Robert's Rules Research Articles

Proposed change in the AGU Bylaws

At its meeting on May 19, 1987, the AGU Council gave initial approval to an amendment to Bylaw 14, relating to election procedures, to clarify these procedures and bring them into conformity with Robert's Rules of Order. The changes are as follows: Add a new Article 14d to read: “Elections shall be accomplished by mail.” Add Article 14e to read: “If more than two candidates are nominated, voters shall be required to rank candidates in order of their preference. In tallying such votes, if no candidate has a majority of the first‐place votes, then the candidate with the fewest first‐place votes will be eliminated and the second‐place votes on those ballots distributed among the other candidates and this process repeated until one candidate has a clear majority.” Change to Article 14f the old 14d, which reads: “Results of the general election shall be announced at the Annual Business Meeting.” Notice of this proposed change is given in accordance with Article 126 of the Statutes, which requires that proposed amendments to the Bylaws be published in an AGU publication of general circulation no less than 30 days prior to a second consideration by the Council. The Council will consider this proposal for final passage at its December 1987 meeting in San Francisco, Calif.

"Martha's Rules"

For several years I have been teaching a social work course on how social workers can make their employing organization more responsive to consumers. We'study how decisions are made in organizations. The students and I have become intrigued with the use of consensus decision-making in some organizations. Many—but by no means all—of these organizations are feminist organizations that wish to put feminist beliefs and philosophy into practice within organizations and to avoid structured administrative hierarchies for decision making. In their study of "consensus decision-making" organizations, students have reported that some participants are impatient with the time required by the use of consensus decision-making for all decisions—large and small. One student brought to class a copy of "Martha's Rules" that were developed by Martha's Housing Co-op for families in Madison, Wisconsin. "Martha's Rules" are not only an alternative to Robert's Rules, but provide ideas for people in organizations who are committed to consensus decision-making and who want to make it work well.

Obscured by CloudsThe Cloud People: Divergent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations. Kent V. Flannery , Joyce Marcus

Previous articleNext article No AccessReview ArticleObscured by Clouds The Cloud People: Divergent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations. Kent V. Flannery , Joyce Marcus Robert S. Santley and Philip J. Arnold IIIRobert S. Santley Search for more articles by this author and Philip J. Arnold III Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Journal of Anthropological Research Volume 40, Number 1Spring, 1984Fortieth Anniversary Issue 1944-1984 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/jar.40.1.3629700 Views: 4Total views on this site Citations: 4Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1983 The University of New MexicoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article: Philip J. Arnold III Risky Business: Archaeology by Robert's Rules, Journal of Anthropological Research 64, no.33 (Oct 2015): 425–435.https://doi.org/10.3998/jar.0521004.0064.308Michael P. Smyth, Christopher D. Dore Large-Site Archaeological Methods at Sayil, Yucatan, Mexico: Investigating Community Organization at a Prehispanic Maya Center, Latin American Antiquity 3, no.11 (Jan 2017): 3–21.https://doi.org/10.2307/971927Robert S. Santley, Philip J. Arnold, Christopher A. Pool The Ceramics Production System at Matacapan, Veracruz, Mexico, Journal of Field Archaeology 16, no.11 (Jul 2013): 107–132.https://doi.org/10.1179/jfa.1989.16.1.107Norman Yoffee Perspectives on ‘trends toward social complexity in prehistoric Australia and Papua New Guinea’1, Archaeology in Oceania 20, no.22 (Nov 2014): 41–49.https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1834-4453.1985.tb00101.x

