A Refresher on Robert's Rules of Order
- friendsofkenlake
- Nov 4
- 3 min read
Or Why Procedure Matters: A Plain-Language Guide to Robert’s Rules of Order
When you serve on a board or attend a community meeting, you’ll often hear the phrase “We’re following Robert’s Rules.”
But what does that actually mean — and why does it matter?
At its core, Robert’s Rules of Order is a framework for fair, orderly, and democratic decision-making. It’s been used for over a century by organizations of all kinds — city councils, nonprofits, and neighborhood associations — to make sure that meetings are both efficient and fair.
What Robert’s Rules Are For
Robert’s Rules exist to ensure that:
Everyone has a voice. No single person can dominate discussion or force a decision.
The majority can act. The group can move forward once issues have been fairly debated.
The minority is protected. Even those who disagree have the right to be heard and to have their objections recorded.
Decisions are documented. Motions, votes, and outcomes are clearly tracked in the record so they can’t be misrepresented later.
Think of Robert’s Rules as the user manual for fairness.
They make sure that the process of decision-making is transparent — so everyone knows how a result is achieved.
Why Boards Use Them
Boards and committees use Robert’s Rules because they provide a neutral, predictable structure for discussion and action.
They help answer key questions like:
Who gets to speak, and in what order?
How is a motion made, seconded, and voted on?
What happens when members disagree?
How do we keep meetings productive and civil?
When everyone understands the same process, meetings become less about personalities and more about outcomes.
What Robert’s Rules Say
One of the most basic principles of fair governance — whether in a city council, a nonprofit, or a neighborhood association — is that every member has the right to speak once recognized by the chair.
Under Robert’s Rules of Order, once a member has been given the floor, they have the right to speak without interruption as long as they stay within the rules of debate — meaning:
Their comments are relevant to the issue at hand,
They avoid personal attacks or disruptive language, and
They stay within any established time limit.
If those conditions are met, the chair may not interrupt or cut off the speaker simply because they disagree or dislike what’s being said.
To do so is considered a violation of members’ rights — specifically, the right to participate in deliberation before a decision is made.
That right doesn’t depend on whether the presiding officer agrees with the comment or finds it uncomfortable. It’s a matter of fairness, not opinion.
How the Chair Should Handle Disagreement Disagreement is the point, emotional attacks are not. If the chair believes a speaker is off-topic or breaking decorum, Robert’s Rules provide the correct process:
This keeps authority where it belongs: with the group. |
Why Process Matters
Following procedure isn’t about formality — it’s about fair play.
Cutting someone off doesn’t just silence one voice — it sends a message that participation is conditional. And when people begin to feel that their participation depends on the chair’s approval, the process stops being democratic.
Robert’s Rules exist precisely to prevent that kind of imbalance. They ensure that even dissenting views are heard, because robust discussion leads to better, more legitimate decisions.
If debate is uncomfortable, that’s often a sign that it’s working. Healthy boards allow disagreement without fear of being shut down.
The Bigger Picture: Process Builds Trust
When boards and committees use Robert’s Rules properly, they send a clear message:
“We take your voice seriously, and we’ll make decisions the right way.”
That kind of consistency builds confidence — even among those who disagree with the final vote.
Because in the end, trust in governance doesn’t come from who wins — it comes from how fairly the process was run.
Comments