Robert's Rules of Order

[Stosh]

I didn't want to derail the other thread, so I started anew.

 

Robert's Rules.... Shouldn't all boys be taught this archaic way of doing public meetings in their Citizenship emphasis? Most people I know would rather waste time, haggle, dicker, bicker, fight and run rough-shod over other people than play by the "rules of order". Secret meetings, political positioning, shouting down the "other guys", get off target, meander down memory lane and generally accomplish little or nothing during the meeting.

 

Whenever I have been asked to be chair/president of a group it usually only lasts one term. I use Robert's Rules of Order, everyone gets a chance to speak and participate in discussions, and the proceedings last about an hour compared to the previous chairs whose record to beat was two evenings. They had to recess after 4 hours and reconvene the next night for 2 hours. The problem with me is I said the meeting would be one hour and it was, all the topics discussed, all the decisions were made and the evening of wasting time, haggling, dickering, bickering and fighting was over before anyone got a chance to build up a head of steam.

 

Minutes to the meeting were easy. The secretary collected up all the resolutions before the meeting started. Made notes on the discussion and filled in at the bottom the resolution vote. These were then reprinted in the minutes for the next meeting. Any subcommittee reports were also handed in and included in the minutes.

 

I have found over the past 40 years of being on committees, the only ones who don't really like Robert's Rules of Order are those that like to waste time, haggle, dicker, bicker, fight and run rough-shod over other people.

 

How many other troops use Roberts for their committee and PLC meetings?

 

Stosh

 

[qwazse]

Having a Presbyterian CO, you'd think we'd be required to. But we don't.

 

The troop has had a series of CC's who've moved things along quite nicely. They come with a prepared outline, you may request an item be added to the agenda in advance. There are unwritten rules of decorum. Folks don't speak for more than a minute. (For me this is really, really, hard.) Everybody get's a chance to discuss. We settle on a motion, then if everyone agrees (or, at least, is willing to concede), we move forward.

 

The last crew committee meeting ended in a pissing match years ago, so I said "Don't convene unless the crew president is present." I figured if a youth were in the room, folks would mind their manners. Instead, the CC opted to never hold a meeting! This actually helped the youth take a little more responsibility for their destiny, and MC's volunteered to support when asked, so I was fine with it.

 

I agree that the people who find rules of decorum "stuffy" and/or "pretentious" are often the ones who try to muzzle a member or railroad a decision. However, I have also seen a very clever fellow use the rules to derail an assembly for which he had contempt. So, I don't see such things as the "killer app" for ordering meetings. You still need a moderator who is firm yet compassionate and patient.

[Twocubdad]

How do you use RR in a body which isn't supposed to take votes? Unit committees aren't legislative bodies but rather meetings of people with different responsibilities coming together so report on their actions and coordinate common projects.

 

I was in the state student legislature in for three years of college and know my way around RR. Like Q, I've see people use the rules to tie meetings in knots. RR isn't a silver bullet to fix that.

[Eagledad]

All the RR of order does is apply a systematic discipline and structure to the meeting. It is not supposed to be used to hold back bad behavior, at least not in scouting because Scouts are supposed to follow the law and oath. However, our PLC uses a basic RR of Order only for a meeting structure. The reality is the meetings are run like qwazse describes. Our PLC meetings are only 30 minutes long, a lot of business has to get done in that time. So a systematic process has to be applied to have a productive meeting. I don’t have a problem with RR of Order in scouting, but it is a bit much for the needs of scout and scouter meetings.

 

Barry

 

[Sidney Porter]

I was Parliamentarian of student senate for 2 years in college. I knew way more rules than anyone should. Like Twocubdad said it can be used for both negative and positive.

[Eagledad]

I Don't have one around to look at, but I believe the BSA SPL Handbook provides a meeting structure for the scouts to use. Something like, reading of minutes, old business, new business. Barry

[SSScout]

There are three ways to decide things in a group. One, the Commander says "do it". Two, the Chair/President/Speaker asks for a vote (see Robert's Rules) and some defined majority decides the issue. Three, the group seeks "consensus". This usually means that the folks involved firstly must respect each other's opinion and interest in the issues, secondly the folks involved know that some cooperation between them is desirable, and thirdly the folks involved recognize some corporate rather than individual interest in the issues. For Consensus to work, a lot of respectful listening and discussion needs to happen. If there is too much ego at work, consensus won't work. Ego wants it's way, not what is necessarily best for the group.

Us Quakers use the term "discernment". One seeks to "discern" what is needed, what should happen, what SHOULD be done, not necessarily what CAN be done (another issue entirely). Anyone can have the needed idea, and the group must be willing to recognize it when it is presented.

 

I like the Troop committee to be consensual, less regimentation. If the folks involved truly understand the goals involved in Scouting, it will happen. If not, drag out the RRoO.

[SWScouter]

I'd be happy if the scouts would, "move to" do something instead of, "make a motion to" do something. Yuk.

[Old_OX_Eagle83]

Good thread, RRO are used to keep things fair, and civil. A Troop PLC or Lodge LEC certainly should use them, as they are voting bodies. Unit Committees, as pointed out above, are not voting bodies, but rather are variety of members, and/or sub-committees, that appear to report progress, coordinate, and receive new assignments. Depending on how you interpret unit committee structure there are either three votes (the actual officers on the Charter), or it's one individual empowered to act with a limited portion of the authority of the Charter Org.

 

As I have said before, if it comes down to figuring out who has the authority, something is broke. Everyone should act as a team working toward common goals.