The primary reason the Faculty Senate uses Robert’s Rules is that our constitution requires it.  But more broadly, any set of parliamentary rules are designed to make meetings run more efficiently and most importantly to protect the rights of all members during the decision-making process.   The main guiding principles of Robert’s Rules include:  

1. The majority has the right to make decisions.  Once a matter is decided it cannot be considered again at the same meeting (with some exceptions). 
2. All members (even those in the minority) have the right to be heard on any matter before the body.   It is hard to end debate or take other actions that limit the rights of a member.  These actions usually take a 2/3 vote as opposed to a simple majority. 
3. Only one “thing” (motion) can be discussed at a time and with limited exceptions the discussion must be germane to the motion that is being considered.  Members speak specifically to the subject under debate and the merits of the pending question, and they must ask questions that are relevant to the current topic. 
4. Only one member may speak at a time once recognized by the chair of a meeting. Only urgent matters can interrupt a speaker (these are special actions that require immediate attention). 
5. Everyone has the right to participate in discussion if they wish, before anyone may speak a second time. 
6. A member is entitled to one, and only one, vote on any question that the body is considering.   

Any set of parliamentary rules are quite formal and complex, but in general, to run a good meeting the group only needs to be as formal as necessary.   If members are familiar with the general principles and some basic rules, a meeting can run smoothly without being too formal or rigid.  The rules are there, when necessary, in order to make sure everyone’s rights are protected and a body can make a decision efficiently while allowing all voices to be heard in a constructive debate.   The chair of a meeting should make sure they help guide members when the rules get complex, and no member should use the rules in a dilatory manner.  

A “main motion” is the beginning of any item up for Faculty Senate action.  Main motions can come from a variety of places: the Executive Committee, a Standing Committee, a Task Force, or from a Senator.  Any motion from an individual Senator requires a second, while a motion from a committee does not require a second.   In essence, a motion is someone saying the “Faculty Senate should do this” and then allowing the body to discuss whether “this” is a good idea.  It is good practice for Senators to discuss a potential item for Faculty Senate consideration with the Executive Committee in advance of a meeting.  It is also good practice to have the language of a main motion prepared, in writing, prior to a meeting.    

These types of motion allow the body to decide how to dispose of a main motion.  In an ideal world, the main motion before the body will be perfect and after debate a vote would be taken.  However, in most cases a main motion is imperfect, and the body needs the ability to decide how to handle the pending motion.   Some of the most common subsidiary motions are:  

• Amend:  to change the wording of a motion 

• Commit or refer: to send the pending motion to a committee to study further and return a recommendation 

• Postpone indefinitely: to avoid taking a direct vote on a motion 

• Postpone to a certain time: to discuss a motion later in the meeting or put it off until the next meeting 

• Previous question: to end debate and move to an immediate vote (requires 2/3 vote) 

None of these subsidiary motions can interrupt a speaker and all require a second.  All but “Previous Question” are debatable, with the debate being germane to the subsidiary motion being considered.  For example, if a motion to refer to a committee is made and seconded, the debate then must be on the merits of referring the main motion to a committee, NOT to the merits of the main motion.   The one exception is the motion to postpone indefinitely, where the debate can be on the merits of the main motion.  

The order of precedence of subsidiary motions is designed to ensure that the body does not debate an action that may be moot.  For example, if a motion is made and seconded to refer a main motion to a committee, then a motion to amend the main motion is no longer in order since it is no longer relevant to rework the main motion if a committee is going to be tasked with further work on the proposed action. 

No.   Motions can be approved by unanimous consent after they are made and seconded.  This is often useful if the chair believes the motion is not controversial and does not require extended debate and a formal vote.   In these cases, the chair can ask if there are any objections to a motion and if none are voiced, it is approved by unanimous consent.   If there are objections, debate must occur and then a vote must be taken.  Some common examples of motions that can be dealt with by unanimous consent include approval of meeting minutes and if a non-controversial amendment to a main motion is made and seconded.  There is no such thing as a “friendly amendment.”  All amendments must be made as a motion to amend and then seconded, but they can be approved by unanimous consent.  

This motion is a question on whether to end debate immediately.   To protect the rights of the minority to speak before any action is taken the threshold to end debate is higher.  In most instances it is best to try and avoid using this motion and debate can be ended by unanimous consent (i.e. no one objects to ending debate and voting).  The reason for trying to avoid having to do this formally is because confusion sometimes arises when first a vote needs to be taken to end the debate (which requires a 2/3 vote) and then if successful a vote on the actual motion is then immediately taken.  However, this is a useful tool if debate has gone on for a while and members feel like it is time to vote.  It is not in order to move the previous question immediately after a motion has been made and seconded.  There must be some time for debate.  Also, a member cannot just yell out “I call the question” or “I move the previous question.”  Like all other subsidiary motions, a member must be recognized before moving the previous question.

These sets of motions are used to address immediate issues related to the meeting itself or to the comfort of members.  Some common examples include:  

• Raise a question of privilege: this is used if there is an immediate issue impacting the comfort of the group or a single member.  For example, if a member cannot hear or if the room is too hot.    

• Call for the orders of the day:  this gets the meeting back on schedule 

• Recess:  allows the body to take a short break 

• Adjourn: ends the meeting (rarely needed) 

Since some of these are motions relating to urgent issues, members can interrupt a speaker to raise a question of privilege or call for the orders of the day.   Some require a second and votes (adjourn, recess) while others require actions of the chair to address the issue (question of privilege, orders of the day). 

