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:

1. Incidental Main motion -- when applied to something previously adopted
2. Subidiary motion -- when applied to a Main motion
3. 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)

Unlike Harry Potter, we have no school for parliamentary wizards beyond the credentialing levels.  For the general dissemination of parliamentary law, there is no real value in adding another classification to the motion to Amend.  Not all magic has benefit, and this oblique tidbit gives the layperson little benefit beyond a fireworks display.  With wizardry, it is often best to keep such things within the sphere of the wizards.

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.

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!

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!

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!

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