The ontological foundation of Nozick's view of politics: Robert's rules of order

In Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Nozick (1974) reaches the following controversial conclusions, among others: (1) individuals have virtually absolute rights to justly acquired property, including their own persons; (2) a minimal state acting only to protect such rights is legitimate; and (3) a more extensive state must perforce violate these rights and therefore is illegitimate. The implication is that citizens have few enforceable social, economic, or political obligations to their fellows. From a purely analytic standpoint, these conclusions are less interesting than Nozick's way of deriving them. And from that standpoint, his argument is particularly surprising, considering what is missing from it and what is there. What is missing is a precise justification for the particular rights Nozick ascribes to individuals and the stringency with which they are ascribed (see his admission, 1974, p. xiv). Obviously, leaving out this key element is a controversial way to promote controversial conclusions. What is there, in contrast, is a seemingly old-fashioned state of nature account of how a legitimate minimal state could arise in a world without initial social or political organizations. Nozick traces the genesis of the minimal state from the formation of voluntary associations for the protection of members to the triumph of a dominant protective agency enjoying a de facto monopoly of force used to protect individual rights. Insofar as this monopoly can arise without violating any individual rights, such a minimal, nightwatchman state is in Nozick's view justified. So long as individuals within the state have acted and continue to act within their rights, the denial of legitimacy to the state would entail denying the individual rights themselves. In turn, Nozick argues that whereas the minimal state is nothing more than individuals acting in ways that do not violate rights, the extensive state, in general, is nothing more than individuals acting in ways that do violate rights. Hence, the more extensive state is illegitimate. Nozick's use of the state of nature account is surprising, since he does

Rules of Order: Henry Martyn Robert and the Popularization of American Parliamentary Law

In a country where every school has its debating society, every village its lyceum, and every man-and woman too, for that matter!-cherishes the hope of some day shining in the deliberative assemblies of the land, a reliable manual of parliamentary practice is as indispensable as was the cathechism in more ecclesiastical times. 1 This early assessment of Robert's famous little book hardly overstated the importance it was to claim in American life. The one hundredth anniversary of its publication in 1976 passed without notice amid the hoopla of the bicentennial, but not because of its obscurity. On the contrary, Robert's Rules of Order had long since become an accepted commonplace, an ultimate source of unquestioned authority ingrained in most Americans by the time they leave high school. The rules are adopted routinely and obeyed thoughtlessly in American organizations of every kind. Our allegiance to this body of law now goes unexamined, and the book has become strangely disembodied from the author whose name it bears-detached from the specific historical problems it was meant to resolve. To examine the origins of Robert's Rules illuminates not only a man and a book whose place in American culture deserve attention, but also the society that made this book so indispensable.2

The Parliamentary Game: Robert's Rules Revisited

The Parliamentary Game: Robert's Rules Revisited

Book Review: IV. Pastoral—Practical Studies: Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised

Book Review: IV. Pastoral—Practical Studies: Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised

Robert's Rules of Order. (New Revised). By Henry M. Robert, Sarah Corbin Robert, with the assistance of Henry M. RobertIII , James W. Cleary, and William J. Evans. Glenview, Illinois. Scott Foresman and Co. Pp. 550. 1970.

Robert's Rules of Order. (New Revised). By Henry M. Robert, Sarah Corbin Robert, with the assistance of Henry M. RobertIII , James W. Cleary, and William J. Evans. Glenview, Illinois. Scott Foresman and Co. Pp. 550. 1970. - Volume 64 Issue 4

On Defiling the Sanctity of English

THE teaching of English in this country -high school and college-has little relevance to the reading habits or the language experiences of its people. The purveyors of English teach Cotton Mather, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Edgar Allan Poe, and Robert's Rules of Order when Hugh Hefner, the Hearst newspapers, Time magazine and Reader's Digest shape the opinions and reflect the moods of the nation. Shakespeare, Marlowe, and Wilde fill the pages of English anthologies with their timeless works, but Albee, Fellini, and Laurents rarely get into a classroom. Whitman, Eliot, and Milton are always evident in the curriculum while the

Book Review: Robert's Rules of Order. Revised

Book Review: Robert's Rules of Order. Revised

Pocket Manual of Rules of Order for Deliberative Assemblies

Democratic Rules of Order Description, comparison, and comments about the 7th committee rules, points of order, and a pocket guide on floor procedures. (!) A Manual of Parliamentary Practice A complete reprint of the 1812 manual by the philosophy and principles underlying the rules of deliberative assemblies. (!). The original title was, Manual of Rules of Order for Deliberative but the words on the cover were “Robert's Rules of Order,” and thus they. Be sure to do this with the accounting team in order to ensure that the called Pocket Manual of Rules of Order for Deliberative Assemblies, it was written.