Meetings of associations, clubs, and other societies are governed by rules; these rules are known as parliamentary procedure, and are documented in numerous books, such as Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised. These rules are designed to handle every possible circumstance that could arise in a meeting, but unfortunately very few people in the real world have the time and energy to study and perfect their knowledge of these rules. As a result, it is not uncommon for numerous mistakes, minor and major, to be made in the conduct of meetings.

Often, a member will attend a meeting at which something does not go the way he wants. This person will say nothing during the meeting itself, but as time passes he will become more and more convinced that the chairman made a procedural error of some sort. He will consult with books and outside experts to validate his opinion. Eventually it will become clear to everyone involved that the meeting was poorly run, that the chairman was incompetent, that the wrong decision was made, etc. The member will then declare that the chair’s decision must be reversed….and that’s when everything comes crashing down around his head.

As it turns out, one of the most important rules in parliamentary procedure is the so-called “timeliness requirement of a point of order”—which basically states, “you snooze, you lose!” Any member who believes that a procedural mistake has been made at a meeting, must complain about it immediately, or forever hold his peace. The dispute must be settled at the meeting itself, right when it happens, or never at all. Even waiting five minutes is usually too long, and waiting until after the meeting is over is definitely too long.

For example, suppose a social club has a rule in its by-laws that all endorsements of candidates for political office require a two-thirds vote, instead of the usual majority vote requirement. Suppose further that a member moves to endorse a candidate, a debate is held, and when the vote is taken only 60% of the votes are cast in favour. If the chair erroneously declares the motion adopted, and his declaration goes unchallenged, it becomes final and irreversible despite the error. A point of order to dispute the chair’s announcement of the result must be raised before the assembly moves on to the next item of business. Depending on how quickly the meeting progresses, the window of opportunity could be a few seconds to a few minutes in length.

This rule is very powerful, but there are five circumstances under which it does not apply: when a main motion is adopted that conflicts with the by-laws (unless the conflict is with a rule in the nature of a rule of order); when a main motion is adopted that conflicts with a previously adopted main motion (unless it is adopted by the vote required to amend that motion); when an action is taken in violation of applicable procedural rules prescribed by law; when an action is taken in violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law; and when an action is taken in violation of a rule protecting absentees or a basic right of an individual member.

In any of these five circumstances, the breach of the rules is said to be “continuing,” and a point of order can be raised to challenge the decision or action at any time during the continuance of the breach. So, for example, if a motion is adopted reducing the dues of the organization, but that motion is not adopted by the vote required to amend the original motion that set the dues in the first place, then a legitimate complaint can be raised at any time in the future—until the dues are raised back to their proper level, one way or another, at which point the continuing breach is said to have “healed.”

While these five exceptions may seem broad, in reality the majority of errors made during a meeting are covered by the “you snooze, you lose” rule. The two lessons to be taken from this are clear: when a mistake is made at a meeting that adversely affects the fairness or effectiveness of the decision-making process, someone should immediately challenge the chair’s decision, and force the matter to be resolved before anything else is done; and, conversely, when a mistake is made at a meeting that does not adversely affect the fairness or effectiveness of the decision-making process, no one should say anything about it, because it most likely doesn’t matter, and will probably never cause any problems in the future—but be sure to consider the five exceptions to this rule.