The Differences in Meeting Conduct Between Organizations That Use Roberts Rules of Order and Those That Do Not

Roberts Rules of Order (RRO), formally known as Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR), is a comprehensive guide to parliamentary procedure. This book is recognized worldwide, particularly in the United States and Canada, for its detailed rules and procedures for conducting meetings. However, its detailed nature can sometimes lead to confusion and paralysis in situations like the 2020 pandemic lockdowns. In contrast, alternative organizational governance structures and meeting procedures offer simpler, more flexible methods to achieve the same objectives.

Parliamentary Authority

RONR serves as a parliamentary authority for many organizations, providing a robust set of rules for transparency, accountability, and fairness. However, other organizations may use different manuals, such as the AIP Standard Code or Meeting Procedures by James Lochrie. RONR has been criticized for being overly detailed and rigid in its rules, leading to conflicts in lock-down situations.

Differences in Meeting Conduct

Organizations adhering to RONR generally follow a more formal structure, with a designated Chairperson who manages the flow of discussions and ensures the process remains transparent and fair. This is in contrast to organizations that adopt simpler, principle-based procedures, which offer more flexibility and often more efficient decision-making processes. For example, while RONR requires a formal "Committee of the Whole," other systems might allow for more informal processes that adapt more easily to changing circumstances.

The following comparisons highlight the key differences between organizations that use RONR and those that do not:

1. Formality vs. Flexibility

RONR: Organizations using RONR often follow a detailed set of rules, from formal notices to stringent voting procedures. This approach ensures that every step is recorded and understood, but it can also be inflexible and cumbersome.

Non-RONR: In contrast, organizations may rely on simpler and more flexible procedures. These may involve fewer formalities, allowing for quicker and more agile decision-making, especially in dynamic or unexpected situations.

2. Virtual Meetings

RONR: RONR traditionally opposes virtual meetings and considers them less than fully valid. However, RONR's 12th edition has attempted to address this issue with specific provisions, albeit with some controversy.

Non-RONR: Many organizations that do not use RONR have more open policies regarding virtual meetings. This flexibility allows for adaptability in situations such as pandemics, where physical meeting spaces are limited or unavailable.

3. Committee of the Whole (COTW)

RONR: The 'Committee of the Whole' process in RONR can be complex and detailed, often leading to procedural delays. This system is designed to ensure that every member has a chance to voice their opinions on specific issues.

Non-RONR: Organizations without a formal parliamentary authority may opt for more casual or informal procedures. For example, they might simply discuss a topic informally without formally resolving into a COTW. This approach can be more efficient and can encourage more spontaneous decision-making.

4. Customization

RONR is a rulebook designed to address a wide range of potential scenarios, making it a comprehensive but inflexible guide. On the other hand, organizations that do not use RONR may tailor their procedures to fit their specific needs. This can lead to more innovative and effective meeting practices.

Conclusion

The choice between RONR and other organizational governance structures ultimately depends on the specific needs of an organization. While RONR provides a robust and detailed framework, it can sometimes be overly rigid, leading to logistical challenges. Non-RONR organizations may benefit from a more flexible and principle-based approach, which can be more adaptable and efficient.

Emerging Trends and Considerations

With the push for more inclusive and universal models of organizational governance, there is a growing interest in alternative methods that better accommodate diverse cultural and social values. Some emerging models focus on consensus-building and inclusivity, using principles that go beyond traditional parliamentary procedures.

Resource Recommendations

If you are interested in exploring alternative organizational governance models, consider the following resources:

Meeting Procedures: Parliamentary Law and Rules of Order for the 21st Century by James Lochrie, The AIP Standard Code published by the American Institute of Parliamentarians, The Death to the Facilitators! — AIP Parliamentary Journal 2018.01

By exploring these resources and adapting them to your organization's needs, you can create a more inclusive and effective governance structure.

Remember, the key to effective organizational governance lies in the ability to balance formality and flexibility, ensuring that your meetings are conductive to the goals of the organization while being adaptable to the needs of its members.