|
Grex > Coop7 > #116: Serious questions about the bylaws! | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 281 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 125 of 281:
| 
Nov 24 05:45 UTC 1995 |
I suppose, but I can't help but think that that would just be a
misunderstanding of the purposes and functions of rules of order in a
corporation. There would be absolutely no contradiction with the "concept"
of Grex, and there would be potential advantages if (when?) push might
come to shove. Grex will evolve, new people with other ideas will come in,
differences will arise. Agreed upon approaches to resolve problems have
considerable value.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 126 of 281:
|
Nov 24 12:34 UTC 1995 |
It looks to me like Grex is experiencing some natureal "growing pains".
Establishing a set of rules is difficult and painful for any group, be
it Grex, HVCN, or the British colonies in the New World. Static groups
tend to die. If that end is not desired, new ideas and people are admitted
to the group. How do you accomodate the new ideas and people and still
maintain the "purpose" of the organization. I think Rane said it quite
well: "Grex will evolve, new people with other ideas will come in, differences
will arise. Agreed upon approaches to resolve problems have considerable
value." Articles of Incorporation and by-laws are frameworks, not designed
to deal with many questions that arise daily in the operation of a system.
If you have no written set of rules to deal with these problems, you then
must accept the alternatives, group consensus passed down from member to
member by some form of social and educational system, or an ad hoc system
that depends on the personality and ability of the current power-holders.
<line 1 natural; line 5 accommodate> Use what works best for you, but
know what you are using.
|
steve
|
|
response 127 of 281:
|
Nov 25 20:26 UTC 1995 |
I've been away from this item too long.
First: Ricky, I hope I didn't singe you with "STeve's dragon-breath"
(thanks to Rane for that one!); it's just that I really REALLY don't
see the reason for Grex to use this. Apologies to Rane too, if I
haven't already given them out when I bathed him with my anti-RRO
diatribe.
Unforunately Rane, I have seen RRO used most expertly.
I've seen RRO used by a manipulating chair to block people from speaking.
I've seen RRO used by people experienced with its intricacies to
pummel non-authoritarian people into submission, because they didn't
know how to.
I've also occaisonally seen RRO used well, and help meetings along.
But I've seen more instances of inept usage of RRO, or Machiavellian
uses of it than useful ones.
I'd like to ask people why they think RRO is needed for Grex.
Is there any time that anyone has ever thought that Grex didn't
run a meeting fairly (we can't talk about the meetings running
off into 10-minute techie-speak fests; they aren't really useful
for the meeting as a whole, but I don't see them as "unfair",
just a waste of time)?
So I'm interested in hearing what problems might be solved with
RRO that we didn't work out, during the first four years of out not
using it.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 128 of 281:
|
Nov 25 21:19 UTC 1995 |
STeve, I do not have the impression that the past is the issue. You have done
very, very well. Now you have grown. Perhaps open thinking about the future
is appropriate? No one is shoving this down anyone's throat, but clinging to
the status quo could be a negative. Perhaps not. You are right that
"procedure" can be a weapon, but so can "no procedure". If RRO is not good,
then what are the "rules"? To say "We always did it this way" is not a rule,
or is it?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 129 of 281:
|
Nov 25 21:28 UTC 1995 |
RRO are needed for Grex to supply answers to all the little procedural
questions that arise in any "deliberative assembly", which are
deliberately omitted from the articles and bylaws, so as not to
encumber them. Such procedures are now ad-hoc applications of what
participants have heard of some time in the past, and since most
everyone is trying to cooperate, or don't want to make an issue of
some railroading, there have been no tiffs. But there can be and *then*
there will be no agreed upon procedures on how to take (or avoid) action,
and things will degenerate. Every corporation should specify the
parliamentary authority under which they will act, and RRO is the
usual and best known one.
|
steve
|
|
response 130 of 281:
|
Nov 25 21:44 UTC 1995 |
Rane, can you tell me of a case where we needed RRO, and where
the current ad-hoc system of civilally talking didn't work out?
Thats what I keep on trying to understand, why people want to
change soemthing that has worked on Grex for several years now,
for its whole life. I've gotten several positive comments on
how the Grex board meetings went, after people watched them.
