To start, I’ll draw upon my experience with the establishment of an organization called MASSABDA, the Massachusetts Amateur Ballroom Dancers Association as an example of some of my thoughts on these questions.

When we were starting, we were a group of about 20 to 30 people who were interested in starting a Chapter of USABDA so we could better promote the cause of ballroom dance. Each time we met, the composition of the group was a little different. Every time we made a decision at one meeting, it would often be changed at the next due to the change in who happened to be in attendance. In fact, sometimes people brought others with them specifically to support a particular view on a matter. After a while it became very frustrating for those who had been attending all along to have things that were "settled", be re-hashed over and over again. The fundamental problem was there was no established vesting of authority in any group other than the entire present population. This problem was fixed fairly quickly when it was proposed that a "Board of Directors" be formed to represent the group and that Board members must commit to serve a minimum of one year. This first step, essentially vested power to a fixed group of people. The next issue then became how many people would compose the Board. A limit of eighteen (18) was selected. The initial board had about thirteen people. Eighteen allowed for fluctuation in the size of the board such that there would, hopefully, always be enough people deeply committed to the organization to get things done, even if no help from outside the board could be found as well as keeping the number large enough to prevent minor fluctuations in the board size from suddenly changing balances of power on issues but small enough to keep focused.

I will point out that, as long as rules have been established, it is better to have more people on a board than less. If you look at governments around the world, what are the characteristics you find based on how large the vested power group is. Most with One, two or three are generally dictatorships. The US and England are Democracies. None are perfect but which would you rather be represented by if you’re not on the board. On the other hand, if you are on the board and you’re interested in having power, as long as your friends are on the board and they agree with you, you’re goal would be to keep the board as small as possible so that you and your friends could always get your way.

Another practical reason to keep the size of a board greater than say ten (10) is that it will provide a "training ground" for people to become good board members and provide you with a pool of experienced people to take over the leadership when people move on to other things. In a volunteer organization, it is often hard to find people to commit to a year when they have no taste of what it will be like and are expected to take on major responsibilities. For this reason, the MASSABDA board established specific offices and committees in it’s bylaws that totaled thirteen (13). This allowed for five (5) board members who were "At Large", i.e. had no specific duties on the board other than to attend meetings and assist other board members with their projects. This way, we could entice people to join the board who were a bit skittish about getting involved and tell them that all they had to do is help out the others.

Some thoughts from Robert’s Rules of Order on the characteristics of an organization.

Basically, the Rules provide a fair playing field and give an impartial method of making decisions.

While President of MASSABDA, I formulated a simplified, but effective Rules of Order for a small organization. What I put together can be applied, unmodified to most any small organization. These rules have also been adopted, as is, by the Framingham Chess Club Board of directors which consist of seven (7) people. These rules were put together with a cardinal guide-line of making the absolute minimum changes if any to existing Robert’s Rules. A great deal of effort was put into the document to "get it right". I worked with two people who had a lot of opinions on the matter until I reached a consensus with them on what I'd put together. One was a lawyer, the other a very "critical and precise" person. The document was then ratified by the MASSABDA board of directors which at the time consisted of sixteen (16) people. I will add that there are no "loopholes" or "tricks" put into it on purpose. This document with only minor clarifications has been in use by MASSABDA since July of 1993.

It takes some people a while to get the hang of how it all works but with a moderator who knows how to apply the rules properly and who will politely guide people as they get accustomed to it, everyone should get the hang of it fairly quick.

I have had a lot of experience with organizations that used various pieces of Robert's Rules of Order by established convention. i.e. the rules were never written down. These organizations operated smoothly precisely because everyone, including new members were clearly indoctrinated with the procedures. I have also been on numerous committees and teams both professionally and personally where everyone thought they knew the "right" way to do things. Unfortunately, you only found out that everyone’s idea of the right way to do things was different, was when the group couldn’t agree.

The document consists of a step by step walk through of the process of making a decision with the allowed options listed at each step. In addition, all the important terms and options are defined in a standardized way. Also, there is a one page diagram that serves as a quick reference chart to show the whole process with the various options at each step.

I will call your special attention to the definition of a "Phone Vote" and "Open Vote". These two provisions are very important to getting work done without having to have everyone present at every board meeting. These two items are not from Robert’s Rules but were invented out of practicality. They work very, very nicely.