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?  
 

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."

response 29 of 75:

Feb 4 05:16 UTC 1999

   Yup.

   Endless recursive wandering around the drain of argument.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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... :)). 

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.

response 43 of 75:

Feb 10 18:19 UTC 1999

Re resp:41 - Operating *without* RRO also works best when the chair is 
committed to conducting business openly and fairly.

response 45 of 75:

Feb 10 21:24 UTC 1999

RRO is _not_ the only written procedures available.  Grex has some written
procedures that seem to be sufficient.   If they aren't we can write some
more.  Or we might even adopt _published_ procedures that aren't RRO.  

response 47 of 75:

Feb 11 12:17 UTC 1999

   There will possibly be a board that does that, Rane.  The board
has always had the power to do this.  It's always been an option.
But the organization up to this point hasn't seen the need for it,
and frankly, I think we operate a lot better than MOST other
organizations I've ever been associated with.  It works for us, now,
not having a bureaucratic maze of legalese in our midst, and I'm
happy about that.

   But that doesn't mean that we might not adopt something like that
in the future.  I can't see into the future and won't judge the
actions of boards that don't yet exist.  Perhaps there really will
be some good reason for them to do this, and it will be appropriate
at the time.  That I can't see what that would be doesn't mean that
the right conditions might exist, someday.

   Part of the reason that we've done so well is that we're kind of
unusual in our membership.  I bumped into an old friend once, who
listened with interest as I talked of Grex.  Not a technical person,
but a legal proceduralist (I forget the title but he studies
governments), he made the comment that it was unusual that Grex had
people on the board who were so intimately involved with its 
beginnings, and that usually there would be more of the outside
types on the board.  I believe he used the terms "participatory"
and "advisory" boards, where Grex was was far more of the first kind.
Hearing that made so much sense to me.  I'd never had the words for
that before, but they fit so very well.  I *like* that Grex has a
board that is tightly-coupled with the organization, one who knows
about the operation.  I think that this is perhaps one of the reasons
why we're different.

response 49 of 75:

Feb 12 22:04 UTC 1999

The one I use the most is Welty's Book of Procedures by Joel D. Welty. 
Written for groups that want to use consensus decision-making as their primary
procedure.