I don't know of any cases of people saying or thinking that anyone
has ever been slighted, or in any way not allowed to speak their
piece.
If I'm wrong on that, I really want to know.
So yes Arnold, Grex is growing, but I don't (currently) see how
that growth needs to effect the way that the board deals with things.
Perhaps I am wrong and I need to have my head realigned. It wouldn't
be the first time. But I'm still asking for data as to why we neeed
to change, and I (as yet) haven't seen a reason based on past performance
of the board meetings.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 131 of 281:
|
Nov 25 23:38 UTC 1995 |
My communication to the board inre an amendment to the "retiring ID
of person that has died" issue, was not presented to the board in my
absence (e.g.).
|
scg
|
|
response 132 of 281:
|
Nov 26 06:05 UTC 1995 |
I think the board and the users got a lot of communication from you in this
conference about that issue, and assuming you weren't trying to communicate
something to the board in the meeting that was very different from what you
were saying in this conference, I wouldn't consider that slighting you. We
all knew how you felt on the issue -- all the board members, and everybody
else at the meeting. We had read your comments here, and we may even have
discussed them a little. Where did we go wrong, other than not voting the
way you would have liked us to vote?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 133 of 281:
|
Nov 26 06:35 UTC 1995 |
Please realize I am giving an example - not offering sour grapes. Under
rules of order, the secretary would communicate to the board all
messages, letters, etc, and any from absent board members would be
put forward for consideration. It would still require that someone
present *move* the amendment. This procedure gives a little more
acknowledgment to the interests of absent board members than has been
the custom.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 134 of 281:
|
Nov 26 12:09 UTC 1995 |
STeve, first this is no big problem for me. I will not lose one minute of
sleep over the question and believe is is for Grex to decide. You ask for data
demonstrating the need to change. Of course, there is very little if any data
suggesting major overreaching or omission by the past boards of Grex, and I
am not aware of anything so serious as to warrant a "revolution" by any means.
I think, however, the same argument could have been made after we defeated
the British and before we adopted the U.S. Constitution. We had a wealth of
good people who did a wonderful job. Why change things with a lot of
structure? Perhaps they were thiking about the possibility that people die,
move, and get tired, and others take their place. Sometimes the new people
do not have the same abilities, qualities, motives, or social committments
as those who went before. Written rules provide a vehicle for stability in
thge long run. But it is "your" system, not mine. I doubt there is much more
I could or would want to say on the issue.
|
steve
|
|
response 135 of 281:
|
Nov 26 20:28 UTC 1995 |
If I understand you, you are saying that as time goes on, some or
many of the original Grex people will have left, or even ultimately die.
Thus, as time goes on things need to continue being stable.
I agree with that, if I am paraphrasing you correctly.
But what does that have to do with the way the board conducts
itself? This is the part that I can't see: why as time goes on, Grex
needs to "grow up" (as people have told me) and adopt more standard
systems of decision making.
We've worked with the present system for four years now; what is
it that will change such that Grex should modify board proceredures?
This is what truely confuses me. And this isn't just about Grex,
it's about other organizations too--people think that things have to
get more "codified", and I still haven't gotten an understaning of
why.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 136 of 281:
|
Nov 27 01:27 UTC 1995 |
It is an alternative to consider, not a mandate, as far as I can see. We both
agree on one thing: no one can predict the future.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 137 of 281:
|
Nov 27 04:21 UTC 1995 |
Reading this itmem after being gone for a week was weird. The last three or
four posts by steve were virtually identical, and the las half-dozen from the
adbarr-rcurl team were echoes of one another.
steve, I am not sure I agree with their position, but I am confident I
understand it. The point is NOT that there has been any problems ni the
poast, nor that there have been signs that trouble is coming. The point I
believe they are trying to make is that RRO is a good safety net to have in
place WHEN disputes arise, (and they WILL come), since it will be too late
if we wait until then.
|
steve
|
|
response 138 of 281:
|
Nov 27 21:46 UTC 1995 |
Really? See, thats part of my problem: a disbelief in RRO as a method
to solve "problems". Sure, we'll (the Grex board) have problems at some
point in the future. Thats pretty much a given. But it still hasn't
been made clear to my little peabrain how RRO helps us, in ways that
what we've already done couldn't.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 139 of 281:
|
Nov 28 02:20 UTC 1995 |
That is fine with me. :-) You are happy, I am happy. We are not debating.
|
mdw
|
|
response 140 of 281:
|
Nov 28 03:05 UTC 1995 |
I don't believe RRO will fix any of the problems we're not having. I do
believe RRO will push us further down the road of "fossilization".
