[EM] Comments re Robert's Rules of Order

[RLSuter at aol.com]

I have to challenge Dave's recommendation of Rober'ts Rules
of Order. While I don't doubt that it is the result of a lot of thought
and contains a lot of worthwhile advice about how to conduct
meetings, it also has major weaknesses that its advocates have
never adequately considered.

First, at something like 800 pages, it is way too long. Much
shorter alternatives to Robert's Rules have been written and
used widely, especially outside of the U.S. One U.S. book I
especially like is Cannon's Consise Guide to Rules of Order
by Hugh Cannon (less than 200 pages), originally published
in 1992. When meeting rules become as extensive as the
latest version of Robert's Rules, they benefit people who have
the time and patience to learn their details and harm people
who don't.

Second, Robert's was written and revised by people who
weren't well informed about alternative voting methods for
choosing among 3 or more options. As a result, the rules are
written in such a way that they strongly encourage a series
of yes or no decisions about particular motions and don't
encourage votes among three or more alternative simultaneous
motions.

Third, Robert's appears to encourage adversarial forms of
decisionmaking whereby people try to push through motions
they strongly favor instead of nonadversarial forms whereby
people seek to to go beyond currently favored views in an
effort to achieve more consensual win-win decisions.

-Ralph Suter


Dave Ketchum wrote:

> Strongly recommend starting with "Robert's Rules of Order  Newly Revised 
> 10th edition" (should still be current).
>
> There has been more thought applied here than EM owns:
>       Could be you are into a new kind of group.
>       Could be you have a better idea.
> 
> For example, it is generally unhealthy to let the chair do most nominations.
>
> BTW - while Robert's has heard of IRV, they tolerate what they call 
> "Preferential Voting" only if you must vote by mail, and offer IRV as an 
> example, though not preferred among the possible methods.