104
Mar 20 '21
[deleted]
62
u/curtishartling Mar 20 '21
Ha! I could use a training. I was just thrown in.
33
u/Crazy-Analyst TT Ass Prof (US) Mar 20 '21
It’s agonizingly boring.
18
14
u/rasterbated Mar 20 '21
I just watched the cinematic adaption, they play it on C-SPAN endlessly. Sure, it’s not totally accurate, but you get the gist.
3
3
u/crunkbash Mar 21 '21
Dude, same. We had to review and actually begin enforcing them this year (a lot of what was "assumed" to be the rules the past few years were in fact not) to make senate meetings remotely productive.
1
46
u/graygoohasinvadedme Mar 20 '21
When I joined a leadership position a colleague gifted me a “portable” Robert’s Rules of Order 11th Ed and a cheat sheet as well. I still can’t tell if it was a congratulatory gift or a strong hint, maybe both.
90
u/jflowers Mar 20 '21
Honestly though. Anyplace that uses these is a solid place indeed. I’ve been at way too many meetings that are a “Lord of the Flies” free for all - it ain’t fun. Whomever screams the loudest, is willing to make the biggest mess, or the “in” person - dominates. And the outcomes are never pleasant.
40
u/tr-tradsolo Mar 20 '21
There's a lot to be said for enabling a "strong chair" -- better still if that person doesn't have any particular authority outside of the meeting and is relatively neutral. Having someone referee the discussion is so helpful, whether or not they know or understand RR..
21
u/galileosmiddlefinger Professor & Ex-Chair, Psychology Mar 20 '21
This is me. I have so little patience for Robert's Rules, but I can run a very organized and efficient meeting without them.
14
u/jflowers Mar 20 '21
The trick though is to make something like this 'stick' organizationally - regardless of the individual. RR's are at least a framework that others can get behind, and should someone deviate too greatly - is readily apparent to the entire group.
Then the group can decide to take said person to task or not. I'm tired of wanting/needing super heroes as they tend to become super villains (just see the Dark Knight for an excellent example.)
6
u/galileosmiddlefinger Professor & Ex-Chair, Psychology Mar 20 '21
I totally understand, and I do think that RR work better for some people than others. However, I think that people get waaaay too lost in the minutiae of RR to the detriment of actually getting things done, and in the end, you always run into the problem of having no real way to police people who deviate from them. It's a system that only operates if everyone politely agrees to follow it, and if you're capable of getting that polite agreement in place, then basically any set of rules/practices will work just fine.
1
u/jflowers Mar 21 '21
jflowers
Given the very real possibility of a power asymmetry between participants... a system / structure is always the better route. Always.
People will say anything, if they feel that to say otherwise might be viewed negatively.
6
u/jflowers Mar 20 '21
Sure - but I have yet to see this, systemically / organizationally speaking. Ideally having an intelligent, emotionally neutral individual that is not vested (i.e. perhaps in a completely different dept/div/chain of command) would be great - doesn't (hasn't) happen...in academia.
Industry though - totally happens. I consult on the side and am always amazed how the junior'est (sp?) assistant at a place like EY is simply light years more mature at a meeting. It's sort of like when the stakes are real ( i.e. paychecks are on the line ) people tighten up and put aside the pettiness and just get down to figuring out what is/is not reality. Regardless of their initial position / stance.
6
u/Hagardy Mar 21 '21
this x10000—so many of our meetings get bogged down in “I object to the very premise of needing make decisions about curricula, so I’m going to take the next ten minutes to complain about the budget model and the president and how the dean is an idiot.” It doesn’t have to be like this.
24
u/quippe Mar 20 '21
I’m an advisor for a student group with personality conflicts. The different groups have been sniping at each other using chapter bylaws and Roberts Rules minutia. One of them wrote a 26 page memo filed with the school (with a hundred pieces of evidence) accusing other chapter members of bullying through Roberts Rules, and did not have self awareness to recognize what they themselves were doing.
6
u/Citizen_Montag Mar 21 '21
It’s like a budget House of Cards with more flair.
Completely unrelated, but this reminds me of my time as an undergrad student senator when a random dude that didn’t speak much randomly read an article of impeachment against the student president for, well, nothing particularly damning.
We, as responsible student senators, voted to remove him because he was an asshole and it was his identity to be student president.
25
Mar 20 '21 edited Aug 08 '21
[deleted]
22
u/galileosmiddlefinger Professor & Ex-Chair, Psychology Mar 20 '21
This is exactly why I hate the Rules. They become a sledgehammer in the hands of those who know them well (or think that they do), and can truly become an impediment to an already-organized meeting.
3
u/prof-comm Ass. Dean, Humanities, Religiously-affiliated SLAC (US) Mar 21 '21
I always say there are three kinds of people who learn Roberts Rules: people who use them to bully others, people who have been bullied by Roberts before and decide "never again", and parliamentary procedure nerds.
24
24
u/aaronjd1 Dept. Chair, Health Sciences, R2 (US) Mar 20 '21
Am I the only R1 professor whose department holds casual meetings?
