[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] On the issue of RROR from www.constitution.org
Mark Langston wrote:
>Several of you have seen fit to quote some of the more context-
>dependent rules from www.constitution.org, such as the manner in which
>to address a lady, and then proceeded to use this as an argument
>against RR and parliamentary procedure as a whole.
The way to address a lady was just an example on the "funny" side.
The reason for quoting that paragraph is that is stated that permission
had to be asked to the Chair before addressing the Assembly, which means
that Roberts Rules assume that some "traffic control" be in order.
BTW, I did not see any postings which implied rejection of any procedure
, just the inadequacy of RROR "as is".
>I would like to point out that the text available on
>www.constitution.org is the original text from the 1915 copy of RR --
>the 4th edition of the work, the first "revised" version of the rules,
>and probably the first copy widely adopted by deliberative bodies. It
>was written to reflect the needs of the time, as are all rules for
>deliberative bodies, as are the set I adapted to our purposes.
>I would also like to point out that the work has evolved for almost
>100 years. Using colloquialisms present in an 85-year-old copy to
>dismiss the entire concept of parliamentary procedure is like arguing
>against all manners because covering a lady's passage with your cloak
>seems silly and outmoded.
Again, I failed to see dismissal of "the entire concept of parliamentary
procedure" in the postings on this subject. I would stand corrected if
you point me to the posting(s) that suggested that dismissal.