|
Grex > Coop11 > #71: Minutes for the Grex 1/26/99 Board Meeting | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 75 responses total. |
pfv
|
|
response 42 of 75:
| 
Feb 10 05:58 UTC 1999 |
*sigh*
Even better is to bring a leashed-lawyer... One that's been
kept hungry for a few days.
|
remmers
|
|
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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 44 of 75:
|
Feb 10 20:14 UTC 1999 |
No question about that. Good luck in never requiring written procedures.
|
cmcgee
|
|
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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 46 of 75:
|
Feb 11 06:29 UTC 1999 |
Grex only has its bylaws, and these give some rules for elections and
voting by members. There are no written procedures for conducting board
business. Grex should consider seriously adopting some written procedural
rules for the board. RRoO just happen to be written precisely for small
organizations with many volunteer positions. What are the others you
are thinking of, McGee (I'd like to see copies).
|
steve
|
|
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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 48 of 75:
|
Feb 11 17:12 UTC 1999 |
You probably forgot that I droned on about that some time ago. Most
organizations start with participatory boards, but as they get larger
and more complex, and the founders die (or 'move on', in other ways),
that original connection between operations and those wanting to be
in charge tends to weaken. The evolution is then toward an institutional
board (your friend called it advisory). This is not a loss, actually: there
must always be participatory types to carry out the functions, and there
is some advantage to have people from "outside" to raise the resources
for the organization. I think you would agree that there would be some
advantage to Grex to have professional business people on the board with
good contacts with agencies of all kinds, including those that can
generate funds. A lot of non-profits have their board entirely of such,
but then the power really lies with officers that are not on the board,
who run the organization. The transition between participatory and
institutional boards is usually rather troublesome because the types
of persons that function best in each don't function too well with each other.
I'm in another organization in which I am both an officer and a director,
but the organization is structured to allow these to be completely separate,
and in fact the organization is trying to evolve and get the "participatory"
people into officerships and find "support" people to be directors. Then
those that "do" will run the organization as officers, while those that
support the organization will be the directors, finding funding, etc. The
business of the organization will be conducted by the officers, who will
report to the board, and bring their plans and proposals to them for their
rubber stamp - and financial underwriting. However this organization is
having trouble with conducting this transition, because it does not yet
handle enough money to attract directors whose interest lies in money
raising.
|
cmcgee
|
|
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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 50 of 75:
|
Feb 12 23:08 UTC 1999 |
Would you recommend that be adopted by a business like Grex for the
conduct of board meetings?
|
steve
|
|
response 51 of 75:
|
Feb 13 16:30 UTC 1999 |
Rane, why is is that *our* particluar brand of rules offends you
so? I'm really curious about this. It isn't the case that we
abandon our clothes and rules during board meetings, is it? Do
we resemble the ancestors of homo sapiens sapiens when we meet for
a board meeting?
Why is it that we can't use the system we've developed over time?
How would our lives (or Grex's) have been improved?
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 52 of 75:
|
Feb 13 16:53 UTC 1999 |
I would not recommend that any published set of rules or procedures be adopted
by a group unless it ceased to function effectively without them. Rules
or procedures are simply a conflict-resolution tool. If you don't have
conflict, you don't need procedures to handle it. And if you do have
conflict, you don't need published rulebooks to develop a procedure.
I would recommend that the group agree on some group norms before they start,
write them down on newsprint, or if they are meeting over and over, keep them
in the front of their record book/system. Especially in consensus focused
groups, the rules should be totally transparent.
If a conflict arises then discuss what two underlying norms are in
conflict. If the group can't think of a way to handle the conflict
themselves, bring in samples from other groups' methods and procedures.
Once a group has ceased to function effectively, it does not matter what
formal rules of order it has adopted. And if the group cannot come to
agreement about how to handle conflicting norms, then you are likely to
see resentment, apathy, and/or attrition. You may even have an
organization that cannot be sustained in its current form.
It doesn't matter who wrote (or published) the rules and procedures.
Unless every member of the group agrees to the conflict-resolution method
the group uses, you will get disfunctional groups.
So, no I don't think businesses like Grex need to adopt Welty, or any
other procedure. The conflict-resolution measures that the board uses
seem to work just fine. There is no legal requirement that the board adopt
someone elses solution to problems they don't have.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 53 of 75:
|
Feb 13 19:30 UTC 1999 |
I went looking for Welty on the web bookstores, and could not find it.
Re #51: you don't have any "particular brand of rules". You make them
up as you go along. It is true that some degree of consistency has
arisen because the same people keep serving on the board, but this is
not a healthy long-term basis for procedures.
|
steve
|
|
response 54 of 75:
|
Feb 13 19:50 UTC 1999 |
It's worked for eight years, Rane. I think that says something
about our proceedures and the success therein. I think that the
amount of time we've done things this way counts for long term.