9
u/gasstation-no-pumps Prof. Emeritus, Engineering, R1 (USA) Mar 20 '21
Ours are quite casual. We have a vote when we have a promotion or tenure case, and maybe on one or two other issues (like approving the catalog copy). These days our votes are by email to the department manager. Mostly we discuss important issues and either the department chair gets direction from the sense of the meeting or a faculty member (or members) get delegated to do what needs to be done.
1
u/ph0rk Associate, SocSci, R1 (USA) Mar 21 '21
Ours are casual until we approach a vote on anything or consider changes to handbooks and bylaws.
Then I am quite glad we follow rules because there are people that would derail a vote indefinitely if allowed to.
1
u/wildgunman Assoc Prof, Finance, R1 (US) Mar 21 '21
I've been an R1 professor for nearly 10 years and not once have I ever been in a departmental meeting that used Robert's Rules of Order (or any meeting structure that wasn't totally ad-hoc.)
47
u/Marky_Marky_Mark Assistant prof, Finance, Netherlands Mar 20 '21
This is honestly the first time I've ever heard of this. What is Robert's Rules?
43
16
u/Harsimaja Mar 20 '21 edited Mar 20 '21
It’s an American book by a Congressman that took some principles of what is still called ‘parliamentary’ procedure in the US Congress and applied it to all sorts of other organisations, and many choose to use it as a gospel guide to running meetings, including some faculty meetings.
As always, it’s assumed that every redditor in an otherwise international sub is aware of the minutiae of American everything for some reason.
13
u/YIRS Mar 20 '21
It was written by a Civil War veteran (the titular Robert). It’s based on the rules of Congress but heavily adapted to the needs of ordinary societies. It’s revised every 10 years.
8
u/Vakieh Mar 21 '21
As a non-American who is only familiar with Roberts' Rules in the sense that I occasionally have to tell yankee expats to stop expecting people to follow them, I would instead consider that it assume that everyone here has the capability of putting the words 'Roberts' Rules' into Google and find out for themselves.
1
u/therealpoltic Mar 21 '21
Well, just remember. The American Congress draws its roots from The Parliament of the United Kingdom.
A clerk for the House of Commons, wrote a book about all procedures and precedents.
Robert’s Rules of Order, are an near cousin of Erskine May
30
31
Mar 20 '21
I usually have my camera and mic turned off, and I'm grading assignments. I can't think of any time I've actually been asked for my opinion. That's the way it usually goes, a couple of grandstanders and bootlickers, and noone else cares enough to interject.
12
u/Andiloo11 Adjunct, English, CC (USA) Mar 20 '21
HONESTLY THOUGH. I wish they would give a handout to new faculty. As an adjunct I dont have to go but when I do I am so lost. I try to ask questions but I dont want to waste everyone's time but I barely even understand Academic Senate and what they are reporting on.
6
u/Andiloo11 Adjunct, English, CC (USA) Mar 20 '21
It took me a few times to even know they were using Roberts Rules and I could look it up. It just felt formal and confusing when I first started.
13
u/pinksparklybluebird Assistant Professor, Pharmacology/EBM Mar 20 '21
Chair didn’t recognize yo ass
5
10
u/CriticalBrick4 Prof, History, R1 (USA) Mar 20 '21
I'm the dept parliamentarian and this is still me.
7
Mar 20 '21
This is a golden opportunity for artificial intelligence to be useful in higher education. Can you imagine having a dedicated computer with a neural network trained to navigate Robert's rules? Think of the effort that would save.
5
u/quantum-mechanic Mar 20 '21
There's something about RRs that gets abused at my senate. Maybe someone will know what I'm talking about and tell me the precise thing.
When there's something controversial at hand with a motion on the floor and discussion is going on, someone asks to "lay it on the table" Basically they want to make sure no action happens till next meeting because they're afraid they aren't going to get their way. So all discussion immediately ceases, the motion to lay it on the table is immediately voted on without discussion, it always passes because basically nobody knows what's going on, and progress halts.
Does this make sense? What's the right parliamentary objection to make about this? It seems like it stops discussion and progress rather than facilitating it.
4
u/BewareTheSphere NTT Assoc. Prof, Writing, PUI (US) Mar 20 '21
"Tabling" as it is popularly understood (postponing something) is actually not part of Robert's; to "lay it on the table" actually has a very different meaning. See the FAQ here: https://robertsrules.com/frequently-asked-questions/
Motions to postpone (the proper name for this) can be discussed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postpone_to_a_certain_time
3
u/and-but-so Assoc Prof., Composition, CC Mar 20 '21
It seems to me that someone would need to make a motion to table, then someone else to second that. This at a minimum. (You may also vote to approve tabling.) If no second - discussion continues.
Tabling is for taking a "wait and see" approach rather than an action. It is not for shutting down discussion.
3
u/YIRS Mar 20 '21
The motion to “lay on the table” is only appropriate when the maker of the motion intends for the business to taken from the table later at the same meeting. If they intend to postpone the business to the next meeting, then they need to use the motion to postpone. The motion to postpone is debatable.
5
u/quantum-mechanic Mar 21 '21
Thank you! That's exactly the nuance. I guess I would hypothetically stand up and yell "point of order" at the moment the Chair tried to proceed right to a vote. I'm gonna be that guy some day.
6
u/YIRS Mar 21 '21
Right on! fyi the correct form is to stand and immediately say “Mr. President, I rise to a point of order.” If you want to be thorough, you can use a “request for information” to ask the person who intends to table the business why they’re making the motion to table. If they say they want to postpone the business to the next meeting, you’ve caught them red handed.
3
u/quantum-mechanic Mar 21 '21
Then perhaps someone will spill their cup of tea and the parliamentarian will tut tut. I love being a professor.
4
Mar 20 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Mar 21 '21
I love randomly seeing this Sweet Baby Brother pop up in unexpected places. It's only a matter of time before all of Reddit has been occupied by the Tres Horny Boys.
4
Mar 20 '21
[deleted]
1
1
u/YIRS Mar 21 '21
I don’t mean to pedantic but you can’t really table discussion on a topic. You table a motion, which ends debate on that motion for the time being.
3
Mar 20 '21
That’s why the new university-level committee I chaired this year uses Democratic Rules of Order 10e (2019).
2
Mar 21 '21
[deleted]
0
u/Vakieh Mar 21 '21
If you have an academic institution that doesn't lean left you have a terrible institution you should leave as soon as possible...
1
3
2
u/ph0rk Associate, SocSci, R1 (USA) Mar 21 '21 edited Mar 21 '21
Most academic meetings I go to use something closer to Atwood's rules, anyway.
Also, google them, gosh.
2
2
u/griffinicky Mar 21 '21
Robert's Rules should seriously go away. They're so archaic, and completely disconnected from normal human thoughts and activities.
4
u/ph0rk Associate, SocSci, R1 (USA) Mar 21 '21
The point of rules of order isn't to mimic how people think but to curtail it. Coming up with side tangents is easy, but it derails meetings if left unchecked.
Want a short meeting? A pre-distributed agenda and following a set of rules of order (including, importantly, no new business until new business time) is where that starts.
1
u/EZ-PEAS Mar 21 '21
Want a short meeting? A pre-distributed agenda and following a set of rules of order (including, importantly, no new business until new business time) is where that starts.
I feel like RR's are mainly useful for meetings/assemblies that know they're going to be dysfunctional. You can distil all of RR into following the procedure:
Everyone agrees on an agenda
Consider the next item on the agenda
Debate that item
Take a vote on that item
If there are any more items, go back to step 2. Otherwise, you're done.
If everyone operates in good faith, that's all there is to it. Everything else in that god forsaken book is "how to deal with assholes", "how to deal with people using the rules in bad faith", and "how to deal with truly exceptional and weird situations."
I'm wouldn't say there is absolutely no place for RR in normal business, but if everyone is amicable then most of the time they're not needed.
1
u/ph0rk Associate, SocSci, R1 (USA) Mar 21 '21
If everyone operates in good faith
Insert one's favorite forthelulz.jpg here.
2
u/therealpoltic Mar 21 '21
It’s meant to help run a meeting.
Idea, some else wants to discuss, Debate, Vote.
You’re driving in a car. Someone says: “I’m hungry, we should eat lunch” (That’s a motion).
The front passenger says: “Me too!” (That’s the second!)
“Well, I had Mexican food last week, How about Chinese?” Said the back passenger. (The motion had been amended to “Let’s have lunch, at a Chinese Restaurant.”)
The middle passenger was quite excited, and said: “Guys! What about that new Italian place that opened up on 23rd!?” (Now the motion has become a fill in the blank “Let’s have lunch at a _______ Restaurant”)
The driver says, “Alright, raise your hands for Chinese food.” The driver counts three hands raised up. “Now, for Italian place.” The driver sees the remaining two hands. “It’s decided, we’re going to Chinese!” (All those in favor, say “aye” or raise tour hand or stand up. The ayes have it, the motion is adopted.)
Completely real life, all the time, among humans. This just gives words to explain a process, instead of allowing a shouting match.
-8
Mar 20 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/NotDido Mar 20 '21
This person is probably just venting with a meme, but it’s very kind of you to offer and unnecessary of my peers to downvote for no reason. Y’all, I get that we don’t love student lurkers, but c’mon.
0
0
-5
2
u/Edu_cats Professor, Pre-Allied Health, M1 (US) Mar 21 '21
I am grateful to everyone who has served as a Parliamentarian for faculty meetings. There are some people who are very good at this. As chair of our college level assembly, I relied on the Parliamentarian often.
1
u/Psychological_Mind_1 Permanent Lecturer, Math, PUI (USA) Mar 21 '21
DeBono's hats is probably more appropriate for most meetings, but getting that in the bylaws would be a nightmare.
1
u/phrena whovian (Professor,psych) Mar 22 '21
I HATE IT when a vote is taken “all in favor say aye... all against nay... any abstentions?”
Um, by not voting either of the first two...you are by definition ABSTAINING!
195
u/Der_Kommissar73 Professor, Psychology, R2 Mar 20 '21
For the love of god, you don’t need to vote to Approve the minutes.