To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure
Cover of 2012 edition
AuthorAmerican Institute of Parliamentarians, Alice Sturgis
Original titleSturgis' Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure
SubjectParliamentary Procedure
PublisherAIP
Publication date
Original Edition: 1950
Current Edition: 2023
Pages444
ISBN978-1958850022
060.42
Preceded by2012 edition 

The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure (formerly the Sturgis Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure by Alice Sturgis) is a book of rules of order. It is the second most popular parliamentary authority in the United States after Robert's Rules of Order.[1] It was first published in 1950. Following the death of the original author in 1975, the third (1988) and fourth (2001) editions of this work were revised by a committee of the American Institute of Parliamentarians. In April 2012, a new book, entitled American Institute of Parliamentarians Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure (AIPSC) was released, followed by a second edition in 2023.

The Standard Code (TSC) omits several of the motions and sometimes-confusing terminology used in Robert's Rules of Order (RONR). The cover quote of the 2001 edition states, "Anyone who has trouble with Robert's Rules of Order will welcome the simplicity of this streamlined guide to parliamentary procedure." The Standard Code devotes a chapter to the differences between the two works, along with suggestions for those familiar with the Standard Code when participating in organizations that use "Robert's Rules" as their parliamentary authority. AIPSC omits this chapter as well as any other mention of "Robert's Rules".

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/3
    Views:
    27 603
    993 415
    5 090
  • Parliamentary Procedure 101
  • Judicial Review: Crash Course Government and Politics #21
  • Program Synthesis meets Machine Learning

Transcription

Robert's Rules of Order versus The Standard Code

Differences between RONR and TSC
Robert's Rules of Order The Standard Code
Motions in RONR
but not in TSC
Call for the orders of the day Use informal request or point of order
Fix the time to which to adjourn Instead amend the privileged motion to adjourn
Objection to the consideration of a question Accomplished by different motions depending on circumstances.[2]
Postpone indefinitely Use form of table (requiring a two-thirds vote)[3]
Motions with
different names
Previous question Close debate and vote immediately (or other variations)
Concepts in RONR but not TSC Committee of the Whole and quasi-committee of the whole Use informal consideration
Terminology differences "Adjourned meeting"
resumption of a meeting following an adjournment
"Continued meeting"
Other differences major differences in the treatment of the motions to reconsider and table

References

  1. ^ Slaughter, Jim (2000). Parliamentary Journal (AIP) – A survey of Certified Professional Parliamentarians showed 8% of their clients used TSC
  2. ^ Sturgis, Alice (2001). The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, 4th ed., p. 233–34 (TSC)
  3. ^ TSC, p. 234

Further reading

This page was last edited on 14 December 2023, at 01:06
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.