The terms meeting and session are often confused. Although used synonymously, their meanings are different but overlapping. The usage of the words varies between the legislative body and what parliamentarians call the ordinary deliberative assembly, which is everything else.
When most folks think of session, they are referring to a legislative body. In Texas, a regular session is held at the beginning of every odd-numbered year and lasts 140 days. Since 1989, there have been 18 special sessions called by the governor. Congress holds a new session each year, because Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states "The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year . . ." Special sessions for Congress can be called by the president; however, these are rare, having occurred only 27 times (the last one was in 1948, called by President Truman).
What is known as a meeting in ordinary assemblies is called a day in the legislature. A legislative session is made up of a number of days and there is a set order of business for each day. This would be simple enough except that there are legislative days and there are calendar days -- an esoteric denotation that only a legislative body could appreciate. It is the general belief in all legislative bodies that the pursuit of order is best achieved through tortuous complexity. So it is with the telling of time. If a recess occurs at the end of a legislative day, the recess does not end the legislative day but only provides a break in the order of business. On the next calendar day after some opening ceremonies, the legislative day picks up where it left off at the recess. It seems that legislatures are like God when it comes to time. “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” (1 Pet 3:8). With legislatures, a legislative day is like a thousand calendar days . . . well, I hope you get the point. A legislative day is understood to be the conduct of business from adjournment to adjournment. A calendar day is understood to be the continuance of a legislative day following a recess, so that there can be a number of calendar days before the adjournment of the legislative day.
In a legislative body, the word meeting is only used to denote a convening of a committee. To refer to a session of a committee makes no sense, even to the layperson. When a committee adjourns, the committee meeting comes to an end. Thus, a meeting of a legislative committee is synonymous with a legislative day for the full body.
A legislative body that meets continuously for days, weeks, and months is holding one session. A bill introduced at the beginning or middle of this period is pending as long as the session continues. Each legislative day, the legislature convenes and adjourns. The bills introduced on previous days are still pending either on a calendar or in committee (or in the case of the House of Commons, they may be laying on the clerk's table). Once the session comes to an end, however, all pending bills fall to the floor, and must be reintroduced at the next legislative session if they are to retain life.
In ordinary assemblies, these terms are less confusing but not entirely clear. A day for an ordinary assembly is a calendar day. It begins at 12 midnight and ends at 12 midnight. This is straightforward – no strange clockwork here. A session for an ordinary assembly is basically the carrying out of a single agenda or order of business. A meeting is a single sitting of the assembly, that is not separated by an adjournment though it may be separated by a recess. Adjourning always ends a meeting, while a recess allows a short break before continuing the meeting. (Thus, a meeting of an ordinary assembly is synonymous with a legislative day for a legislative body).
When a society or board meets, it is common practice to prepare a new agenda. Meetings are typically separated by a week, a month, or a quarter interval and it makes perfect sense to start with a new agenda. A new agenda initiates a session. Most societies and boards complete the agenda before adjourning. For this reason, a session is typically a one-day meeting. Thus, in the case where an agenda is completed in one meeting, the duration of the meeting and the session are identical. Though it appears in this case that the terms meeting and session are synonymous, they are not. This is a source of confusion. It must be remembered that a session for an ordinary assembly is the consideration of a given agenda or order of business. It usually can be accomplished with one meeting, though additional meetings may be necessary.
Now, let’s examine a case where an ordinary assembly holds several meetings in close sequence. When ordinary assemblies hold a convention lasting a day or more, this constitutes one session. Many organizations refer to each convention meeting as a separate session (e.g., opening session, second session, and closing session). These are not actually sessions, but are individual meetings within a session. A convention agenda usually includes the items of business for the entire set of meetings. A new agenda is not adopted at the beginning of each day, but rather one agenda is adopted on the first day covering all the days. Thus, a multi-day convention is one session of several meetings, and one set of minutes can be drafted to cover the entire session. Sometimes, a large break takes place within the day so that the morning, afternoon, and evening sittings are actually individual meetings. Each such meeting should be concluded by adjourning, as the only proper way to end a meeting.
In legislative bodies, a bill cannot carry over from one session to another, but must be reintroduced. In ordinary assemblies, however, there are four ways that an item of business can carry over from session to session:
• The item is postponed to the next meeting (using the motion to Postpone to a Definite Time)
• The item is referred to a committee (using the motion to Commit/Refer)
• The item is laid upon the table (using the motion to Lay Upon The Table)
• The meeting/session adjourns before completing the agenda, and the business that was pending at adjournment becomes the first item business at the next meeting/session under Unfinished Business, followed by the items of business that were on the agenda but not considered before adjournment
There are two peculiarities known as special sessions and the adjourned meeting. Just as a legislature can have a special session, so can the ordinary assembly. As with the legislature, there are special procedures for calling a special session and only the articles or items mentioned in the call can be considered.
