Modern Parliamentary Procedure

Rating:
Summary: Very useful modification of Robert's Rules
Review: Keesey takes Robert's Rules and strips away a lot of obscure and arcane complexity, arriving at a useful set of parliamentary procedures that are especially well-suited to small and medium-sized groups. The mystique of parliamentary maneuvers is removed in favor of a logical approach that protects rights without losing sight of the goal: to get things done with a minimum of confusion and unnecessary delay. Keesey explains which motions are needed and why the obscure ones he rejects won't be missed by the great majority of organizations. (Do you really accomplish anything by having a motion seconded? If not, then why do it??) He also explains the framework of parliamentary actions, ranging from the duties of a chairperson to the parliamentary rights of ex officio committee members (a topic that is widely misunderstood). Many examples are given to illustrate proper and improper procedures. If you need a parliamentary authority for your organization (unless it's on the scale of a national political convention or a state legislature), consider Keesey's recommendations seriously.

Rating:
Summary: Quick Read
Review: This is certainly a much quicker guide to parliamentary procedure than Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 10th edition. I read the entire thing in less than three hours.

On the other hand, parliamentary procedure is much like a language. It is a set of standards which will vary in formality and strictness according to the participants, time, and place. Dr. Keesey seems to argue that there is never an appropriate time for formality.

A parliamentary authority, like Robert's Rules or Modern Parliamentary Procedure, plays the part in parliamentary law that a dictionary plays in language. As such, it is required not only to offer a definition, but also to reflect current and historical practice. Dr.Keesey has obtained a significant reduction in the rules of parliamentary procedure by dropping a number of common motions and rules. And much like Esperanto, it feels more like a product based on one man's opinion than on the hundreds of years of development of modern parliamentary procedure.