But as I have said before, there might be board who wants to
change things. Those future boards who don't yet exist could
have circumstances which we can't envision, so I won't speak to
what I can't forcast.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 55 of 75:
|
Feb 13 20:26 UTC 1999 |
IF you want to see Welty, check it out of the public library. It is not a
mass-market paperback, and is distributed by a small publishing company.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 56 of 75:
|
Feb 14 05:54 UTC 1999 |
So, its from a vanity press, and not widely respected and hence used? :)
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 57 of 75:
|
Feb 14 15:06 UTC 1999 |
No, it's from a co-op press.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 58 of 75:
|
Feb 14 20:18 UTC 1999 |
Which one?
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 59 of 75:
|
Feb 14 22:55 UTC 1999 |
Caroline House. The book is available from University of Wisconsin Center
for Cooperatives.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 60 of 75:
|
Feb 15 05:14 UTC 1999 |
Re #52: rules are not primarily "conflict resolution tools". Rules are
so that everyone agrees on procedures for conducting business, with
nuances for such things as when a majority or a 2/3 vote is preferred.
In my experience their use for conflict resolution arises in maybe 0.1% of
the instances of their use, but then they are *very* useful. In normal
proceding, they are just the tracks on which matters smoothly ride. The
tracks used by Grex are in a few people's heads, and others have to divine
what they are during meetings. This puts an unfair burden on those not
in the know - or not "in".
|
steve
|
|
response 61 of 75:
|
Feb 15 12:32 UTC 1999 |
Hmmm. I'm not at all sure that Grex's style of business meetings
aren't what most people are more familiar with, Rane. I think the
case could be made that Grex's model relies far more on common sense
and a lack of political stance making than the traditional RRO.
Certainly RRO is far more complex. ...And probably the right thing
for a large contentious organization which needs a very specific
way to be able to accomplish things, when the factions in the org
aren't likely to help the process along.
In all the time I've been to board meetings (probably most of
them, like 70%) I have never heard a single person berate Grex for
its style of management during board meetings. Not afterwards,
not in the conferences nor via email. I have heard comments that
our style was unusual, but when queried no one has ever told me
they thought it was wrong--indeed, several said they thought it was
refreshing that we din't wallow in a rule structure and yet still
got things done.
Except of course, for you Rane. ;-) Perhaps others will step
up to the pro-RRO plate, but that *I* know of, you are the sole
proponent of this.
But rather than argue over the merits of the different ways
of doing things, let me ask you this: Do you think the various
Grex boards would have done a better job of governance had they
used RRO? Specific examples would be excellent.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 62 of 75:
|
Feb 15 16:16 UTC 1999 |
Rane, all conflict is not argument. Any difference between expectations
is a conflict. Good conflict resolution tools are subtle, and help avoid
the level of conflict you seem to have in mind. For example, anthing that
gets a less-than-unanimous vote is a conflict that has been resolved by a
procedure call "voting".
You know you're using good conflict resolution procedures when it seems
like the group could run itself without any rules. Just like a good
facilitator makes the meeting run so smoothly you think you didn't need
her. Grex seems to have conflict resolution down to a very fine art, and
certainly doesn't need more procedures. And I'm confident that if a need
arises, we will craft a procedure that gets us back on track.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 63 of 75:
|
Feb 15 17:23 UTC 1999 |
Steve asks a question: my answer is that various Grex board would have
wasted less time if they had followed parliamentary rules. It has been
a long time since I attended a Grex board meeting, but I do recall
(rather unspecifically) a couple of times that I resolved a question
that arose by making a suggestion (that came from RRoO, though I did
not say so). I also recall that the Grex board at that time was rather
confused about logical procedures of amendment of motions (i.e.,
exactly where they were in handling amendments up to the third degree),
which I have no problem with. There were no "parliamentary crises"
however - since so little is at stake. Actions were limited more by lack
of resources than lack of procedures.
|
steve
|
|
response 64 of 75:
|
Feb 15 17:28 UTC 1999 |
So the herd of cats was confused at some points, which doesn't seem
strange given the participants. I think we'd have been befuddled just
as well with the RRO proceedures in place, as without. What we'd have
gained by the ruleset would have been offset by the increased chance of
not doing it right, methinks.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 65 of 75:
|
Feb 15 17:50 UTC 1999 |
No. The board already acts on some general notions from RRoO. For example,
motions passing my a majority vote, or even making motions, discussing
them, and voting (in that order :)). If they knew a little more, there
would be a little more order and simplicity. It just builds. (If you
followed consensus rules, you would never even vote, but wait until you
had unanimity (because the minority finally wanted to go home...)).
|
rcurl
|
|
response 66 of 75:
|
Feb 15 19:14 UTC 1999 |
The only Welty book currently sold by the University of Wisconsin Center
for Cooperatives is MARKETING MEMBER INVOLVEMENT -- The American
Experience. (They don't offer RRoO either.) Welty is described as
"popular American writer on membership and board topics", however. In
searching the UWCC site, I found regulations of the ICA. They say that
"time, venue, and themes (replaces agenda and procedures)" will be used in
organizing their meetings. So, shall the Grex board abandon having an
agenda, and just discuss "themes"? Themes can also be numbered in funny
ways....
|