That embarrassment led to a resolution that he would never be in that situation again, and in typical 19th century American fashion, he set out to do something about it. He was at a loss, and mortified, because he didn’t know what to do. As the states formed their post-colonial governments and legislatures, they developed sets of rules based also on the English model, though naturally each in their own way.Įnter Henry Martyn Robert, a civic-minded minister’s son who, after a bout of tropical fever, is reassigned by the army in 1863 to Massachusetts and promptly finds himself presiding over a 14- hour meeting on the defense of New Bedford from Confederate attack. These practices came to the American colonies and formed the structure for rules in colonial assemblies and the Continental Congress, not to mention the US Congress Thomas Jefferson, presiding over the new Senate as Vice President, wrote its first manual of procedure in 1801, based largely on the English Parliament. The rules for their debates took shape over time, first expressed in written form in the 1560s, and even at that early point they had many aspects we find familiar today: discussing one topic at a time and staying on that point, alternating speeches between opposing points of view, the importance of decorum and not introducing personalities into the discussion, all of which were in place by the early 17th century. In the Anglo-Saxon tradition, this became the village “moot” and “witan” which eventually evolved into a “parliament,” from the Latin for “meeting” by the 13th century. The idea of a body of people coming together to discuss or make decisions among themselves is ancient, recorded as far back as Thucydides 2500 years ago. I’m Joe Janes of the University of Washington Information School. Without these kinds of detailed and specific rules, stipulated and agreed to, what’s the alternative? That’s the question answered by an army engineer and general who, more than a century ago, laid down the law, or at least the rules by which the law can get made. It’s easy to mock “parliamentary procedure” it’s often portrayed as a technicality or trick or maneuver, as though using it is somehow underhanded or unfair, but of course it’s precisely the opposite. Then starts the scrambling for rules, often making them up as you go along, feelings get hurt, the volume rises, and everybody might just as well call it a day, ‘cause now nothing’s gonna get done. That, in my experience, is the beginning of the end. Then, at some particularly critical and contentious point, somebody will get really frustrated and fed up, and will blurt out the dreaded “Point of order!” in a vain attempt to resolve the situation or just get the upper hand. Nobody knows quite how to proceed, or more likely everybody thinks they do and so the discussion can be unpleasant, difficult, counterproductive, even paralyzing. Who hasn’t been in a meeting like this? It’s not entirely clear who’s in charge, or the person who is, is clueless.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |