> If others have things they would like to add/change/challenge/etc,
> please please please do so! You can click that "Edit" link, or if
> you're wiki-phobic, email me your comments and I'll do it for you.
From the meeting notes comments:
"The lack of any kind of vote does mean it is extremely difficult to
tell (after the fact) whether people really agreed with a statement, or
if dissenters were simply keeping quiet. While I (BenScott) maintain
that we don't need to move, second, and vote on everything, I do think
it would be good policy to pause and ask, "Any objections?" after
statements of intent. Should there be dissent, we can discuss further,
and/or call a vote if needed."
I am assuming this will meet with an uproar of objections, but there
is a way to solve most of the problems mentioned. It has worked in
many Boards I have been on that ran into the same problems:
Use Robert's Rules!
It sounds like a straight jacket, but it really isn't. The only
really necessary concepts are:
1) There can be no discussion without a Motion.
a) The motion must be phrased clearly
b) the secretary writes the motion down immediately
c) the secretary is prepared to reread the exact motion as needed
* while useful, voice recording will not fill all needs
d) the initial motion is a starting point; it will likely be amended
2) The motion needs a second; at least 2 people should be willing to
discuss it.
3) The chairman allows a free-for-all discussion except:
a) curb off-motion discussion
b) prevent fights, nasty projectiles, broken furniture
c) assure that less aggressive members are recognized formally to
speak
d) as consensus emerges, insist on a formal Amendment as per 1)
* must be seconded and written down
* amendment may be withdrawn by both proposer and seconder
e) amendments can be reworded if acceptable to proposer and seconder
4) check Robert's Rules, but I think you want to vote on each
amendment and motion up or down before going on
The advantages are many:
a) the formal decisions of the board are recorded accurately
* there is no need to record the general discussion
b) people stick to the topic (because the chairman can have it reread)
c) random thoughts get focused when forming an amendment
d) more contribution from less aggressive members
Initially, one of the common point-of-order motions is to "suspend
the rules for <n> minutes". That takes the straight jacket off for a
while, but allows the chairman to bring back the focus after a set
time. As people get used to the system, it occurs less frequently.
It may seem odd, but most people actually like Robert's Rules (by
comparison with complete informality). It depends heavily, though, on
a chairman who uses them wisely.
Jim Kuzdrall
_______________________________________________
gnhlug-org mailing list
gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org/