A society or board that normally completes its agenda in a single sitting may encounter a volume of timely business that cannot be completed in a single sitting. To complete the agenda, an adjourned meeting can be established. An adjourned meeting is the continuation of a session through the scheduling of a second meeting. This is accomplished by Fixing the Time To Which to Adjourn. As all good parliamentarians know, one should not end a sentence with a preposition. For the sake of comprehension, this motion could be stated as "Fixing the Time to Adjourn To." Basically, it sets up the continuation of the session by establishing another meeting. It can be moved by saying "I move that on adjournment, we adjourn to meet next Tuesday at the same time." The second meeting will pick up consideration at the point on the agenda where the first meeting left off. Thus, the two meetings will constitute one session.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
Dressage Makes Good Procedure
Last week, I served the United States Dressage Federation at their annual convention. Dressage is about horses, of course - especially, the English saddle type (as opposed to the stock or Western saddle). The USDF represents all those people who live in the saddle and around horses - breeders, competitors, judges, trainers, and equestrianists - and who promote the sport of dressage. They also represent all those magnificent horses under the care of USDF members.
Now, people who devote a large proportion of their free time working with horses must be a virtuous sort. Horses, in my opinion, are the second smartest animal, but they are by far the most graceful of all. This is an interesting combination. In dressage, the smartest animal rides and directs the second smartest animal. So far, so good. The contradiction is that an animal like man may have great potential to be graceful, but is not naturally so like the horse. Thus, a less graceful animal rides the most graceful animal. The question is who is directing whom when it comes to gracefulness in dressage? To me, it seems that it may be the rider who is trying to measure up to the horse.
In parliamentary procedure, we often see the animal man in his less graceful nature. When I first arrived at the USDF convention, several delegates apologized to me in advance for the anticipated behavior of the convention. Turns out that last year was a somewhat contentious one. I often get these pre-apologies at conventions. It seems that those who wish to hire a parliamentarian are aware that their organization can benefit from an improvement in order and decorum. People are essentially people, however, and my experience has been that behavior in the deliberative assembly does not vary much from organization to organization.
So it was with USDF. The convention went quite well from my perspective and it was what I expected from such a group. The knowledge level of the participants was high on equestrianism and low on procedure. (No surprise here, that the delegates would know more about something they do on a daily basis versus something they do once a year). Many important decisions were made and it appeared that everyone was pleased with the results. As parliamentarians, we cannot ask for more. I was able to help an important and fruitful organization take important steps in governance over a two day period. The delegates, officers, and staff returned home to do something much more important than motions, debate, and voting. The quality of USDF is measured by what is done in the stable and the arena, not at the convention.
Still there are hypothetical questions that are floating in my clever mind. If dressage is the graceful movement of horse and rider, and if the rider is more graceful on the horse in the arena than on foot in the convention, should horses be included in the convention? Or, even more hypothetically, should the horse be a delegate? Would parliamentary procedure improve in either case?
The latter case is out. A group of horses convened in a large room would behave better than people, for sure. There would certainly be less of a need to call the horses to order for being too noisy or for chatting. Unfortunately, horses have a unique disability when it comes to voting, being able to respond only in the negative. A chorus of "Nays" would be the limited response. The great satirist, Jonathan Swift, would have been able to expound upon the ability of horses in the deliberative arena. Readers of Gulliver's Travels will remember the land of the Houyhnhnms where horses were the superior creature. It was a decision of the Houyhnhnm Grand Assembly that forced Gulliver to return to miserable England. I am sure the decision was made by a majority vote of a quorum after reasonable debate, but Swift omitted such details.
The case of requiring delegates to be in the saddle is intriguing. In general, do people behave better on a horse? With USDF, I think the delegates would have admitted so. With any other organization, we would be better served to teach delegates parliamentary procedure than to teach them how to ride a horse, at least in terms of getting through a convention. I have tried to imagine the USDF convention with horse and rider serving as one. A few things would go more smoothly. A standing vote or division could be cleanly accomplished. "All those in favor please move to the right of the arena, and all those opposed please move to the left."
Let me end on a serious note. There are strong connections between the art of dressage and the art of parliamentary procedure. When the rules are followed in either discipline, the results are better. Dressage has its movements and parliamentary procedure has its motions. Both come from a long history of tradition. Both require much practice if proficiency is to be acquired. Dressage teaches us a valuable lesson. If participants in the deliberative assembly were to behave as if they were executing movements in the equestrian arena, things would go much smoother. In his heart, every parliamentarian should appreciate the art of dressage.
Now, people who devote a large proportion of their free time working with horses must be a virtuous sort. Horses, in my opinion, are the second smartest animal, but they are by far the most graceful of all. This is an interesting combination. In dressage, the smartest animal rides and directs the second smartest animal. So far, so good. The contradiction is that an animal like man may have great potential to be graceful, but is not naturally so like the horse. Thus, a less graceful animal rides the most graceful animal. The question is who is directing whom when it comes to gracefulness in dressage? To me, it seems that it may be the rider who is trying to measure up to the horse.
In parliamentary procedure, we often see the animal man in his less graceful nature. When I first arrived at the USDF convention, several delegates apologized to me in advance for the anticipated behavior of the convention. Turns out that last year was a somewhat contentious one. I often get these pre-apologies at conventions. It seems that those who wish to hire a parliamentarian are aware that their organization can benefit from an improvement in order and decorum. People are essentially people, however, and my experience has been that behavior in the deliberative assembly does not vary much from organization to organization.
So it was with USDF. The convention went quite well from my perspective and it was what I expected from such a group. The knowledge level of the participants was high on equestrianism and low on procedure. (No surprise here, that the delegates would know more about something they do on a daily basis versus something they do once a year). Many important decisions were made and it appeared that everyone was pleased with the results. As parliamentarians, we cannot ask for more. I was able to help an important and fruitful organization take important steps in governance over a two day period. The delegates, officers, and staff returned home to do something much more important than motions, debate, and voting. The quality of USDF is measured by what is done in the stable and the arena, not at the convention.
