Roberta's Rules of Order: Sail Through Meetings for Stellar Results Without the Gavel [Paperback]

 

 

Create your own review

I am a fairly experienced parliamentarian and presiding officer with an interest in parliamentary procedure. I strongly recommend against purchasing this book unless you are in an organization which has already (foolishly) adopted it as their parliamentary authority.

I was given a copy of this book when I agreed to act as a parliamentary consultant for a fraternity umbrella organization. They were a newly formed group working on their own bylaws and a member had suggested this book. After reading it, I quickly came to the conclusion that it is nothing more than a bad knock-off of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. The parts of it which deviate from Robert's Rules are drawbacks rather than selling points, such as the inappropriate definition of a majority and the requirement of a 3/4 vote to do anything (other reviewers have pointed both of these horrid features out). If Roberta's Rules is "more democratic" as has been claimed, it wouldn't allow a small, possibly recalcitrant minority to overrule almost 75% of an organization's members. On a seven person board, two determined people could effectively filibuster and cause business to grind to a halt; is that a good idea?

Roberta's seems to be written on the premise that practically everyone will agree with a proposal if it's talked about and verbally massaged enough. Anyone who lives in the real world of board meetings and policy discussions and decision making knows that this isn't the case. No amount of touchy-feely back-and-forth will ever make some decisions palatable to everyone. People disagree; that's why in most cases a majority should rule, with the right of the minority to disagree is protected. Robert's Rules does this; Roberta's Rules doesn't.

Besides, Robert's Rules of Order recognizes that informality is often useful to small bodies and provides for meetings to be conducted informally. The difference is, with Robert's, the formality is there when needed. With Roberta's, you're on your own when things get complicated.

Roberta's Rules of Order is both poorly executed and poorly conceived. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 10th Edition is a much better parliamentary manual. It has benefitted from over 125 years of careful revision and evalution; Roberta's has obviously not. Many misconceptions about Robert's Rules of Order have to do with older editions; ignore the criticisms and go with the gold standard: Robert's Rules, not Roberta's Rules.

Robert's Rules Of Order is designed for small groups only (less then twelve). According to Alice Cochran, this book is for non-profit boards with less then 12 members. SO don't use this book for large meetings. Even Alice admits in an interview on "CharityChannel.com" that Robert's is needed for large groups.

Of course, even under Robert's, in particular Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised 10th, for such groups, informality is encourged (See RONR 10th p. 470), and
I don't think Roberta's and Roberts disagree as much as Alice claims in her book. I think this book is likely to contain some good advice for small groups, who generally come together not just to make decisions but also to do "problem solving". She does emphasize bringing proposals to a meeting and not complaints about the past, which is important.

A couple of complaints:
1) I opened the book to a random page and found this:
"A majority vote (50% plus one) .... "
This definition is incorrect, as anyone who understand parliamentary law knows. Majority simply means "more then half".

2) Recommends that groups require at least 75% in favor of a proposal before adopting it. (Yikes! A small
minority can cripple that group)

It is my opinion that Roberta's Rules of Order is not a book any organization will find useful or practical. A very high percentage of organizations in this country have adopted Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised 10th ed. This book will serve no purpose in these organizations. There is a lot of Robert bashing in it, that is uncalled for. It is obvious to me that the author has never really studied parliamentary procedure in general and in particular Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised the 10th edition (the most current edition) before writing this book. Her misconceptions are many and varied.
She is opposed to "the majority rules". Instead her idea is for a group to find a "middle ground between consensus and simple majority rule". She misuses the title Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised and at times lumps all the editions under the blanket term "Robert's Rules of Order".
She also says that parliamentary procedure is effective in government and legislative assemblies but not in smaller civic organizations. What is know as parliamentary procedure for deliberative assemblies is not what is practiced in legislative bodies. The procedures and rules used in the US Senate and the House of Representatives are very different from each other and those used by deliberative assemblies all over the county.
I also found it interesting that she mentions "Cannon's Rules of Order" in the text of the book but it is not listed in the references. The complete and correct title of Hugh Cannon's book is "Cannon's Concise Guide to Rules of Order". Mr Cannon never intended his book to replace a parliamentary authority but it is an excellent guide to procedure. There is a big distinction between a parliamentary authority and a parliamentary guide.
She does list The Standard Code 4th edition (the adopted authority of many organizations) as a reference and claims it says it says there is the right of the "minority to protest and be protected". Her point being that the minority has the right to be heard in debate. I do not find anywhere in TSC 4th the use of the term "protest". That may seem like a fine point but I see some difference in the right to debate and the right to protest. Roberta's Rules of Order does not use the term motions. The word proposals is used and more than one proposal may be discussed at the same time. How confusion and misunderstandings and questionable votes can be prevented are not made clear.
The author wants to see dialogue not debate and spends a whole chapter explaining how to have a dialogue. A egalitarian is needed, not a parliamentarian. Henry M. Robert wrote in his first handbook of parliamentary procedure a basic structure for deliberative assemblies of all kinds. Noting that each individual group will write their own bylaws, standing rules and special rules of order, based on the organization's individual and unique needs. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised is now in its 10th edition. Yes, the book as grown in size but this is in response to the needs of a wide range of different organizations. An organization may never need to refer to a section in the book, while another organization may need the information and find it valuable. Rules and structure are not dirty words. With just a little knowledge of parliamentary procedure an organization can conduct meetings which are fair, and efficient. Henry M. Robert had this to say "It is difficult to find another branch of knowledge where a small amount of study produces such great results in efficiency in a country where the people rule, as in parliamentary law"
Again, it is my opinion that before you can criticize so completely you need to know what you are criticizing.

Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review

› See all 9 customer reviews on Amazon.ca

 

5.0 out of 5 stars Great Resource!
This is a helpful guidebook for anyone who attends or manages meetings. As the opening cartoon intimates, it shows how to "dispense with the pompous formalities ... Read more

Published on Jun 12 2004

5.0 out of 5 stars Roberta's Rules of Order is a breath of fresh air
Anyone who has ever participated in nonprofit board meetings that were governed by Robert's Rules of Order will not be surprised to learn of the military background of its author:... Read more

Published on May 9 2004 by Stephen Nill

5.0 out of 5 stars Great resource for meeting leaders worldwide
As moderator of the Deacon Board at my church, I have used Roberta's Rules of Order on many occasions to help plan retreats, organize special events, resolve differences,... Read more

Published on Mar 15 2004 by Joan Emrich

5.0 out of 5 stars A great new way to run your meetings
Rigid parliamentarians will be afraid of this book, because it challenges the idea that Robert's Rules of Order are right for absolutely every organization in the world. Read more

Published on Feb 28 2004

5.0 out of 5 stars Very helpful guide
Having served both on nonprofit boards and a home owners association board, I only wish we had used Roberta's Rules. Read more

Published on Feb 17 2004

5.0 out of 5 stars a grateful former board member
This is a refreshing alternative for small decision making groups who have long ago discarded parliamentary procedures and have had nothing practcal to replace them. Read more

Published on Feb 5 2004 by Caroline C. Boynton

Search Customer Reviews
Only search this product's reviews

› See all 9 customer reviews on Amazon.ca

Search Listmania!