In a Municipal Council meeting, a main motion is moved and seconded to launch an important community project. Immediately one Councillor says: "I move to amend the motion to start the project next June instead of January". Another Councillor jumps into the fray: "We should not make it a fixed date. We should wait until all potential partners give us a full commitment to this project. I move to amend the amendment to reflect this". A third Councillor says: This project does not fit within our mandate. I move to table the motion". Everyone is confused, including the Mayor. A rescue from this quagmire is badly needed.

Sound familiar? If this scenario is confusing for Council, it is likely to be even more confusing for the citizens who are watching the meeting from the public gallery.

Councils often get entangled in procedural quagmires and waste precious time trying to work their way out of them. They may end up doing things by the book, i.e.: Start with a vote on tabling, then (if tabling fails) vote on the amendment to the amendment, then vote on the amendment, and then vote on the main motion. The clerk would try very hard to keep Council on track, with some success (Alleluia !!) Nonetheless, the process feels clumsy, onerous and constraining. The sequence of votes makes absolutely no sense: Why should the debate on the amendments pre-empt the main motion, when the main idea should be debated first?

What can be done to stop wasting precious time on precise adherence to rules of order? Clearly, Council needs to shift from the R (rule) word to the P (principle) word. It needs to look beyond rules of order. It needs to be guided by the principles and the outcomes that the rules are intended to achieve, which are: clarity, efficiency, inclusiveness, and open debate. Rules of order should be a means to end, and should not be an end in themselves. They should facilitate progress, and not impede it, as the traditional amending process often does.

Common sense comes to the rescue

How might the Mayor deal with the scenario at the start of this article? The overall goal should be to make the decision making process clear, simple, logical, inclusive and efficient. Here is an example of what the Mayor might say:

“Before we get involved with amendments and amendments to amendments, I suggest we set everything aside for the time being, and have an informal discussion first. We could discuss the following questions in a logical order:

The first set of questions is: Do we want to pursue this project at all? If so, why and what for? What specific benefits do we expect, and how does it fit within our overall strategic direction and priorities? We need to discuss these questions first, before we start with amendments. If this discussion leads us to conclude that there isn’t a majority in favor of this project under any conditions, then we can save ourselves time by not discussing any amendments.

On the other hand, if it becomes clear that a majority is generally in support of this project, but is not comfortable with the terms of the agreement and the approval schedule, we can then discuss the next question: What terms of this agreement would be acceptable to us? What schedules would be comfortable? What changes should be made to the proposal before it can be voted on?

After we conclude the informal discussion, we can frame our consensus as a motion, and then move, second, debate and vote on it.

Is Council in agreement with this process, that is starting with discussing the general idea of this project – that “what” and the “why”, and only then discussing the details, or “the how”? Is there any objection to setting everything aside for now and starting with an informal discussion, without any amendments for the time being? Thank you.”

The impact of the above approach would likely be a big sigh of relief (at least for some, though perhaps not for the “parliamentary nitpicker”). Councillors would debate the main issues freely and without being constrained and confused by the amending process. Citizens in the public gallery would likely understand and follow the process much better. Time would be saved and agony would be reduced.

“BUT”, you might say, “This does not follow Robert’s Rules of Order section 12 to the letter”. And you would be absolutely right. So here is a phrase for you from page 243 of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR, 2000 edition):

“In ordinary meetings it is undesirable to raise points of order on minor irregularities of a purely technical character, if it is clear that no one’s rights are being infringed upon and no real harm is done to the proper transaction of business”.

The message? Stop the nit picking and don’t insist on a “picture-perfect” meeting (procedurally, that is). Just make sure that business gets done properly, that members are included in the decision making process, and that basic rights are respected. Pay attention to the principles, much more so than the purely technical rules.