Still there are hypothetical questions that are floating in my clever mind. If dressage is the graceful movement of horse and rider, and if the rider is more graceful on the horse in the arena than on foot in the convention, should horses be included in the convention? Or, even more hypothetically, should the horse be a delegate? Would parliamentary procedure improve in either case?
The latter case is out. A group of horses convened in a large room would behave better than people, for sure. There would certainly be less of a need to call the horses to order for being too noisy or for chatting. Unfortunately, horses have a unique disability when it comes to voting, being able to respond only in the negative. A chorus of "Nays" would be the limited response. The great satirist, Jonathan Swift, would have been able to expound upon the ability of horses in the deliberative arena. Readers of Gulliver's Travels will remember the land of the Houyhnhnms where horses were the superior creature. It was a decision of the Houyhnhnm Grand Assembly that forced Gulliver to return to miserable England. I am sure the decision was made by a majority vote of a quorum after reasonable debate, but Swift omitted such details.
The case of requiring delegates to be in the saddle is intriguing. In general, do people behave better on a horse? With USDF, I think the delegates would have admitted so. With any other organization, we would be better served to teach delegates parliamentary procedure than to teach them how to ride a horse, at least in terms of getting through a convention. I have tried to imagine the USDF convention with horse and rider serving as one. A few things would go more smoothly. A standing vote or division could be cleanly accomplished. "All those in favor please move to the right of the arena, and all those opposed please move to the left."
Let me end on a serious note. There are strong connections between the art of dressage and the art of parliamentary procedure. When the rules are followed in either discipline, the results are better. Dressage has its movements and parliamentary procedure has its motions. Both come from a long history of tradition. Both require much practice if proficiency is to be acquired. Dressage teaches us a valuable lesson. If participants in the deliberative assembly were to behave as if they were executing movements in the equestrian arena, things would go much smoother. In his heart, every parliamentarian should appreciate the art of dressage.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Awaiting the Eleventh
For the past couple of months, I have been visiting units in Texas. I have seen a number of RONRs carried to these meetings in various binding formats -- softcover, hardcover, and spiralbound. Beginners seem to choose the softcover because it has the lowest price. Some like me carry the hardcover because it is more durable. The most popular seems to be the spiralbound because it is the best for study purposes and can be easily laid flat. I saw a number of the softcover and spiralbound formats in disarray -- tattered, torn, worn, and held together with tape and rubber bands. The owners of these books are holding out another year because they know a new edition is forthcoming. Why buy a soon-to-be-outdated book when a rubber band will hold your frayed folio together for a few more months? Or is there something sentimental about that old volume that got you through a decade worth of parliamentary maizes? Maybe all those dog-eared and tabbed pages with multi-colored highlighting and penciled notes give it the character of an old and indispensible bible?
Unlike most bibles, which are built to last, the bindings of RONR are not so durable. I also have a leatherbound binding which is my favorite. It has autographs of the authors in it along with those of many of the former NAP presidents. I have purposefully kept the pages clean and untattered by my scribblings. I use this one as my working volume because it does not look like a copy of RONR. Without the familiar gold cover, it wears a sophisticated disguise. While serving as a parliamentarian, I can lay it on the table (pun intended) and casually refer to it without exposing my parliamentary hole cards. That way, members and delegates watching the dias will not wonder "Is the parliamentarian looking up something in the book because he is bewildered or ignorant?" Besides, the leatherbound version is classy and I want to send out that message to whoever notices that I am a really classy guy, even if I am a certified rules nerd.
Since the first of the newly-revised series appeared in 1970, a new edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised has been issued at the beginning of each decade. The current issue is the 10th edition, published in 2000. The author team has been working on the 11th edition for several years now. We know that the color for this edition -- important for those of us veterans and collectors who care about how the series looks in sequence on the bookshelf -- is going to be red.
There are mixed feelings and opinions about the need for a new edition every ten years. There are purists who wish that things would remain unchanged. They are of the opinion that the latest edition has more than enough good material for running every possible kind of meeting (sans the legislative). Change only causes confusion and instability, especially since most organizations do not correctly cite the latest edition as their parliamentary authority. For example, the terms often seen in bylaws are Robert's, Robert's Rules, Robert's Rules of Order, Robert's Revised, etc. Often at meetings, the parliamentarian will carry one version, while the presider carries another. Keep the book the same, thinks the purist, and there will be more consistency in the halls of democracy. How can we get everyone on the same page until we can get them to embrace the same edition? This line of thinking is flawed if only because the old editions of Robert and Cushing are frequently resurrected in soft cover offerings. They populate the limited shelf space available for parliamentary manuals at the major booksellers. They are attractive to the neophyte because they are shorter in length and lower in cost than RONR. For this reason, the naive officer or delegate tends to carry a brand new, but antiquated, paperback to meetings.
Then there is always the cynical point of view: the author team is only in it for the money. As with Microsoft and new versions of Windows, we are forced to adopt the newest version whenever we purchase a new computer. Now, I have often complained about having to update software, but when buying a new computer wouldn't I want the latest and greatest? Do I really want an older, clunky operating system? The same can be said about parliamentary manuals. If my old book is worn and tattered, shouldn't I prefer the best information available when buying a new book?
