Rules of Order
24/01/14 05:19
It may be a sign of some kind of mental instability, or perhaps just a type of creative thought, but sometimes the strangest ideas come to my mind. Yesterday was a long day with an early start and an evening meeting. For some reason, as I was driving home, I began to wonder, “Do anarchists have conventions?” and “If they do, do they use Robert’s Rules of Order?” Actually I know next to nothing about anarchists. It just seems that they might tend toward disorder and not want to submit to any sort of rules. Such things might make for a rather chaotic and perhaps humorous situation if they were to ever attempt organizing. Maybe that is why you don’t hear much about anarchist conventions.
When I got home, I told my wife what I had been thinking about on the way home and she looked at me a little bit funny and laughed. I can’t remember exactly what she said, but it was something like an expression of surprise at the strange thoughts that i have.
She’s a wise woman. I’m pretty sure that normal people don’t think the way I do.
When we first moved to South Dakota, I used to tell a joke about the places where we had lived this way:
I grew up in Montana. Montana is a democracy, with elected legislators and state officers. Montanans hold to the principles of one person, one vote; the secret ballot; rule of the majority; and the like.
Then I moved to Chicago in the days when the first Richard Daley was mayor. Richard J Daley ruled Chicago with an iron fist. The city council always approved his proposals with the same vote. If you attended a council meeting there were no surprises about who would vote which way. It was my first time of living in a dictatorship.
From Chicago, we moved to North Dakota. I hadn’t realized until I got there that North Dakota is a socialist state. The North Dakota Mill & Elevator? It belongs to the state. The Bank of North Dakota? It belongs to the state. It is an interesting place.
Next, we lived for a decade in Idaho, where there are a lot of people who don’t believe in government. Mostly they hide out in the mountains, but you can see evidences of anarchy all around. “I don’t care who painted those stripes on the road! They have no authority over me. I’ll drive where I choose, thank you very much!”
So, when we moved to South Dakota when Bill Janklow was governor, it was my first experience of living in a monarchy.
OK, so it is a joke and it isn’t very accurate, but it is interesting how people organize themselves and conduct their business.
They way I learned the story, and I think this is accurate, is that Henry Martyn Robert was an Army officer who was asked to preside over a church meeting. It might have been a city meeting, since town meetings were often held in churches in New England. At any rate, he agreed to preside at the meeting only to discover that he did not know how to keep order. People spoke out of turn and it was hard to keep the group on subject. After the meeting he began to study ways of organizing meetings and eventually wrote a set of instructions for running meetings that came to be known as Robert’s Rules of Order. The first edition was printed in 1876 and the rules are now in their 11th edition.
The rules seem to work fairly well when weaving the way through disagreement within a group of people. These days we get through a lot of church meetings without needing to refer to the rules. We mostly conduct our business by listening carefully to one another. We roughly follow the rules, with motions made and seconded, discussion held, and votes taken. But it is rare to have significant dissent at a church meeting. Usually when there is disagreement it is best to ponder and pray about the decision rather than make a decision with a group that feels disenfranchised or upset.
In general at a church meeting when someone goes for or quotes Robert’s Rules of Order there is some kind of an attempt at creating disorder rather than order. A complete knowledge of the rules provides enough tricks to disrupt an assembly and to subvert the will of the majority. The rules are used more often to create disorder than to keep a meeting flowing in an orderly fashion.
Still, the rules come in handy.
A few years ago Robert’s Rules of Order came out at an annual meeting of our congregation. There was an individual who wanted the vote on the budget to be by secret ballot as opposed to the simple voice vote that is usual in our church. I’m not sure the reason why, but I suspect that the person didn’t like some part of the budget. At any rate, the rules were consulted and it was determined that we had to vote on whether or not to take a secret ballot. The vote was taken and there were only a couple of other people in the room who wanted a secret ballot. It was a clear illustration of the will of the majority of the group. The meeting proceeded without disruption. The budget was adopted and served the congregation well that year.
But it always makes me nervous when the book comes out. It seems to be a sign that there is some disruption in the works.
I’m no fan of anarchy, however. We do need some structure when we gather together to make decisions. I guess we’ll stick with Robert’s Rules of Order. After all, there is a phone app for that.
