|
Grex > Coop11 > #71: Minutes for the Grex 1/26/99 Board Meeting | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 75 responses total. |
pfv
|
|
response 17 of 75:
| 
Feb 2 07:30 UTC 1999 |
"Consensus"
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 18 of 75:
|
Feb 2 12:13 UTC 1999 |
Consensus is a decision that everyone can support. It is not necessarily a
decision that everyone likes 100%. But the process does require continuing
to work on a statement until everyone agrees that they can support it and its
consequences.
|
davel
|
|
response 19 of 75:
|
Feb 2 12:30 UTC 1999 |
Rane, I don't think I'd offer the current, polarized condition of national
government as an argument in favor of adopting RRO (or anything else).
Pete, don't be so picky. (That's *my* job.) 8-{)]
|
pfv
|
|
response 20 of 75:
|
Feb 2 14:13 UTC 1999 |
Sorry, it was grating an exposed nerve ;-)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 21 of 75:
|
Feb 2 17:10 UTC 1999 |
cmcgee started it... 8^P.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 22 of 75:
|
Feb 3 05:11 UTC 1999 |
Ack!
|
rtg
|
|
response 23 of 75:
|
Feb 3 07:12 UTC 1999 |
The religious Society of Friends (aka Quakers) has always run their
meetings on the basis of consensus. Change happens slowly. cmcgee's
definition in resp:18 sums it up pretty well.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 24 of 75:
|
Feb 3 16:38 UTC 1999 |
They are involved in few decisions that have much urgency. Families function
by consensus as do most neighbors (though battles arise in both, with
no agreed upon procedures to resolve them). It is, however, not as good
an idea for businesses with legal and financial responsibilities that
also claim to be democratic, to rest upon consensus. The minority is never
treated fairly (or is driven out by a domineering majority).
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 25 of 75:
|
Feb 3 19:34 UTC 1999 |
Rane, how on earth did you go from needing a decision style that can react
to urgent problems (businesses with legal and financial responsibilities)
to "The minority is never treated fairly" and "(or is driven out by a
domineering majority)"
Roberts Rules doesn't guarantee that minorities will feel like they've
been treated fairly. In fact, I've seen technically adept RRO users who
can silence a minority in a heartbeat. To assume that consensus decision
making is more likely to be undemocratic than up/down voting systems and
to conclude from your assumption that therefore people are treated
unfairly in groups that use consensus methods is a pretty big leap. And
to then say that people in consensus using groups are driven out by a
domineering majority is so far from the reality of our normal political
use of RRO that I suspect you've never been silenced by RRO.
I have. As an elected official, the mayor refused to recognize me for 4
straight hours. How well do you think democracy was functioning then?
And yes, RRO was our official policy. Do you think my constituents were
better off under RRO?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 26 of 75:
|
Feb 3 20:13 UTC 1999 |
I made no assumption that people are treated unfairly in consensus groups.
I already cited families as one users of consensus.
Did you rise to a question of personal privilege? It takes precedent over
all other business except when another member has taken the floor and is
speaking. If the chair doesn't like it, it can be appealed.
A minority *cannot* be treated fairly with consensus, since there is then
no definition of fairness to which to hold.
|
dpc
|
|
response 27 of 75:
|
Feb 3 20:45 UTC 1999 |
"Personal privilege" is not the same thing as not being recognized.
According to Robert's, section 19, page 194, states: "Questions
of personal privilege--which seldom arise in ordinary societies
and even more rarely justify interruption of pending business--
may relate, for xample, to an incorrect record of a member's
participation in a meeting contained in minutes approved in his
absence, or to charges circulated against a member's character."
|
davel
|
|
response 28 of 75:
|
Feb 4 02:46 UTC 1999 |
Heh. So we're into the endless procedural debate phase of RRO, *without* even
using RRO. Imagine what would happen if it *mattered*.
|
steve
|
|
response 29 of 75:
|
Feb 4 05:16 UTC 1999 |
Yup.
Endless recursive wandering around the drain of argument.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 30 of 75:
|
Feb 4 05:52 UTC 1999 |
Re #27: this is irrelevant. The personal privilege claims the floor
to state a reqest. dpc would rule the request out of order, but two
members can appeal the ruling, and if there is support, cmcgee would
get her hearing in due course. If she didn't, everyone would know
that the chair was acting unfairly, so a point would still be made.
This all takes just a moment, and does not involve procedural debate,
since it just ones one-two-three, and is done.
|
davel
|
|
response 31 of 75:
|
Feb 4 12:45 UTC 1999 |
But *in reality* it is *not* done without procedural debate, when stuff like
this happens.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 32 of 75:
|
Feb 4 13:13 UTC 1999 |
*grin* everyone knew the chair was acting unfairly. The members of his party
were afraid to cross him, and he wouldnt recognize members of the other two
parties.
My point is that any decision alogrithm can be misused and tyrants are
difficult to stop, no matter what they say about following the rules.
Unlike Rane, I know of two published rules systems for groups that prefer
reaching decisions that everyone can live with rather than 51% of the
group. When appropriate, I suggest that groups adopt them as their rules
of order. Not all groups need official rules of order, only ones that are
dysfunctional without written guidelines. And even then, the group
themselves can often _write_down_ their own guidelines and have that be
sufficient clarity for getting their work done.
