Rules of order can become a religion of sort.  As a meeting progresses, members can become obsessed with the rules, while ignoring the core principles that should guide their collective decision making process.  Running a meeting exactly by the rule cannot by itself guarantee good outcomes for the organization.  Principles should always come first.

The “how” versus the “why”

Rules are the “hows” of your collective decision making process.  For example: How is a motion handled?  How is an amendment processed?  On the other hand, principles are the “whys” and “what fors”:  What are the desirable outcomes of a shared decision making process?  Why are certain rules followed, and what are they intended to achieve?

When considering your collective decision making process, there are substantive outcomes and process-related outcomes to consider:

• Substantively, the group should have in-depth discussions of issues.  It should be guided by the good of the organization as a whole, which should have precedence over the interests of any individual or affiliated group.  Guided by the broad organizational interests, the assembly should venture to make collective decisions which are wise and responsible, and which serve the organization and its stakeholders in both the short and long terms.
  
• Process-wise, collective decisions should be made within a reasonable amount of time (not too much and not too little).  In addition, these decisions should be reached in a manner that engages members in discussions and takes into account their insights, ideas, concerns and observations.  Put differently: The purpose is not only to make good collective decisions, but also to ensure that most if not all participants “arrive at the same destination together, as active and willing partners, and not as reluctant neighbors”.

Specifically, here are some of the principles to consider for your shared decision making process:

• Clarity: Every member deserves to know what is being discussed and voted on.  Yet, in many meetings members are confused about the wording of main motions and about the process of handling secondary motions.
  
• Efficiency:  Meetings are costly.  Time should be treated like money and be allocated to issues, in direct proportion to their significance to the organization.  Yet in many meetings 90% of the time is spent on things that don’t make a difference.  In other meetings, a great deal of time is wasted on futile arguments about insignificant procedural issues.
  
• Balance and inclusion: Every member should have the same opportunity to speak and influence the group’s decisions.  Yet in many meetings 90% of the time is consumed by 10% of the people.  Quieter members (and their great ideas) are left behind, and the organization is poorer for it.
  
• Protecting basic rights: In a well functioning democracy, the majority has the right to rule, and the minority has the right to be heard.  However, in reality, democracy is often replaced by monarchy (with the chair assuming too much power) or anarchy (or “the tyranny of the minority”, with outspoken members dominating discussions and intimidating others).

Rules of order and principles

Every rule of order should have a principle that it seeks to uphold.  When you examine a rule of order, you should be able to ask: Why is it needed, and what is it intended to achieve? 

For example, the requirement that motions be seconded is intended to promote the principle of efficiency.  It is supposed to prevent the introduction of a motion if only one individual is interested in its consideration. 

Yet, in reality, the requirement of a second does not work very well in advancing the principle of efficiency.  Members often second motions out of courtesy, feeling bad for the proponent of the motion.  Or they may second motions to have their names recorded in the minutes (not knowing that the name of a seconder should not be recorded in the minutes).

Procedural violations

Books on rules of order give a great deal of attention to the intricacies of the rules.  The question to ponder is this: How realistic is it to expect that you’ll go through a meeting without violating some rules?  Given the sheer volume of the rules, the likelihood of violating some of them is very high.  In fact, it is a virtual certainty (When was the last time you witnessed a “picture-perfect” meeting?). 

With that in mind, the question is not whether you will violate the rules, but how to treat such violations.  You need criteria to determine whether a violation is significant, and, if so, what to do about it.

Two interesting citations

Two interesting and not often quoted citations from Robert’s Rules of Order Newly revised (2000 edition) illustrate how procedural violations should be treated.

Page 243:  “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”.

Page 440:  “The president should never be technical or more strict than is necessary for the good of the meeting.  Good judgment is essential: the assembly may be of such a nature, through its unfamiliarity with parliamentary usage and its peaceable disposition, that strict enforcement of the rules, instead of assisting, would greatly hinder business”.

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

Two tests to determine the significance of a violation

Based on the first citation, here are the two tests with which to determine whether a procedural violation is significant or insignificant:

• Is anyone’s right infringed upon by the violation?
• Is the violation causing any harm to the progress of the meeting?

If the answer is “no” to both of the above questions, the procedural violation is insignificant and members need not draw attention to it.

Examples of significant violations

Here are two examples of significant procedural violations:

• There is no quorum at the meeting.  Let’s look at the two tests: Is anyone’s right being violated?  Yes, the absentees.  Is any harm done to the proper transaction of business?  Yes.  Any decision made in the absence of a quorum is invalid.  Taking action in the absence of a quorum places the organization at risk.
  
• A member is recognized to speak when another one barges in and takes over. This is a violation of the rule that “we speak by raining hands”.  Are anyone’s rights violated?  Yes, the member who was recognized to speak is disenfranchised.  Is any harm done to the progress of the meeting?  Of course.  In a chaotic meeting nothing gets done (efficiency suffers), and discussions are dominated by assertive members (an imbalance).  The quality of the group’s decisions is bound to suffer.

Examples of insignificant violations

Here are two examples of insignificant procedural violations:

• A motion was not seconded, but the meeting went ahead with the discussion.  Is anyone’s right violated?  Not likely.  If the meeting went ahead and discussed the motion, it is clear that more than one person was interested in the discussion.
  
• The person who made a motion, having heard the discussion, wants to explain why she was persuaded to vote against her own motion.  This is a technical violation the rule that a member may not speak against his or her own motion (although he or she may vote against it or request permission to withdraw it).  But is this violation significant?  Let’s look at the two tests: Is anyone’s right violated?  Is any harm done by this violation to the progress of the meeting?  In all likelihood both answers are no.  In fact, more harm is likely to be done to the tone of the meeting by raising a point of order about this minor violation.

In closing

When managing or participating in a meeting, consider the rules of order as a means to an end, and not an end in itself.   If used well, rules of order should advance fundamental principles.  They should help your group spend its time well and make good decisions on behalf of your organization and the people it serves.  So don’t let the rules become the master and the primary focus for the meeting.  Always put “the horse” (the principles) ahead of “the cart” (the rules).

Note: This article was first published in January 2002 in AIP’s Parliamentary Journal.