A quick Google search of Anarchists’ Convention reveals that John Sayles wrote a short story by that name. I don’t know much about John Sayles. I read a novel he wrote: A Moment in the Sun. It was very well written and the characters really come alive. I think I’ll pick up a collection of his stories one of these days. He sounds like the kind of person I might like to get to know better. I like the way he thinks!
When I got home, I told my wife what I had been thinking about on the way home and she looked at me a little bit funny and laughed. I can’t remember exactly what she said, but it was something like an expression of surprise at the strange thoughts that i have.
She’s a wise woman. I’m pretty sure that normal people don’t think the way I do.
When we first moved to South Dakota, I used to tell a joke about the places where we had lived this way:
I grew up in Montana. Montana is a democracy, with elected legislators and state officers. Montanans hold to the principles of one person, one vote; the secret ballot; rule of the majority; and the like.
Then I moved to Chicago in the days when the first Richard Daley was mayor. Richard J Daley ruled Chicago with an iron fist. The city council always approved his proposals with the same vote. If you attended a council meeting there were no surprises about who would vote which way. It was my first time of living in a dictatorship.
From Chicago, we moved to North Dakota. I hadn’t realized until I got there that North Dakota is a socialist state. The North Dakota Mill & Elevator? It belongs to the state. The Bank of North Dakota? It belongs to the state. It is an interesting place.
Next, we lived for a decade in Idaho, where there are a lot of people who don’t believe in government. Mostly they hide out in the mountains, but you can see evidences of anarchy all around. “I don’t care who painted those stripes on the road! They have no authority over me. I’ll drive where I choose, thank you very much!”
So, when we moved to South Dakota when Bill Janklow was governor, it was my first experience of living in a monarchy.
OK, so it is a joke and it isn’t very accurate, but it is interesting how people organize themselves and conduct their business.
They way I learned the story, and I think this is accurate, is that Henry Martyn Robert was an Army officer who was asked to preside over a church meeting. It might have been a city meeting, since town meetings were often held in churches in New England. At any rate, he agreed to preside at the meeting only to discover that he did not know how to keep order. People spoke out of turn and it was hard to keep the group on subject. After the meeting he began to study ways of organizing meetings and eventually wrote a set of instructions for running meetings that came to be known as Robert’s Rules of Order. The first edition was printed in 1876 and the rules are now in their 11th edition.
The rules seem to work fairly well when weaving the way through disagreement within a group of people. These days we get through a lot of church meetings without needing to refer to the rules. We mostly conduct our business by listening carefully to one another. We roughly follow the rules, with motions made and seconded, discussion held, and votes taken. But it is rare to have significant dissent at a church meeting. Usually when there is disagreement it is best to ponder and pray about the decision rather than make a decision with a group that feels disenfranchised or upset.
In general at a church meeting when someone goes for or quotes Robert’s Rules of Order there is some kind of an attempt at creating disorder rather than order. A complete knowledge of the rules provides enough tricks to disrupt an assembly and to subvert the will of the majority. The rules are used more often to create disorder than to keep a meeting flowing in an orderly fashion.
Still, the rules come in handy.
A few years ago Robert’s Rules of Order came out at an annual meeting of our congregation. There was an individual who wanted the vote on the budget to be by secret ballot as opposed to the simple voice vote that is usual in our church. I’m not sure the reason why, but I suspect that the person didn’t like some part of the budget. At any rate, the rules were consulted and it was determined that we had to vote on whether or not to take a secret ballot. The vote was taken and there were only a couple of other people in the room who wanted a secret ballot. It was a clear illustration of the will of the majority of the group. The meeting proceeded without disruption. The budget was adopted and served the congregation well that year.
But it always makes me nervous when the book comes out. It seems to be a sign that there is some disruption in the works.
I’m no fan of anarchy, however. We do need some structure when we gather together to make decisions. I guess we’ll stick with Robert’s Rules of Order. After all, there is a phone app for that.
A quick Google search of Anarchists’ Convention reveals that John Sayles wrote a short story by that name. I don’t know much about John Sayles. I read a novel he wrote: A Moment in the Sun. It was very well written and the characters really come alive. I think I’ll pick up a collection of his stories one of these days. He sounds like the kind of person I might like to get to know better. I like the way he thinks!