There is debate about just how successful the RONR editions have been over time. It has been claimed that they are among the must successful books ever sold, even though they do not appear on any of the official lists. The Harry Potter series is now competing with the Bible and The Poems of Mao Tse Tung as one of the most successful books ever, and the Boy Scout Handbook is always high on the lists. The Guinness Book of World Records now claims that it is among the most sucessful books ever. With updates being made daily, it has probably made more money for the Guinness Brewery than beer. The poetry of a dead Chinese despot will never be revised, but there are newer versions being rolled out for the Bible and the Boy Scout Handbook (newest edition was published this year) and Rowling churns out the equivalent of a new edition with every subsequent novel.
Those who are concerned about lining the pockets of a wise old bachelor who lives in a monastery (i.e., Henry M. Robert III) can keep their old edition -- if it can be bandaged together. Oscar Wilde said "a cynic is a man who know the price of everything and the value of nothing." Enough said.
To me, the best reason for having decenary editions is the one given by the author team -- parliamentary law is like other subjects of law, it must develop with time. Common law is usually understood today to develop according to settled case law. In parliamentary law, however, court cases are few and far between. Courts have opined on the role of officers, quorum requirements, bylaws, notice, and membership, but the bulk of parliamentary law has remained untouched by the scrutiny of the court. To put it simply, lawsuits cost money and there is not much money in arguing the finer points of subsidiary or incidental motions. It is hard to imagine someone filing a lawsuit because the presiding officer failed to ask for a second on a routine motion. It isn't worth the money to test this in court.
Parliamentary manuals are necessary to cover the areas not under review, or that have never been reviewed, by the court. Since all other legal subjects are able to evolve with time, so should parliamentary law. This can only be accomplished by routinely updating the parliamentary manual. Law books are being updated as often as judicial opinions are issued, and so we must update RONR.
The last criticism to consider is that of author team selection. The Robert family has always controlled the selection of authors. Isn't this a nepotistic and self-serving arrangement? Maybe so. The proof to me, however, is in the pudding. The newly-revised series has been a great success and well written too. If the author team ever fails to produce the level of quality of past editions, this may become a relevant issue. Until then, my vote goes to Henry and the boys (i.e., Henry M. Robert III, Daniel H. Honemann, and Thomas J. "Burke" Balch).
A good place to follow the developments in RONR is the Official Website for the author team. In the meantime, make room on your bookshelf for one more edition. It's coming soon!
Unlike most bibles, which are built to last, the bindings of RONR are not so durable. I also have a leatherbound binding which is my favorite. It has autographs of the authors in it along with those of many of the former NAP presidents. I have purposefully kept the pages clean and untattered by my scribblings. I use this one as my working volume because it does not look like a copy of RONR. Without the familiar gold cover, it wears a sophisticated disguise. While serving as a parliamentarian, I can lay it on the table (pun intended) and casually refer to it without exposing my parliamentary hole cards. That way, members and delegates watching the dias will not wonder "Is the parliamentarian looking up something in the book because he is bewildered or ignorant?" Besides, the leatherbound version is classy and I want to send out that message to whoever notices that I am a really classy guy, even if I am a certified rules nerd.
Since the first of the newly-revised series appeared in 1970, a new edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised has been issued at the beginning of each decade. The current issue is the 10th edition, published in 2000. The author team has been working on the 11th edition for several years now. We know that the color for this edition -- important for those of us veterans and collectors who care about how the series looks in sequence on the bookshelf -- is going to be red.
There are mixed feelings and opinions about the need for a new edition every ten years. There are purists who wish that things would remain unchanged. They are of the opinion that the latest edition has more than enough good material for running every possible kind of meeting (sans the legislative). Change only causes confusion and instability, especially since most organizations do not correctly cite the latest edition as their parliamentary authority. For example, the terms often seen in bylaws are Robert's, Robert's Rules, Robert's Rules of Order, Robert's Revised, etc. Often at meetings, the parliamentarian will carry one version, while the presider carries another. Keep the book the same, thinks the purist, and there will be more consistency in the halls of democracy. How can we get everyone on the same page until we can get them to embrace the same edition? This line of thinking is flawed if only because the old editions of Robert and Cushing are frequently resurrected in soft cover offerings. They populate the limited shelf space available for parliamentary manuals at the major booksellers. They are attractive to the neophyte because they are shorter in length and lower in cost than RONR. For this reason, the naive officer or delegate tends to carry a brand new, but antiquated, paperback to meetings.
Then there is always the cynical point of view: the author team is only in it for the money. As with Microsoft and new versions of Windows, we are forced to adopt the newest version whenever we purchase a new computer. Now, I have often complained about having to update software, but when buying a new computer wouldn't I want the latest and greatest? Do I really want an older, clunky operating system? The same can be said about parliamentary manuals. If my old book is worn and tattered, shouldn't I prefer the best information available when buying a new book?
There is debate about just how successful the RONR editions have been over time. It has been claimed that they are among the must successful books ever sold, even though they do not appear on any of the official lists. The Harry Potter series is now competing with the Bible and The Poems of Mao Tse Tung as one of the most successful books ever, and the Boy Scout Handbook is always high on the lists. The Guinness Book of World Records now claims that it is among the most sucessful books ever. With updates being made daily, it has probably made more money for the Guinness Brewery than beer. The poetry of a dead Chinese despot will never be revised, but there are newer versions being rolled out for the Bible and the Boy Scout Handbook (newest edition was published this year) and Rowling churns out the equivalent of a new edition with every subsequent novel.