It's not at all true that US Congress & the brits use RRO. In fact,
it's quite the reverse, RRO is a conscious attempt to codify the
customary ad-hoc procedures used by these other organizations. Those
procedures evolved to deal with many problems quite foreign to all
things grex. For instance, we currently actively encourage
participation by the greater grex membership, including inviting them to
board meetings, and giving them every chance to speak. With congress &
parliment, it's not possible for general members of the public to just
show up & participate, instead, they must make specific prior
arrangements with an interested representative, who might well choose
either to submit a written statement instead, or invite the person to
speak before a committee. This is appropriate when you have many dozens
of delegates, & thousands of potentially interested persons. There is
not the slightest reason to suppose this will ever happen with grex
board meetings.
We have here, a perfectly good report how how RRO would likely change
grex meetings, because we have Valerie's report of watching RRO used in
an organization of similar scope & nature to grex. You'll note how she
reports feeling "shut out" from the meeting. That should come as no
suprise, RRO is merely doing exactly what it's designed to do, what its
ancestors evolved to do. Unless we think this is a direction we want to
head in, I really don't see the use of RRO for us.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 141 of 281:
|
Nov 28 08:15 UTC 1995 |
RRO were derived in part from Jefferson's Rules, which had been adopted by
both houses of Congress. Robert, though, drew from several sources in
order to get a short list of parliamentary rules that "he hoped would be
suitable for the societies to which he and his wife belonged". The whole
history of RRO is given in the introduction of most copies. Its premise is
that the rules are "based, in its general principles, upon the rules and
practice of Congress, and adapted, in its details, to the use of ordinary
societies".
The rules address primarily matters that expedite and order the
deliberations of a body authorized to carry out the business of a society,
but in no way ordain the exclusion of visitors from being recognized by
the chair. We previously observed that what Valerie observed was not
called for by RRO, but was simple rudeness on the part of the chair of
that meeting (presuming that that that body was at a point in its actions
appropriate for a visitor to be recognized).
I have had a great deal of experience working within, and exercising, RRO.
I do not think that I can be accused of thereby having become a rude or
rigid or domineering person, unwilling to hear all sides of a debate. I
behave within the spirit of RRO, and act within it when it is my term to
speak. I would submit that this has not caused board meetings any trauma,
and I think I have been helpful in a couple of instances. That is the
sole purpose of RRO, and a very useful purpose when a board has complex
issues to discuss.
|
davel
|
|
response 142 of 281:
|
Nov 28 11:04 UTC 1995 |
Rane, that's not the question. The question is whether having an official,
mandatory requirement that RRO be followed would be helpful, or (by
distracting attention from matters of substance to matters of procedure,
& by providing *opportunities* for parliamentary maneuvers to squelch
debate) harmful. I don't think you've got a case.
Certainly I myself have seen RRO used well. I've also seen it used as a
device for suppression of dissent. Its *purpose* is irrelevant; it in
fact lends itself very well to such nefarious uses. But worse, IMO, is
that *even when used entirely with good will* it's a great distraction.
Discussions are constantly subverted by well-meaning but dumb questions of
whether procedures are being followed correctly. Either that, or basically
RRO is ignored, in which case why have a rule that it must be followed?
Think of RRO as being like a suit of armor. If you're constantly in
situations where people are hacking at you with swords, it's probably worth
the bother of wearing armor. But no one in his right mind would saddle
himself with armor for everyday wear just because there's some chance that
someday someone may attack him. You can't devise procedures to meet all
possible problems; if you try you will spend your life doing nothing but
refining your procedures. It makes sense to focus on the actual problems at
hand, and the immediate probable ones; and Grex has no danger of being taken
over by anyone with the ability to suppress dissent in any way RRO might help.
In fact, RRO could *only* aid someone in an attempt, given the existence of
coop & member initiatives, IMNAAHO.
|
scg
|
|
response 143 of 281:
|
Nov 29 05:14 UTC 1995 |
Even if we were going to have some sort of rules of order for a board meeting,
why use Robert's Rules rather than some other set of rules. Maybe, since we
have found that for the society we belong to the way Grex does business works
well, we should just codify that into something we could call GRD, or Grex's
Rules of Disorder. ;)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 144 of 281:
|
Nov 29 06:40 UTC 1995 |
That would be a tall order to write, to cover all the eventualities that
can arise. This is why RRO are so universally adopted.
Dave, the provisions concerning rules of order that go into practically
all corporate bylaws states:
PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY: Robert's Rules of Order, as revised, shall
govern the corporation in all cases to which they are applicable
and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any
special rules of order that may be adopted.
To follow the armor analogy, RRO are a suit of armor that are kept
ready for when they might be needed, to protect the organization
against attack.
Skill in using the armor, or more exactly being prepared to use the armor,
comes with time and practice. In all the organizations in which I have
served (all of which, except Grex, have adopted RRO) there has never been
pedantic use of the procedures, but just simple, understood, steps taken
during all business meetings to ensure that deliberations and actions are
fair and orderly. Sometimes, someone might say (usually, when the group
has gotten themselves into a contention) - "let's go by the rules here...I
move to go into a committee of the whole to discuss this matter
informally" (e.g.).
Here is what is said about the use of RRO in _The Standards and Practices
Guidebook - an Operating Manual for Land Trusts (LTA, 1993), in regard
to the subject of "Preventing Minority Rule":
Require Quorums....(Grex does)
Require Advance Notice....(Grex does)
Require parliamentary meeting procedures. "The land trust should
establish parliamentary prcoedures for running the meetings. Many
organizations use a simplifed version of Robert's Rules of Order.
These rules of procedure prevent monopolization of the meeting."
|
janc
|
|
response 145 of 281:
|
Nov 29 16:38 UTC 1995 |
It appears that a significant number of Grexers would be uncomfortable with
running our meetings more precisely by RRO (we do sort of vaguely comply with
them now). In many cases this may be because they don't understand RRO very
well, but the fact that discomfort with it is not well-founded does not mean
it is not real. That discomfort seems enough of a problem for enough people
that sticking to the letter of RRO seems like a poor idea because it would
alienate too many people.
It's not that RRO is bad. It isn't. It's that too few people here understand
them well enough to be comfortable with them.
I don't think the benefits of using RRO are sufficient to offset this, right
now, for Grex. We can reign in off-topic digressions without RRO, and aside
from that, meetings have been working pretty well.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 146 of 281:
|
Nov 29 23:10 UTC 1995 |
Wait until (or, if) more money is involved.
|
ajax
|
|
response 147 of 281:
|
Nov 30 00:05 UTC 1995 |
I think you're right Rane - at some point, if Grex grows into a
richer organization, then we'll want them. I don't see a compelling
reason to adopt them now. Regarding the one example you gave, of
wanting a statement read in your absence, I think the problem would
be the same with or without RRO: someone forgot to do it.
As for the fear of a chairperson or group silencing voices of
opposition (or outsiders), I think either system, Robert's or
Grex's Rules of Order, are equally susceptible to that. Both
systems (if you can call Grex's methods a "system" :-) are
vulnerable to misuse.
Personally, I could live with either style, but I prefer Grex's
current method. I don't feel like there are protocols going on
that I don't understand. The meetings seem to flow like business
meetings, where people with relevant comments contribute them.
I like that.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 148 of 281:
|
Nov 30 02:40 UTC 1995 |
Sounds somewhat like you are complying with RRO, but just have not said so.
Guess you are shy! Or maybe, just a flirt! <referring to Grex, not ajax>
<ajax is probably a flirt, also, but that is the subject of another item.>
|
rcurl
|
|
response 149 of 281:
|
Nov 30 07:27 UTC 1995 |
A reason for adopting them now is to have them on board if Grex gets
richer (which really brings contention into view).
Incidentally, it is very easy to overcome a chair that is abusing
power *under RRO*, but very difficult without them.
|