Customer Reviews

Roberta's Rules of Order: Sail Through Meetings for Stellar Results Without the Gavel

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Robert's Rules Of Order is designed for small groups only (less then twelve). According to Alice Cochran, this book is for non-profit boards with less then 12 members. SO don't use this book for large meetings. Even Alice admits in an interview on "CharityChannel.com" that Robert's is needed for large groups.

Of course, even under Robert's, in particular Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised 10th, for such groups, informality is encourged (See RONR 10th p. 470), and
I don't think Roberta's and Roberts disagree as much as Alice claims in her book. I think this book is likely to contain some good advice for small groups, who generally come together not just to make decisions but also to do "problem solving". She does emphasize bringing proposals to a meeting and not complaints about the past, which is important.

A couple of complaints:
1) I opened the book to a random page and found this:
"A majority vote (50% plus one) .... "
This definition is incorrect, as anyone who understand parliamentary law knows. Majority simply means "more then half".

2) Recommends that groups require at least 75% in favor of a proposal before adopting it. (Yikes! A small
minority can cripple that group)

I am a fairly experienced parliamentarian and presiding officer with an interest in parliamentary procedure. I strongly recommend against purchasing this book unless you are in an organization which has already (foolishly) adopted it as their parliamentary authority.

I was given a copy of this book when I agreed to act as a parliamentary consultant for a fraternity umbrella organization. They were a newly formed group working on their own bylaws and a member had suggested this book. After reading it, I quickly came to the conclusion that it is nothing more than a bad knock-off of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. The parts of it which deviate from Robert's Rules are drawbacks rather than selling points, such as the inappropriate definition of a majority and the requirement of a 3/4 vote to do anything (other reviewers have pointed both of these horrid features out). If Roberta's Rules is "more democratic" as has been claimed, it wouldn't allow a small, possibly recalcitrant minority to overrule almost 75% of an organization's members. On a seven person board, two determined people could effectively filibuster and cause business to grind to a halt; is that a good idea?

Roberta's seems to be written on the premise that practically everyone will agree with a proposal if it's talked about and verbally massaged enough. Anyone who lives in the real world of board meetings and policy discussions and decision making knows that this isn't the case. No amount of touchy-feely back-and-forth will ever make some decisions palatable to everyone. People disagree; that's why in most cases a majority should rule, with the right of the minority to disagree is protected. Robert's Rules does this; Roberta's Rules doesn't.

Besides, Robert's Rules of Order recognizes that informality is often useful to small bodies and provides for meetings to be conducted informally. The difference is, with Robert's, the formality is there when needed. With Roberta's, you're on your own when things get complicated.

Roberta's Rules of Order is both poorly executed and poorly conceived. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 10th Edition is a much better parliamentary manual. It has benefitted from over 125 years of careful revision and evalution; Roberta's has obviously not. Many misconceptions about Robert's Rules of Order have to do with older editions; ignore the criticisms and go with the gold standard: Robert's Rules, not Roberta's Rules.

This is a refreshing alternative for small decision making groups who have long ago discarded parliamentary procedures and have had nothing practcal to replace them.

The customizable "Special Rules for Meetings" [Resource A in the back of the book] is worth the price of the book alone!

Bravo to Alice Collier Cochran for her simple guidelines and methods!

As moderator of the Deacon Board at my church, I have used Roberta's Rules of Order on many occasions to help plan retreats, organize special events, resolve differences, encourage culture awareness, agree on a Courtesy Pledge and more.
Our group dialogues with 36 deacons have been enlightning and most helpful in building our agreements.The suggestions and examples that Alice uses are easy to relate to and provide the reader with hands on, useful information. I'm delighted to have a book to pass on to others who want help in working effectively with groups.

Rigid parliamentarians will be afraid of this book, because it challenges the idea that Robert's Rules of Order are right for absolutely every organization in the world. But they don't need to be. It's really just a great alternative. This book helped me find a new way to structure meetings so that they still HAVE structure, but one that works for the diverse (and very opinionated!) people I work with. It helps you make decisions and get things done. It's a fun read, too, which is great if, like me, you find making meetings work stressful. I wish I'd had this book years ago.

It is my opinion that Roberta's Rules of Order is not a book any organization will find useful or practical. A very high percentage of organizations in this country have adopted Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised 10th ed. This book will serve no purpose in these organizations. There is a lot of Robert bashing in it, that is uncalled for. It is obvious to me that the author has never really studied parliamentary procedure in general and in particular Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised the 10th edition (the most current edition) before writing this book. Her misconceptions are many and varied.
She is opposed to "the majority rules". Instead her idea is for a group to find a "middle ground between consensus and simple majority rule". She misuses the title Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised and at times lumps all the editions under the blanket term "Robert's Rules of Order".
She also says that parliamentary procedure is effective in government and legislative assemblies but not in smaller civic organizations. What is know as parliamentary procedure for deliberative assemblies is not what is practiced in legislative bodies. The procedures and rules used in the US Senate and the House of Representatives are very different from each other and those used by deliberative assemblies all over the county.
I also found it interesting that she mentions "Cannon's Rules of Order" in the text of the book but it is not listed in the references. The complete and correct title of Hugh Cannon's book is "Cannon's Concise Guide to Rules of Order". Mr Cannon never intended his book to replace a parliamentary authority but it is an excellent guide to procedure. There is a big distinction between a parliamentary authority and a parliamentary guide.
She does list The Standard Code 4th edition (the adopted authority of many organizations) as a reference and claims it says it says there is the right of the "minority to protest and be protected". Her point being that the minority has the right to be heard in debate. I do not find anywhere in TSC 4th the use of the term "protest". That may seem like a fine point but I see some difference in the right to debate and the right to protest. Roberta's Rules of Order does not use the term motions. The word proposals is used and more than one proposal may be discussed at the same time. How confusion and misunderstandings and questionable votes can be prevented are not made clear.
The author wants to see dialogue not debate and spends a whole chapter explaining how to have a dialogue. A egalitarian is needed, not a parliamentarian. Henry M. Robert wrote in his first handbook of parliamentary procedure a basic structure for deliberative assemblies of all kinds. Noting that each individual group will write their own bylaws, standing rules and special rules of order, based on the organization's individual and unique needs. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised is now in its 10th edition. Yes, the book as grown in size but this is in response to the needs of a wide range of different organizations. An organization may never need to refer to a section in the book, while another organization may need the information and find it valuable. Rules and structure are not dirty words. With just a little knowledge of parliamentary procedure an organization can conduct meetings which are fair, and efficient. Henry M. Robert had this to say "It is difficult to find another branch of knowledge where a small amount of study produces such great results in efficiency in a country where the people rule, as in parliamentary law"
Again, it is my opinion that before you can criticize so completely you need to know what you are criticizing.