Grex appears to function just fine without adopting any
written-by-other-people guidelines. In fact, it was when we used a voting
procedure with "51% wins" as the decision rule that created the only
situation I've seen in the past few years where we lost active Grexers
because they were in the minority. (the anonymous web read-only access to
the conferences).
I'd much rather be a part of a group that attempts to incorporate 100% of
the participants opinions and keep the organization running, than one that
gets into STeve's "Endless recursive wandering around the drain of
argument" over procedure instead of content.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 33 of 75:
|
Feb 4 18:13 UTC 1999 |
I've never been on a board that argued over procedures (except Grex, which
doesn't have any)- just used them to be both fair and efficient. We
obviously move in different circles.
|
steve
|
|
response 34 of 75:
|
Feb 5 02:54 UTC 1999 |
I think thats true, but we love you anyway Rane. ;-)
|
davel
|
|
response 35 of 75:
|
Feb 5 02:59 UTC 1999 |
I've observed several groups that did. In some cases IMO it was because they
*needed* formal procedures such as RRO - things were polarized, & people felt
they had to push any way they could to gain an advantage. In others it
appeared to be nothing more than a few people who liked to argue over
procedure. The desire to see things done right, on steriods, so to speak.
|
dpc
|
|
response 36 of 75:
|
Feb 5 16:59 UTC 1999 |
Rane, you're wrong (again). In an assembly governed by Robert's, a
member *cannot* raise a point of personal privilege to quibble about
any old thing, even if s/he has recruited a couple of henchpeople
to help him/her by appealing. If the chair is appealed on this
issue and through some bizarre circumstance loses the appeal, the
chair should probably resign. You can't create new rights or procedures
through misuse of the appeal process.
I'm *still* waiting for you to cite an *appropriate* rule
from Robert's about seeking recognition.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 37 of 75:
|
Feb 5 17:50 UTC 1999 |
That's your interpretation. It has no general validity.
Procedural practices in different organizations are not just a set of
rules, but also the customs that develop in the application of those
rules. It is really quite interesting how differnt organizations, still
following (say) RRoO, still emphasize different aspects of them. I know,
in particular (because I have participated), that rising to a question of
personal privilege is *the* procedure for representatives to the annual
conferences of the Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC) to be
recognized by the chairman to speak about whatever is on their mind. What
is on their mind ranges from local problems to the procedures of the
assembly.
There is absolutely no reason for the chair to resign when the chair is
overruled in an appeal. The essence of parliamentary procedure is to give
the chair considerable power to expedite the proeceedings, but subject to
the rule of the majority and with respect for the minority. I have both
"won" and "lost" on rulings as chair, and I felt not the least conflict
with my boards, nor did they with me.
I could also make an argument for rising on a point of order, in the
circumstances cited, since RRoO specify that no member may speak to a
question twice until all member wishing to speak the first time have done
so. This rule is generally not enforced at the discretion of the chair,
but can be, and can be forced by a point or order if the chair accepts (or
is forced to on an appeal). In years as chair I only forced this procedure
once - the motion was on purchasing a headquarters building and property -
and it marvelously focused the discussion.
No new rights or procedures are created by the use of the appeal process,
if it comes to that. It has conseqences, of course, as it may suppress a
really 'illegal' action of the chair (such as refusing the recognize
opposition speakers), and some might not like that.
|
dpc
|
|
response 38 of 75:
|
Feb 9 15:30 UTC 1999 |
I'm afraid we differ on the fundamentals of parliamentary law.
It should not be seen as a bag of tricks. I expect that many chairs
*would* resign if the body used the appeal process to create a new
right. Of course, most appeals don't involve such serious issues.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 39 of 75:
|
Feb 9 18:37 UTC 1999 |
It is not a "bag of tricks". It consists of previously agreed upon
procedures. Chairs should we fully aware of the appeal process as
part of the rules for resolving an issue on which the chair and the
body may have different opinions. A chair should realize that he
or she is not a dictator, but is also subject to the will of the majority.
A chair may *seek* an appeal purposefully, to resolve a matter. No
new rights are created by the appeal process - only rights already
inherent in the rules of procedure (hmmm, I just said that in #37: must
not have gotten through... :)).
|
i
|
|
response 40 of 75:
|
Feb 9 23:51 UTC 1999 |
If most of the people at the meeting are not familiar with more than a
small fraction of RRoO and would rather not go to the (considerable)
effort of familiarizing themselves with it, then a person who's well-
versed in RRoO has, in effect, a bag of tricks / special advantage /
magic wand / call it what you will, and can expect to be resented if
he uses to his own advantage. Somewhat like the law, RRoO is there
in case it's needed - it's better if people can get along without it.
Certainly it's technically more "proper" if two neighbors discuss the
watering & trimming of the hedge between their yards with their laywers
at their elbows. Most people prefer to be on sufficiently friendly and
informal terms with their neighbors to keep the lawyers out of it.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 41 of 75:
|
Feb 10 05:14 UTC 1999 |
RRoO certainly works best when the chair is not only familiar with
them, but also committed to using them for their sole purpose - providing an
orderly framework for conducting business openly and fairly. In that
situation, the chair will prompt those less familiar with rules for what
motion would expedite what the member is attempting to accomplish. That
is the situation in which I learned, and learned to apply, RRoO.
|