San Diego, CA. Attending a council meeting the other night gave me some redeeming hope that that particular organization will still realize its potentials. In particular, one man repeatedly defending the need to “follow rules and procedures” and to stick with the provisions of the Council’s Bylaws.

Such insistence is reassuring because I’ve known many among the myriad Filipino American organizations in San Diego setting aside the ‘niceties’ of parliamentary procedures for ‘quicker’ meetings and less hassles. But ultimately, such short cuts will lead to inconsistencies and instabilities in their respective organizations and probably face longer meetings because of chaos from “free-for-all” debates.

Parliamentary law is a system of maintaining order in organizations. It provides an approved and uniform method of conducting meetings in a fair, orderly, and expeditious manner. Parliamentary procedure, in particular, is a set of rules for conducting business at meetings and public gatherings.

Robert’s Rules of Order was written by General Henry M. Robert, a U.S. Army engineer, and published in 1876. His work is still regarded as the basic authority on the subject of parliamentary law. The most recent edition of the work, Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (l970), is the accepted authority for almost all organizations today.

Robert’s Rules to many, however, has that legalistic tone and could well be very intimidating. The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure is a great alternative – and there are others and all are hybrids of Robert’s. The Standard Code is understandable, comprehensive, logical, refined, and efficient. As it should, it covers all the formal business of holding a productive and respectful meeting. But it also includes procedures that facilitate business for the less formal organization or club.

Robert’s Rules (or its hybrids) are important to organizations. It is important because “the application of parliamentary law is the best method yet devised to enable assemblies of any size, with due regard for every member’s opinion, to arrive at the general will on the maximum number of questions of varying complexity in a minimum amount of time and under all kinds of internal climate ranging from total harmony to hardened or impassioned division of opinion” – says the book.

Some leaders will claim that they follow Robert’s Rules but observing them at meetings will show that they apply the rules selectively. For example, this particular club president passed a motion even without a quorum changing the rules of the conduct of their elections – to his (and his supporters) advantage (of course). Pandemonium, naturally, ensued.

Another president purchased a real state property without the benefit of a vote – if he did conduct one nobody knew it, or the vote must have been taken among his friends because if presented to the body for a vote, it would have been defeated. One member tried to intervene but whose voice was drowned amidst a sea of utter confusion and intimidation. “You don’t even help in taking the trash out what makes you complain about this issue?” said a frustrated leader.

How about the president who entered into a ‘joint-venture’ with another organization without concurrence from its board of directors or the general assembly committing the organization to ‘Adopt-A-Highway’. The program did not prosper because only the president’s inner circle was doing the cleaning.

The worst one in my opinion is the president who completely did away with the bylaws because “it is time consuming and a lot of b.s.” And of course in the Philippines, the worst example is People Power 2 when mob rule was allowed to take the place of Constitutional process such as an impeachment proceeding and replacing a duly elected president (with an overwhelming majority of the vote) with the vice-president. Such move did not protect the rights of the majority but rather upheld the wishes of the minority.

There are other examples and many of them ranges from being hilarious to downright absurd.

Respect for law is a basic characteristic of democratic government. This respect is clearly shown by a willingness to practice an orderly method of procedure in organizations so as to follow the will of the majority, to protect the rights of the minority, and to protect the interests of those absent.

The use of parliamentary procedure in itself, however, does not ensure that these ideals will be met as shown from the above examples if the members will not question these overt or illegal actions. Everyone involved with an organization must make an effort to know their rights and responsibilities as stipulated in their Bylaws. By doing so, makes them a more informed and productive member. The officers and members must also work to create an atmosphere of trust, mutual respect, and shared purpose.

Many clubs and organizations that hold regular meetings adapt these standard procedures in order to suit their own needs, but the basics remain the same.

To be effective, the leader or presiding officer should be well prepared before the meeting. According to Robert’s Rule, he or she should draft an agenda - a list of matters to be discussed in the order in which they will be discussed. Sending the agenda to the members prior to the meeting is not only an invitation but also a way of motivating them to come to the meeting. Avoid having the same agenda every meeting. Make your agenda attractive.

The presiding officer should know in advance what to expect from reports, and be sure that everyone who is going to deliver a report is well prepared.

Arranging for the meeting place will enable the leader to be certain it is set up to allow him or the speaker to see all of those present so that no one is ignored in the discussion.
The presiding officer should have outlined-at least in his own mind, if not on paper-the general direction and purpose of each item of business on the agenda. Sometimes he will expect perfunctory approval (as to the minutes of the prior meeting), and sometimes he may expect a prolonged discussion (as to a budget for the year’s expenses); but he should always have an idea to guide him, even though on many occasions the meeting will differ from the plan.

Being prepared, however, will permit him to guide the group rather than permit it to drift aimlessly. Thus he may help to increase the respect of those present not only for the protection of parliamentary law and democratic processes but also for their efficiency and practicability.

Members, too, should prepare. Those who are to make reports should know what to say. The report should be concluded with a motion or statement on what new action should be taken.

Those who introduce something new should prepare a motion and should organize their thinking in advance so that they can adequately explain what they propose and why.

Be on time. At the exact hour named in the notice of the meeting, the presiding officer should bang the gavel and call the meeting to order. He should then determine if enough members (a quorum) are present to do business, in case decisions have to be made. A quorum is usually a majority (more than half) of the committee, a convention or group, unless the group provides otherwise in its rules (or bylaws).

For a very large group, a smaller number should be set by the by-laws or constitution, as it may be difficult to secure a necessary majority at the meeting. In no case should the meeting proceed without the quorum. This requirement is designed to ensure the group that its decisions will not be made by an unrepresentative minority.

The next business should be the approval, as read or as amended by the group, of the minutes of the previous meeting. This enables those present to know what has already been done so time is not wasted in repetition.

If this is the first meeting, the presiding officer should explain the reason for the meeting and then have the group adopt a set of parliamentary rules for orderly procedure, name its temporary officers, and proceed with the business.

Speaking is accomplished by obtaining the floor. One should rise and address the presiding officer. The one who should be recognized is the person who rises first after the previous speaker has yielded the floor. It is discourteous to raise your hand or stand while another has the floor, and such a person does not, therefore, get the right to the floor next.

If more than one person properly requests the floor when debate is on, certain rules apply: (1) The maker of the motion is first even though the last to rise—in order that he can explain his motion. (2) No one gets a second chance until everyone has had one chance to speak, and (3) the chairman should try to alternate speakers among all sides of an issue.

These are just but a few examples of parliamentary procedures and there are more. One really needs to read and understand the book to know what’s needed. It takes practice to be good at it.

If the bylaws of an organization specify Robert’s Rules of Order (and most do) as the adopted parliamentary authority, the organization (or the parliamentarian for that matter) should obtain a copy of the book. It does not have to be the latest edition, an old edition is just as good as the most current one provided its provisions are followed or observed.

Remember that parliamentary procedure is based on the consideration of the rights: of the majority, of the minority (especially a large minority greater than one-third), of individual members, of absentee members, of all of these groups taken together. The procedures if religiously followed will ensure that the rights of individuals and the group are protected in their exercise of the rights of free speech, free assembly, and the freedom to unite in organizations for the achievement of a common aim. It is based on common sense and courtesy.