Those who are concerned about lining the pockets of a wise old bachelor who lives in a monastery (i.e., Henry M. Robert III) can keep their old edition -- if it can be bandaged together. Oscar Wilde said "a cynic is a man who know the price of everything and the value of nothing." Enough said.
To me, the best reason for having decenary editions is the one given by the author team -- parliamentary law is like other subjects of law, it must develop with time. Common law is usually understood today to develop according to settled case law. In parliamentary law, however, court cases are few and far between. Courts have opined on the role of officers, quorum requirements, bylaws, notice, and membership, but the bulk of parliamentary law has remained untouched by the scrutiny of the court. To put it simply, lawsuits cost money and there is not much money in arguing the finer points of subsidiary or incidental motions. It is hard to imagine someone filing a lawsuit because the presiding officer failed to ask for a second on a routine motion. It isn't worth the money to test this in court.
Parliamentary manuals are necessary to cover the areas not under review, or that have never been reviewed, by the court. Since all other legal subjects are able to evolve with time, so should parliamentary law. This can only be accomplished by routinely updating the parliamentary manual. Law books are being updated as often as judicial opinions are issued, and so we must update RONR.
The last criticism to consider is that of author team selection. The Robert family has always controlled the selection of authors. Isn't this a nepotistic and self-serving arrangement? Maybe so. The proof to me, however, is in the pudding. The newly-revised series has been a great success and well written too. If the author team ever fails to produce the level of quality of past editions, this may become a relevant issue. Until then, my vote goes to Henry and the boys (i.e., Henry M. Robert III, Daniel H. Honemann, and Thomas J. "Burke" Balch).
A good place to follow the developments in RONR is the Official Website for the author team. In the meantime, make room on your bookshelf for one more edition. It's coming soon!
Friday, October 23, 2009
Amend, Incidentally Speaking
Parliamentary law is a multi-dimensional subject, yet we often view it in a two-dimensional format. This is best symbolized by imagining the open pages of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) in front of us. The page is essentially a two-dimensional presentation, yet the book is many pages. It has considerable depth. It is hard to read into parliamentary law without taking a multi-dimensional viewpoint.
When I first began learning parliamentary law, I would often find myself studying a particular topic with many fingers inserted between the pages of RONR. The fingers served as temporary bookmarks. I would follow the various references within the text to other text until I basically ran out of fingers. At that point, I could only pull my hands free and start over again. While this can be somewhat frustrating to the novice, it is intellectually gratifying to those of us who enjoy the depth and complexity of Order.
Taking an oblique angle to RONR can be very enlightening. Imagine picking up RONR and instead of looking at the open flat pages, visualize looking at the book from the side or from the back. Literally speaking, such an activity will produce brief and frivolous results, but figuratively, it is a great way to attack the subject with cerebral vigor.
A great example of an oblique look taken on a grand scale is Nancy Sylvester's book The Guerrilla Guide to Robert's Rules. This book is a clever decoy for learning the basics of parliamentary law. The information is presented for that person who wants to strategically cut to the chase and make something happen. What the reader discovers along the way, however, is the basic principles of parliamentary law. It teaches the academics from an oblique angle.
So let's take a stab at an oblique look. Consider the motion to Amend. Every student of parliamentary law can tell you right off the bat that Amend is a Subsidiary motion. An advanced student, however, will recognize that Amend can either be a Subsidiary motion or an Incidental Main motion. An example of the latter is the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. In this case, Amend takes on the characteristics of a Main motion rather than a Subsidiary motion.
All this can be gleaned from a two-dimensional viewpoint. There are explicit chapters in RONR on the Subsidiary motion to Amend and the Incidental Main motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. Now, for the oblique look.
We know that Amend can also be applied to the motions to Amend, Commit, Postpone to a Certain Time, Limit Debate, Recess, Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn, Close Nominations/Polls, Reopen Nominations/Polls, Consideration by Paragraph/Seriatim, and Division of a Question. When applied to these motions, Amend does not fit into an order of precedence. However, one of the distinguishing characteristics of a Subsidiary motion is that it fits into an order of precedence. In the cases above, Amend incidentally relates to these motions when pending. Thus, Amend becomes an Incidental motion.
RONR covers this cleanly without complicating the issue (as I have certainly done). On pages 62-63, it refers to Cases Where One Subsidiary Motion Can Be Applied to Another. The point here is to keep it simple: Amend is classified as a Subsidiary motion, period. For those of us who wish to understand it with greater depth, it is insightful to recognize that Amend can take on certain incidental characteristics.
What have we learned? When teaching the novice, Amend is a Subsidiary motion. When teaching advanced workshops, as when preparing the student for the NAP Registration Exam, Amend can also be an Incidental Main motion. But when we take a muti-dimensional look, Amend can be one of three classes:
When I first began learning parliamentary law, I would often find myself studying a particular topic with many fingers inserted between the pages of RONR. The fingers served as temporary bookmarks. I would follow the various references within the text to other text until I basically ran out of fingers. At that point, I could only pull my hands free and start over again. While this can be somewhat frustrating to the novice, it is intellectually gratifying to those of us who enjoy the depth and complexity of Order.
