of words being misunderstood. If the reader is not familiar with this routine, stop reading right now and do a quick Internet search of “who’s on first.” The humor and confusion arise because the baseball players assigned to first, second, and third base have the names of Who, What, and I Don’t Know, respectively. Abbott tries to tell Costello the names of the respective players on the team and six minutes of chaos ensues. See also their routine on getting dough for loafing at a bakery. (Dough can mean unbaked bread or be slang for money, and loafing can mean not working or forming loaves of bread.)

Confusion can be introduced in bylaws when any attempt is made to incorporate rules from elsewhere.

If the bylaws of a subordinate body want to reference the provisions of the superior body that are binding on the subordinate body, it is best to have only a simple reference or no reference at all. If an attempt is made to quote the superior provisions, conflict can arise if the superior bylaws are amended before inferior ones are amended to conform. If the superior bylaws are paraphrased, even more confusion arises because the inferior bylaws would be misleading and superseded by the bylaws of the superior body.

Likewise, parliamentary rules from the adopted parliamentary authority should not be included in bylaws or

special rules of order unless there is an attempt to supplement or overrule the adopted parliamentary authority. Simply to paraphrase something from the parliamentary authority can be disastrous because the bylaw or special rule of order provision would supersede the carefully worded provision in the parliamentary authority.

If a bylaw states “the president appoints all committees as she deems appropriate to promote the work of the society,” is the intent to allow the president to create committees rather than simply name members to the committees created by the bylaws or the society? The default rule in Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, RONR (12th ed.), 50:13(d), is that the president does not have authority to create committees. The bylaws should either use the wording referenced in RONR, “The president shall appoint all committees” (with any needed exceptions), or should state very clearly that the president has authority to create and establish committees.

Some bylaws state that something must be adopted by a majority of the quorum. The intent might be that something is to be adopted by a majority of votes cast, with a quorum being present at the meeting. However, the literal meaning would be a majority of the quorum, such that if the membership were 100, a quorum is 51; if 70 were at the meeting and 65 voting, a majority of the quorum would be 26 votes. Yet, under RONR, the majority needed for adoption in that case would be 33. It would be easier to state, “adopted by the members.” RONR puts in the requirement of a majority vote, meaning, “more than half of the votes cast by persons entitled to vote, excluding blanks or abstentions, at a regular or properly called meeting” (44:1).

Likewise, if the bylaws were to state that something must be adopted by a majority of the membership, is the intent to mean the majority of the entire membership, or just a majority vote at a meeting of the membership as opposed to a meeting of the board? If the first, it would require a majority of the total membership regardless of how many were at the meeting. In that case, the term “majority of the entire membership” should be used as it appears in RONR. Again, avoid throwing out the carefully balanced and worded provisions in RONR.

Neither of the terms simple majority nor super majority appear in RONR. To some, simple majority means a plurality, or more than any other alternative. Yet, to others, it means more than half, or as RONR defines, majority.

Table as a verb is another example of something to be avoided unless you are operating under a parliamentary authority other than RONR that clearly defines the term.

It is best to avoid terms that do not have a universally understood meaning.

If, on a Tuesday, two people agree to meet next Friday, one may think that means the Friday coming up in three days, while the other may think it means Friday of the next week, which would be ten days later. As with the reflective listening introduced above, confusion can be avoided by confirming with detailed information, such as, “yes, we can meet on Friday the 17th” or “Friday in ten days.” In responding to an email or text message, rather than responding with a simple “yes,” respond with something like, “Yes, I can be at the meeting at the lodge building at 4:00 p.m. on Friday the 17th.” That gives the original sender the opportunity to correct any misinformation.

The 1958 song “Purple People Eater” by Sheb Wooley raises the question of what a one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eater eats. Is it purple and eats people, or does it only eat purple people? Without clarifying punctuation, it could be more clearly described as a one-eyed one horned flying eater of purple people.

Pronouns can also be confusing, even without current gender issues. To say that Bill wanted to hit Jim but didn’t because he was too small, could be confusing if either the writer or reader was not clearly versed on English language grammar rules and usage. Was it Bill who was too small or Jim? It certainly makes a difference as to which idea is intended to be conveyed.

Robert’s original 1876 Pocket Manual of Rules of Order for Deliberative Assemblies was intended to apply during meetings. After having been revised and newly revised, RONR now contains provisions applying to many administrative functions of an organization outside of the meetings themselves. If the bylaws only specify that RONR applies to the meetings of the society, confusion may arise over its application in other functions of the organization.

Communication involves ideas that are intended to be conveyed by words in such a way that the receiver takes those words and recreates the same original ideas.

Careful wording of motions and documents in the first place can assure that the idea intended to be conveyed is conveyed. There is an old carpenter’s rule of thumb, “Measure twice, cut once,” If you do not have time to do it right the first time, when will you ever have time to correct it? NP

John R. Berg, PRP, was president of the Washington State Association of Parliamentarians 2017-2021 and has served as parliamentarian for a number of national organizations. In 2019 he was elected to the board of directors of the South Kitsap School District in Washington State and now serves as its vice president.