In Message Thu, 12 May 1994 10:09:49 -0600 (MDT),
Kathleen Carlson <kcarlson@csn.org> writes:
>In referring to the Roberts Rules--it looks like with the wording that you
>are specifying a particular edition--why not something like "the most
>recent edition of Robert's Rules"? This would alleviate the need for
>future bylaws amendments as the editions of Robert's change.
>
>Kathy Carlson
>Wyoming State Law Library
By using the title _Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised_, we do not
mean to specify a particular edition. Apparently, the words "newly revised"
have been considered part of the book's title for the last 3 editions, and we
had noticed that in the sample bylaws in _Robert's Rules_ (sect. 55), the
title referred to for parliamentary authority is given as _Robert's Rules
of Order Newly Revised_.
In fact, the 1990 edition (also called 9th edition) has this statement
printed on the verso of its title page:
"This 1990 (9th) Edition supersedes all previous editions and
automatically becomes the parliamentary authority in organizations
whose bylaws prescribe "Robert's Rules of Order," "Robert's Rules
of Order Revised," "Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised," or
"the current edition of" any of these titles, or the like, without
specifying a particular edition. If the bylaws specifically
identify one of the eight previous editions of the work as
parliamentary authority, the bylaws should be amended to prescribe
"the current edition of 'Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised'"
According to that first sentence, it would be okay for us to leave the title
stated as _Robert's Rules of Order_. But since _Robert's Rules of Order
Newly Revised_ is the wording recommended for new or amended bylaws, that's
the choice we made.
Alva
____________________________________________________________________
Alva T. Stone
Law Library Internet: atstone@law.fsu.edu
Florida State University fax: 904-644-5216
Tallahassee, FL 32306-1043 tel: 904-644-2881
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST