Parliamentary Procedure is Embodied Principles, Not Rules
Parliamentary theory is like music theory. It makes the practice sing, and elevates your competency wildly.
If anyone describes Robert’s Rules of Order to you in any of the following ways, you should assume they don’t know what they’re talking about:
“It’s just a giant piles of rules to memorize, but who has the time for all that?”
“It’s too many rules that only get in your way. It’s better to use common sense.”
“We use ‘Bob’s Rules.’ Like, you just go along until things get too contentious or something, and then you kick in some extra rules if you need. You don’t have to be so formal all the time.”
Like Infinite Jest or the Bible, many people will claim familiarity with Robert’s Rules and authoritatively pronounce upon it.
One of the most common pronouncements of the uninformed is that Robert’s Rules is some kind of antiquated, unresponsive, needlessly long list of rules.
Any competent parliamentarian, or anyone who’s read and understood Robert’s, will have two primary issues with this characterization.
#1) Robert’s Rules is aware of the thing you think it ignores, and has likely accounted for it
Classic example: “We’re just a small group of people, we don’t need all the rules and formality of Robert’s.”
Here are the things wrong with this idea:
Robert’s Rules is not one static set of rules that is supposed to be applied in every situation. It is a set of principles that are applied contextually. There are rules for large conventions, corporate boards, small committees, and more. Those rules are based on the context of the group using them. If Robert’s Rules are getting in your way, that’s probably your fault. The most common error I see is people trying to use the most expansive, formal version of Robert’s that they can summon (in bastardized form, usually), and then getting mad that it’s hard and gums up the works. My suggestion is to just actually follow Robert’s: use rules competent to your context.
Robert’s Rules was first published in 1876. It is 148 years old. It has been revised and updated in response to real-life meeting scenarios for that whole time. Although it will continue to need revision as our cultural and technologic context changes (and it keeps getting it!), it has probably already priced in whatever you think it’s ignored.
Per §49:21 of Robert’s Rules, “Procedure in Small Boards,” you do not need to follow most of the formal procedure you’d otherwise need in a larger meeting. For example, motions don’t need to be seconded, you don’t have to introduce a motion to vote on it, etc.
Robert’s has seen small meetings before.
#2) Robert’s Rules is a set of principles that, when applied to contexts, become rules
Good practitioners in any field will tell you something like this: you don’t do my craft by memorizing all the possible permutations of it, and then doing them. You learn the principles that underly the craft, and those dictate what you should do in any situation. If you try to just do raw memorization, you will have to apply much more effort, for a much less flexible result.
Let’s take piano playing as an example. On the outside, it can seem like you memorize all the individual keys that you need to hit with your hands. And you do that for every song. But many of us have seen good piano players—clearly they are not doing that. They can play any song you’ve ever heard of on the spot. Why? Because they know music theory, the set of principles behind the construction of music. Once you are well-practiced in those, you can create any song you need!
Parliamentary procedure is the exact same, and parliamentary theory is the set of principles that, once understood, allows you to intuitively understand what to do in any meeting situation.
The parliamentary theory of seconding a motion
Let’s look at needing to “second” a motion as an example here.
In the “memorize the rules” paradigm, you have to memorize all the times a second would be needed or not. That’s a hefty task, and imagine having to do it for literally every little rule and motion! And what if you get all the way to voting on a motion (and you adopt it), but then someone says that no one seconded the motion—what do you do??
Or, you could just understand the basic theory behind seconding: it is to ensure that the meeting doesn’t waste time, and that a motion is desired by at least two people. Otherwise you could get bogged down by many things that just one person wants to discuss.
Now that you understand the theory, when and how to second something is easier to intuit. You definitely need to do it in larger meetings, which always need more guardrails against distraction—the second requirement keeps those meetings on track and running smoothly. You don’t need to do it in small meetings (say, of five people); it’s easy to get an instant picture of whether or not the group wants to discuss something.
But what about that question I posed: you vote on a motion and pass it, only then for someone to note that no one seconded the motion! In a shocking twist that should surprise no one, Robert’s Rules has already contemplated this. Because people discussed and adopted the motion, clearly they wanted it before the assembly/board/meeting—and a second is supposed to verify that at least two people want an item to come before the assembly/board/meeting.
Here is Robert’s answer, where it also explains the parliamentary theory behind the answer. Per §4:12-13, “Seconding a Motion” (emphasis added):
The requirement of a second is for the chair’s guidance whether to state the question on the motion, thus placing it before the assembly. Its purpose is to prevent time from being consumed by the assembly’s having to dispose of a motion that only one person wants to see introduced.
In handling routine motions, less attention is paid to the requirement of a second. If the chair is certain that a motion meets with wide approval but members are slow in seconding it, he can state the question without waiting for a second. However, until debate has begun in such a case—or, if there is no debate, until the chair begins to take the vote and any member has voted—a point of order (see 23) can be raised that the motion has not been seconded; and then the chair must proceed formally and ask if there is a second. Such a point of order should not be made only for the sake of form, if it is clear that more than one member wishes to take up the motion. After debate has begun or, if there is no debate, after any member has voted, the lack of a second has become immaterial and it is too late to make a point of order that the motion has not been seconded. If a motion is considered and adopted without having been seconded—even in a case where there was no reason for the chair to overlook this requirement—the absence of a second does not affect the validity of the motion’s adoption.
Treat Robert’s Rules as a mentor who’s seen mostly everything
Robert’s Rules have been around for a long time, and the procedures outlined in the full version of the book are based on two human lifetimes’ worth of experience. There’s a good chance they’re in there because they work. You should learn about them before deciding they can’t possibly be any good (you’d be like the piano player who ignores music theory).
That said, our cultural and technologic context is constantly evolving. Robert’s will have to evolve with it. Once you’ve become acquainted with parliamentary theory, and maybe once you’ve even explored other parliamentary authorities besides Robert’s (!!), you can think more seriously about how you’d revise those rules of procedure to more properly fit human needs in meetings.
Finally, an opinion from me: if you’re using Robert’s and it doesn’t seem to be working, many things could be going wrong, but it’s almost never “Robert’s did this.” It’s probably your fault. You either misunderstand parliamentary theory, or you’re trying to use some bastardized version of parliamentary procedure you’ve sort of made up and are calling “Robert’s Rules.” Try reading and practicing the real Robert’s fully. It’s a powerful tool worth truly mastering.