Taking an oblique angle to RONR can be very enlightening. Imagine picking up RONR and instead of looking at the open flat pages, visualize looking at the book from the side or from the back. Literally speaking, such an activity will produce brief and frivolous results, but figuratively, it is a great way to attack the subject with cerebral vigor.
A great example of an oblique look taken on a grand scale is Nancy Sylvester's book The Guerrilla Guide to Robert's Rules. This book is a clever decoy for learning the basics of parliamentary law. The information is presented for that person who wants to strategically cut to the chase and make something happen. What the reader discovers along the way, however, is the basic principles of parliamentary law. It teaches the academics from an oblique angle.
So let's take a stab at an oblique look. Consider the motion to Amend. Every student of parliamentary law can tell you right off the bat that Amend is a Subsidiary motion. An advanced student, however, will recognize that Amend can either be a Subsidiary motion or an Incidental Main motion. An example of the latter is the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. In this case, Amend takes on the characteristics of a Main motion rather than a Subsidiary motion.
All this can be gleaned from a two-dimensional viewpoint. There are explicit chapters in RONR on the Subsidiary motion to Amend and the Incidental Main motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. Now, for the oblique look.
We know that Amend can also be applied to the motions to Amend, Commit, Postpone to a Certain Time, Limit Debate, Recess, Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn, Close Nominations/Polls, Reopen Nominations/Polls, Consideration by Paragraph/Seriatim, and Division of a Question. When applied to these motions, Amend does not fit into an order of precedence. However, one of the distinguishing characteristics of a Subsidiary motion is that it fits into an order of precedence. In the cases above, Amend incidentally relates to these motions when pending. Thus, Amend becomes an Incidental motion.
RONR covers this cleanly without complicating the issue (as I have certainly done). On pages 62-63, it refers to Cases Where One Subsidiary Motion Can Be Applied to Another. The point here is to keep it simple: Amend is classified as a Subsidiary motion, period. For those of us who wish to understand it with greater depth, it is insightful to recognize that Amend can take on certain incidental characteristics.
What have we learned? When teaching the novice, Amend is a Subsidiary motion. When teaching advanced workshops, as when preparing the student for the NAP Registration Exam, Amend can also be an Incidental Main motion. But when we take a muti-dimensional look, Amend can be one of three classes:
- Incidental Main motion -- when applied to something previously adopted
- Subidiary motion -- when applied to a Main motion
- Incidental motion -- in all other cases that apply to:
- an amendable Subsidiary motion (Amend, Commit, Postpone to a Certain Time, Limit Debate)
- an amendable Privileged motion (Recess, Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn)
- an amendable Incidental motion (Close Nominations/Polls, Reopen Nominations/Polls, Consideration by Paragraph/Seriatim, Division of a Question)
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Honor Among Scholars
It may be of dubious value to gather 300 lawyers in a room, and equally so to gather 300 parliamentarians in a room. Last week, I discovered that there is merit in gathering 300 scholars in a room. I had the great pleasure to serve as parliamentarian for the triennial council of Phi Beta Kappa here in Austin.
I have often believed that if one spends time with people of character, after awhile, a little of that character might just rub off. Just the same, if one spends time with intelligent people, some of it might rub off. Whether I am any smarter for it, I certainly feel that way after working with numerous professors, Phds, and generally bright people. Oh, and a little character rubbed off too. I am always in need of such personal augmentation.
So what did I learn? Well, at least three things. First, I learned that the word snarky is a useful one for parliamentarians. Second, I learned that logical paradoxes by Lewis Caroll are worth contemplating on a rainy afternoon (see What the Tortoise Said to Achilles). Third, I learned that playing the saxophone will make you a better writer.
In between the meetings, many of the delegates conversed with me about parliamentary procedure. In most cases, it turned out the delegate had served as a faculty senate parliamentarian. I have no idea how many of the 300 delegates had so served, but I would not be surprised if the number was large. Thus, I had many kindred spirits throughout the assembly. This is not necessarily a good thing, since parliamentary procedure can be used in a manipulative and dilatory way. I saw nothing of the sort. In general, the knowledge of procedure was good and any dilatory actions were accidental.
I was very impressed with the decorum that I witnessed. The level of politeness and orderliness was unsurpassed of any organization I have served or observed. I think there is a good reason for this. Liberal Arts scholars are masters of language. More than any other group, they understand the meaning and power of words. They know how dangerous words can be, and so they were very judicious and careful in their choice of words.
Decorum reduces confusion and eliminates rancorous emotions. Decorum enhances order. Many individuals fail to recognize this. They risk the slippery slope of accusation and personal attack, which always incites disorder and deters organizational progress. There are very good reasons why proper form is best for making motions. Clarity and integrity result. Decorum in debate is even more important in this regard. In form and in debate, the choice of words matters.
Phi Beta Kappa is an important American organization and I was able to vicariously become a part of it for three days. In a small way, I was able to help them with their business and enable them to continue the fine work that this honor society has done for 233 years. That is really what being a parliamentarian is all about.
I have often believed that if one spends time with people of character, after awhile, a little of that character might just rub off. Just the same, if one spends time with intelligent people, some of it might rub off. Whether I am any smarter for it, I certainly feel that way after working with numerous professors, Phds, and generally bright people. Oh, and a little character rubbed off too. I am always in need of such personal augmentation.