This last group of motions are related to the body deciding how to handle business.  While there are overarching rules (the constitution, special rules, Robert’s Rule) there are times when the body needs to decide on how to operate.   Some of the most common incidental motions are:  

• Point of order: when a member believes a rule has been violated and the situation must be addressed immediately 

• Suspend the rules: used if the body wishes to do something that violates a rule (either from Robert’s Rules or a special rule adopted previously). Rules spelled out in the constitution and fundamental rules of parliamentary law (like one vote per member) cannot be suspended. 

• Parliamentary inquiry:  used to ask a question about procedure 

• Request for information: used to ask a question about a pending motion.    

• Appeal the decision of the chair: after the chair makes a decision (usually on a point of order) a member can appeal the decision if they feel the chair’s decision is not correct. 

• Division of a question: divides a motion into separate parts for debate and vote  

 Some of these motions can interrupt a speaker (point of order, appeal a decision of the chair) and some require votes (appeals, suspending the rules, division of a question)

Sometimes things happen that violate the rules and must be addressed immediately.  For example, you are waiting to speak to a pending motion when someone yells out “I call the question”.  The chair then says the debate is over and moves to a vote.   This is not in order since it violates the rules.  You could then raise a point of order stating that debate was not ended properly – the member that yelled out was not recognized, the motion to end debate did not have a second, nor did a vote occur to end debate.  Once raised, the chair would then rule on the point of order.  In doing so they can ask the parliamentarian for advice or even ask the body for its input before ruling. 

The chair is not all powerful and is answerable to the body.  If a member disagrees with a decision of the chair, they can immediately appeal.  This requires a second.   If the motion currently under consideration is debatable, then the motion to appeal is debatable as well.   After debate, where the chair gets to speak first and then before a vote is taken, the question put before the body is “Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?”  A majority vote in the negative is required to overrule the chair's decision.    This is NOT used to appeal a vote taken by the body or a response to a question.  

If an incident requiring disciplinary action occurs during a meeting, Robert's Rules of Order (Section 61, portions included below) provides procedures for handling the situation promptly and fairly.   If a member commits only a slight breach of order (61:10)—such as addressing another member instead of the chair in debate, or, in a single instance, failing to confine their remarks to the merits of the pending question—the chair simply points out the fault, and advises the member to avoid it. The member can then continue speaking if they commit no further breaches. More formal procedures can be used in the case of serious offenses as described below. 

If the offense is more serious (61:11)—as when a member repeatedly questions the motives of other members whom they mention by name or persists in speaking on completely irrelevant matters in debate—the chair normally should first warn the member; but with or without such a warning, the chair or any other member can “call the member to order.”  If the chair does this, they say, “The member is out of order and will be seated/cease their conduct.”  Another member making the call rises and, without waiting to be recognized, says, “Mr./Ms. President, I call the member to order,” then resumes their seat. If the chair finds this point of order well taken, they declare the offender out of order and directs them to be seated/cease their conduct. 

In cases of a grave breach of order by a member (61:12–18), the chair can, after repeated warnings, “name” the offender, which amounts to bringing charges and should be resorted to only in extreme circumstances.  Before taking such action, when it begins to appear that it may become necessary, the chair directs the secretary to take down objectionable or disorderly words used by the member.  This direction by the chair, and the words taken down pursuant to it, are entered in the minutes only if the chair finds it necessary to name the offender.  The declaration made by the chair in naming a member is addressed to the offender by name and in the second person and is entered in the minutes. An example of such a declaration is as follows: 

CHAIR: Mr. J! The chair has repeatedly directed you to refrain from offensive personal references when speaking in this meeting. Three times the chair has ordered you to be seated, and you have nevertheless attempted to continue speaking. 

Although the chair has no authority to impose a penalty or to order the offending member removed from the room, the assembly has that power. It should be noted that in any case of an offense against the assembly occurring in a meeting, there is no need for a formal trial provided that any penalty is imposed promptly after the infraction, since the witnesses are all present and make up the body that is to determine the penalty.  

If the member obeys at this point, the matter can be dropped or not, as the body chooses. The case may be sufficiently resolved by an apology or a withdrawal of objectionable statements or remarks by the offender   If the member refuses or the body wishes to pursue sanctions, the next step would be for a member to move a penalty/sanction, or the chair can ask “What penalty shall be imposed on the member?”   Possible sanctions include requiring the member to apologize, censure (official reprimand), requiring the member to leave the meeting, or, in extreme cases, suspension or expulsion from the body.  This motion requires a second to proceed.    

The motion to sanction a member is subject to debate.  Both the member making the motion and the accused member shall be allowed to speak.  A motion can be made to require the offending member to leave the meeting room during consideration of sanction, but the offending member must be allowed to speak before a vote is taken. A motion to require a member to leave the room during the consideration of sanctions is undebatable, unamendable, and requires a majority vote.  After debate, the body votes on the motion to sanction.  A majority vote is usually required, except in the case of expulsion, which requires a 2/3 vote. 

If the offending member is the chair, a member can move to suspend the rules and remove the presiding officer (the President) for the current meeting with a two-thirds vote.  In our case, the Vice-President would then become the chair and preside over the meeting.   The sanction for an officer or committee-chair cannot include expulsion or removal from office, since removing an officer is a much more formal procedure, which requires a trial, and is outlined in detail in Robert’s Rules (Sections 62 & 62).  

In this case, a more formal procedure is required, which includes forming an investigating committee, bringing of charges by the body, and a trial.    

Every deliberative body is unique and Robert’s Rules are just a starting point.  The Faculty Senate has adopted some special rules of order and standing rules that govern its operation.  These rules are posted on the Faculty Senate website and supersede any corresponding rule from Robert’s Rules.  For example, in Robert’s Rules a member can speak for 10 minutes during debate.  The Faculty Senate has adopted a special rule to reduce this time limit. 

Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th edition 

Robert’s Rules of Order for Dummies, 4th edition