Running head: PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

Parliamentary Procedure
Deric Batt
Ball State University

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

Parliamentary Procedure
Parliamentary procedure is a simple concept that is carried out in an intricate manner.
Loosely defined, parliamentary procedure is a method whereby organizations set out certain
standards in order to create a system of relative fairness and order in the manner in which they
discuss things and ultimately seek to get things done through the utilization of group meetings
(California State University Chico, n.d.). While such procedures can take many forms,
considering each organizations can and perhaps should adapt them to fit their own needs, many
tend to utilize Roberts Rules of Order (RRoO). Roberts Rules of Order are based on the
parliamentary procedure used by the United State House of Representatives, adapted and
changed in order to provide a more universal level of applicability (Robert & Robert, 2008). The
universality of these rules allows them to work well in most industries and organizations,
including social work. In fact, many of the rules and procedures set out by Roberts Rules of
Order mesh well with the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Code of Ethics.
One fine example of this is the NASWs Code of Ethics stance on respect, especially for
ones colleagues. The NASW Code of Ethics clearly states that social workers should not
disparage their colleagues on the basis of competence as well as race, sex, and other irrelevant
matters (National Association of Social Workers, 2008). The spirit of this point would seem that
we maintain a sense of community and keep ourselves to relevant matters, avoiding creating
potential breaks over matters that do not potential create an actuarial point. The point is entirely
based on creating an atmosphere of cooperation and ultimately aiding our clients. Likewise,
Roberts Rules of Order place an importance on keeping conversation on the question at hand
and never referring to other officials by name in conversation of a motion (Robert & Robert,
2008). This concept is based in a similar logic that individuals and organizations are best

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

served by keeping conversation relevant to the topic at hand and separate differences of
personality and persons in order to create a more functional unit. Both rules guide a process in
which conversation and debate are (as much as possible) unadultered by trivial manners that may
ultimately cause personal (as opposed to professional) strife, which can break cooperation. Both
the NASW and parliamentary procedures benefit greatly from working in the cooperative.
Another piece of procedure that the NASW and RRoO share is the idea of referrals. In the
NASW, there is a part of the Code of Ethics that pushes for social workers to refer clients to a
more qualified social worker if the client requires a specialization that might better serve their
needs (NASW, 2008). This is a very logical stance, as no one is served when individuals without
a proper training are attempting to assist an individual in a specialized issue. A referral should,
hopefully, create a scenario for the individual to improve their chances of a positive outcome. In
parliamentary procedure, as written in RRoO, it is suggested that certain motions be referred to
committees. Though the committees are vaguely defined and typically consist of at least five
individuals, the spirit appears to be much the same to allow individuals who are more qualified
to scrutinize a motion or a case and hopefully bring about better results (Robert & Robert, 2008).
One interesting difference between the two forms is that the NASW appears to argue for the
shifting of specialized cases, at least partially, to specialized individuals, while RRoO makes the
case for sending a motion or case to a committee to mark-up, change, and investigate the issue at
hand prior to sending the case (and the findings and actions taken) back to the larger committee
for a vote. Nevertheless, each side seems to agree on utilizing specialized knowledge and skills
to most effectively deal with relevant cases.
Though not something explicitly written in the NASW Code of Ethics, democracy is the
central element in how both organizations create their rules and ultimately get things done. The

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

National Association of Social Workers creates an assembly of delegates who ultimately vote on
changes to the Code of Ethics, akin to how RRoO organizes standard procedures for motions
within an organization (NASW, n.d.). There ultimately appears to be an agreement that
organizations and associations are both best served by utilizing a large part of their base to create
changes and investigate new arguments. The NASW Code of Ethics is, in fact, written by an
assembly that is not too dissimilar from those described by RRoO.
In the end, both the NASW Code of Ethics and Roberts Rules of Order value specialized
knowledge, unity of cause, and democratic processing as key factors in organizing a cause. It is
hardly a surprise when one considers that the NASW is, in fact, an organization. One might
reasonably come to the conclusion that, as most other organizations do, the NASW is itself an
adherent (at least in large part) of Roberts Rules of Order.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

5
References

California State University - Chico. (n.d.) Parliamentary procedures at a glance. Student Life and
Leadership. Retrieved January 26, 2015, from
http://www.csuchico.edu/sll/studentOrganizations/parliamentaryProcedures.shtml
National Association of Social Workers [NASW]. (2008). Code of ethics. Retrieved from
http://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/code.asp.
National Association of Social Workers [NASW]. (n.d.). Delegate assembly. Retrieved from
http://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/code.asp.
Robert, H., & Robert, S. (2008). Robert's Rules of order newly revised (10th ed.). Cambridge,
Mass.: DaCapo Press.