So what did I learn? Well, at least three things. First, I learned that the word snarky is a useful one for parliamentarians. Second, I learned that logical paradoxes by Lewis Caroll are worth contemplating on a rainy afternoon (see What the Tortoise Said to Achilles). Third, I learned that playing the saxophone will make you a better writer.
In between the meetings, many of the delegates conversed with me about parliamentary procedure. In most cases, it turned out the delegate had served as a faculty senate parliamentarian. I have no idea how many of the 300 delegates had so served, but I would not be surprised if the number was large. Thus, I had many kindred spirits throughout the assembly. This is not necessarily a good thing, since parliamentary procedure can be used in a manipulative and dilatory way. I saw nothing of the sort. In general, the knowledge of procedure was good and any dilatory actions were accidental.
I was very impressed with the decorum that I witnessed. The level of politeness and orderliness was unsurpassed of any organization I have served or observed. I think there is a good reason for this. Liberal Arts scholars are masters of language. More than any other group, they understand the meaning and power of words. They know how dangerous words can be, and so they were very judicious and careful in their choice of words.
Decorum reduces confusion and eliminates rancorous emotions. Decorum enhances order. Many individuals fail to recognize this. They risk the slippery slope of accusation and personal attack, which always incites disorder and deters organizational progress. There are very good reasons why proper form is best for making motions. Clarity and integrity result. Decorum in debate is even more important in this regard. In form and in debate, the choice of words matters.
Phi Beta Kappa is an important American organization and I was able to vicariously become a part of it for three days. In a small way, I was able to help them with their business and enable them to continue the fine work that this honor society has done for 233 years. That is really what being a parliamentarian is all about.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
SWAT In Action
Last weekend, I had the pleasure of joining four other parliamentarians to put on a day long workshop in Harlingen, Texas. Lucy Anderson and Dennis Clark were the main organizers and put considerable effort into advertising, organizing, and building a PowerPoint presentation of over 100 slides. Richard Hayes, Tophas Anderson, and I assisted with the teaching.
SWAT stands for Spreading the Word Around Texas. It is designed to take the study of parliamentary procedure into areas of Texas that have been under-represented or without representation in the Texas State Association of Parliamentarians. We were especially excited by the twenty-five students from Los Fresnos High School that attended our conference. They were perky, energetic, and interested. A delightful group, and to all an inspiration.
We are hopeful that the adults who attended will agree to sit for the NAP membership exam. Once we get five members, we can form a unit -- the first in the Rio Grande valley. This is a good thing, because the area is growing economically and culturally. There are approximately 1.4 million people living between Brownsville and McAllen today. There is a need for a parliamentary unit to provide resources and education for the growing number of private associations and public bodies that are helping the Rio Grande valley grow.
The next SWAT institute will be held in Galveston on October 24th. Dennis Clark is also organizing a youth workshop in Houston on November 7th. These events are helping Texas parliamentarians make inroads into regions and population groups that have not been active. Stay tuned for the results!
SWAT stands for Spreading the Word Around Texas. It is designed to take the study of parliamentary procedure into areas of Texas that have been under-represented or without representation in the Texas State Association of Parliamentarians. We were especially excited by the twenty-five students from Los Fresnos High School that attended our conference. They were perky, energetic, and interested. A delightful group, and to all an inspiration.
We are hopeful that the adults who attended will agree to sit for the NAP membership exam. Once we get five members, we can form a unit -- the first in the Rio Grande valley. This is a good thing, because the area is growing economically and culturally. There are approximately 1.4 million people living between Brownsville and McAllen today. There is a need for a parliamentary unit to provide resources and education for the growing number of private associations and public bodies that are helping the Rio Grande valley grow.
The next SWAT institute will be held in Galveston on October 24th. Dennis Clark is also organizing a youth workshop in Houston on November 7th. These events are helping Texas parliamentarians make inroads into regions and population groups that have not been active. Stay tuned for the results!
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Previous Question is Previous
Many critics of parliamentary procedure and especially Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised complain about the arcane and sometimes meaningless terms used. One such term is Previous Question. One critic complained that there is nothing previous about the Previous Question.
This critic is wrong. The term 'previous' means coming before in priority, rank, or time. The contemporary usage of 'previous' is almost always taken to mean coming before in time, and this is the way we commonly use the term today. We have forgotten the pejorative definition of coming before in priority or rank. Moving the Previous Question literally means to take the vote on the highest ranking question that is pending.
How could this come about? Well, in olden times, several motions could often be pending at once that did not have a proper rank or order. One can imagine the debate in the House of Commons when a member might state: "can we vote on the question?" The Speaker might respond: "Which one?" To which the member would say: "How about the question most previous?" Now, this dialogue is fictitious, though several hundred years ago when form and procedure were less precise, it is not unrealistic. Thus, moving the Previous Question applied to whichever motion was of highest priority.
After many centuries of trial and effort, the ranking and prioritizing of motions was carefully worked out, so that the highest priority motion is always the immediately pending question. In other words, the last question stated by the chair is always previous in rank because otherwise it would not have been in order at the time it was moved.
Thus, the Previous Question when stated in the unqualified form ("I move the previous question") always applies to the immediately pending question today. When it is stated to apply to several motions (e.g., "I move the previous question on all pending motions"), it means to take the votes in previous order. Again, the previous order is always the reverse order in which the motions were made, since each motion must be in order at the time it was made and therefore of higher rank than the motions pending. Once the vote is taken on the previous question, the next motion in reverse order is the most previous and the vote is taken on it, etc.