Roberta's Rules is a great resource for anyone living in the 21st century who wants to minimize their time in meetings while maximizing the results they achieve. From my perspective as a management consultant and a professional parliamentarian (PRP of the National Association of Parliamentarians), I still encouter so many unproductive meetings. I also find it amazing that in this day and age some meeting leaders and planners think the answer to their problems is to force traditional Robert's Rules of Order onto attendees, even for groups less than 25. Robert's has its place, primarily among delegations numbering hundreds or more. But it is not my tool of choice for a progressive, pluralistic group that wants to encourage dialogue, multiple points of view, and thoughtful decision making in the meetings. When I suggest dropping Robert's for Roberta's or some other form of facilitation that's appropriate for the situation, I'm even more convinced that I've made the right recommendation when the only complaints I get are from those who know Robert's Rules of Order. (Everyone else gives a big sigh of relief.) In my experience, many of those who know Robert's are interested in showing off their knowledge, which makes the meetings more miserable for everyone else and certainly doesn't guarantee a good outcome. The goal should be productive, efficient meetings with good outcomes. Roberta's Rules can help you get everyone on the same page quickly moving in the same direction, which is a huge benefit.

Having served both on nonprofit boards and a home owners association board, I only wish we had used Roberta's Rules. If you're like me and are tired of sitting through tedious meetings debating points of procedure, get everyone on your board a copy of this book.

Anyone who has ever participated in nonprofit board meetings that were governed by Robert's Rules of Order will not be surprised to learn of the military background of its author: U.S. Army General Henry M. Robert. The rules make a good deal of sense to those who love rigid structure, and rules, rules, rules.

After sitting on nonprofit boards and serving as legal counsel to nonprofit organizations for more than two decades, I have come to loathe Robert's Rules of Order. I've seen how these rules often stifle meaningful dialog and problem-solving by giving advantage to some while relegating others to the sidelines. Indeed, they rarely coax a full contribution from those who are naturally quiet and thoughtful, or who hold back because of a lack of standing in society and/or within the board itself. It is this latter failing that cuts against the grain of our sector -- a sector that so obviously values, and draws strength from, full participation from those of diverse views.

Thus it was with great interest that I learned of the book provocatively titled Roberta's Rules of Order, by Alice Collier Cochran. I was so taken by the book that I spent a half-hour or so on the phone with its engaging author, talking about her motivation for writing the book, what she wanted to accomplish with it, and so on. (...)

Cochran succeeds in what she sets out to do: Provide a less formal, more feminine, and flexible approach. She replaces formality with informality; strict rules with guidelines and agreements; parliamentary procedure with democratic principles and processes; language of the 1800s with that of today; military terminology with civilian terminology; one-size fits all with flexibility, by culture; a framework designed for English and European males with that for a pluralistic society; win-lose voting with win-win decisions; a decision between two choices with straw polls and multiple choices; highly controlled and constrained meetings with those that are relaxed; and complicated with simple. I've saved perhaps the two greatest contributions for special mention: Roberta's Rules of Order replaces debate with dialog, and she puts the motion AFTER a discussion of the problem and its solution, where it belongs.

While the author wants us to know that the concepts and processes she presents are not new -- she gives ample credit where it is due -- she should have no reluctance to take credit for putting it all together into a very well-written, easy-to-understand, fast-reading book. She uses a sailing metaphor to good advantage throughout.

I do not overstate it when I say that this book is perhaps one of the most important contributions to the third sector I have seen. If board meetings could really become warm, easy, productive and effective, imagine how that would strengthen the organization! I intend to put it into the hands of board members on every board I serve on or advise.

This is a bad book.

The author, who promotes herself as an expert in meetings and apparently one who helps organizations with their meetings, has done her potential audience a grave disservice. For someone who is an 'expert' in meetings to be so horribly ignorant of parliamentary procedure is inexcusible.

It should also be pointed out that "Robert's Rules of Order" is but ONE parliamentary procedure authority, not the only one. RONR may have its problems, but a better solution would be to use ANOTHER parliamentary authority, not toss out the use of parliamentary procedure entirely. Parliamentary procedure was developed over hundreds of years to be a method that groups may use to run their meetings and make decisions. It can be used by groups large and small (from 12 member boards to conventions of several hundred delegates), it can be used by small clubs, societies, and organizations to government bodies large and small.

Because a wide range of groups can use parliamentary procedure, its done in different ways. Small groups are more informal, large groups more rigid. Government bodies will do things that are unnecessary in non-profit clubs.

RONR was designed for non-government groups/organizations, and gives information on how to use it informally for a small group (12 or so) and how it can be scalled to a large group (several hundred).

BTW, the fact that the original author of Robert's was a military officer is unimportant. Roberts made use of already existing parliamentary rules to create his.