The whole point of all this is to say that parliamentary law is based on good sense and good terminology. Just because a phrase does not make sense to us, doesn't mean the phrase is nonsensical. We just need to learn a little more about our language and the full meaning of words, even if it involves a definition or usage that is not common or vernacular.
Now, stick that in your lexicon and use it!
This critic is wrong. The term 'previous' means coming before in priority, rank, or time. The contemporary usage of 'previous' is almost always taken to mean coming before in time, and this is the way we commonly use the term today. We have forgotten the pejorative definition of coming before in priority or rank. Moving the Previous Question literally means to take the vote on the highest ranking question that is pending.
How could this come about? Well, in olden times, several motions could often be pending at once that did not have a proper rank or order. One can imagine the debate in the House of Commons when a member might state: "can we vote on the question?" The Speaker might respond: "Which one?" To which the member would say: "How about the question most previous?" Now, this dialogue is fictitious, though several hundred years ago when form and procedure were less precise, it is not unrealistic. Thus, moving the Previous Question applied to whichever motion was of highest priority.
After many centuries of trial and effort, the ranking and prioritizing of motions was carefully worked out, so that the highest priority motion is always the immediately pending question. In other words, the last question stated by the chair is always previous in rank because otherwise it would not have been in order at the time it was moved.
Thus, the Previous Question when stated in the unqualified form ("I move the previous question") always applies to the immediately pending question today. When it is stated to apply to several motions (e.g., "I move the previous question on all pending motions"), it means to take the votes in previous order. Again, the previous order is always the reverse order in which the motions were made, since each motion must be in order at the time it was made and therefore of higher rank than the motions pending. Once the vote is taken on the previous question, the next motion in reverse order is the most previous and the vote is taken on it, etc.
The whole point of all this is to say that parliamentary law is based on good sense and good terminology. Just because a phrase does not make sense to us, doesn't mean the phrase is nonsensical. We just need to learn a little more about our language and the full meaning of words, even if it involves a definition or usage that is not common or vernacular.
Now, stick that in your lexicon and use it!
Monday, August 17, 2009
Institutes and Units
Last week, I visited Fort Worth to attend their annual institute. Almost 40 people were present for an introductory level series of workshops. On the same day, the DFW Parliamentarians held an institute in Dallas. There is nothing quite like an institute to help boost unit membership. It is also the best way for members of the Texas and National associations to promote our objective of teaching and disseminating parliamentary law.
I also visited the Alamo Registered Unit in San Antonio - a unit made up of primarily former TSAP presidents. Many of them were president when I was first getting involved in the state association. If you are active in your local unit and want to interact at the next level, consider serving on one of the state committees.
More units are on the calendar for the coming weeks. What a great way to get to know the membership!
I also visited the Alamo Registered Unit in San Antonio - a unit made up of primarily former TSAP presidents. Many of them were president when I was first getting involved in the state association. If you are active in your local unit and want to interact at the next level, consider serving on one of the state committees.
More units are on the calendar for the coming weeks. What a great way to get to know the membership!
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
My First Post
Some people will tell you parliamentarians are a dull breed -- that they are a group of nitpickers who thrive on ancient rules and precedents, that all this has been lost to a high-speed modern world dominated by electronic flashes, information overload, and dumbed-down democracy.
Well, brace yourself for the first (or maybe the first) blog by a parliamentarian!
Could anyone be interested in such minutiae? Let us see!
Hear now, the strike of the gavel! People awake! Arise from your organizational slumber! Step out into the world and make a difference. Join up, or better yet, start your own association. Choose a cause. Find a focus. Nurture a need. Learn the lost art of democracy.
Our world cries out for order, for organization, for interaction!. Unplug yourself and become a person again.
OK. Maybe I am getting a little carried away here. My point is that America once thrived because of its associations -- school boards, charities, political groups, professional groups, avocational groups, neighborhood organizations, city councils and their multitude of committees. Today, the participation in these associations is at an all time low. DeTocqueville said that what made America great was the fact that the people didn't just use democracy in their governement but rather they used it every day -- from the dinner table to the sandlot baseball game to the community.
Pick up a copy of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief (that's the little paperback, not the big thick one). Learn the basics on how to make things happen in a group.
Or, if you are just a little curious . . . follow this blog
Well, brace yourself for the first (or maybe the first) blog by a parliamentarian!
Could anyone be interested in such minutiae? Let us see!
Hear now, the strike of the gavel! People awake! Arise from your organizational slumber! Step out into the world and make a difference. Join up, or better yet, start your own association. Choose a cause. Find a focus. Nurture a need. Learn the lost art of democracy.
Our world cries out for order, for organization, for interaction!. Unplug yourself and become a person again.
OK. Maybe I am getting a little carried away here. My point is that America once thrived because of its associations -- school boards, charities, political groups, professional groups, avocational groups, neighborhood organizations, city councils and their multitude of committees. Today, the participation in these associations is at an all time low. DeTocqueville said that what made America great was the fact that the people didn't just use democracy in their governement but rather they used it every day -- from the dinner table to the sandlot baseball game to the community.
Pick up a copy of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief (that's the little paperback, not the big thick one). Learn the basics on how to make things happen in a group.
Or, if you are just a little curious . . . follow this blog
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
