|
Grex > Coop7 > #116: Serious questions about the bylaws! | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 281 responses total. |
ajax
|
|
response 75 of 281:
| 
Oct 27 03:55 UTC 1995 |
I thought that idea belonged to our federal government.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 76 of 281:
|
Oct 27 16:40 UTC 1995 |
Oh.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 77 of 281:
|
Nov 1 08:09 UTC 1995 |
rickyb, in my early days with Grex, I also made the sensible suggestion to
adopt RRO as the RO for Grex - and I also got the STeve dragon-breath. I
think STeve has only met groups that don't know how to use RRO properly,
and his perceptions are distorted accordingly. I maintained then (and
still maintain) that RRO provide procedures and guidelines that vastly
expedite civil discourse and the making of decisions, ensuring absolute
fairness. However, like srw, I will not make an issue of it, certainly not
as long as it seems the informal approach is not currently creating
problems. Actually, the Grex board really does (shhh...) follow RRO in the
main, only missing some tools that would shorten board meetings without
jeopardizing discussion. So, let us RROers bide our time... ;->.
|
rickyb
|
|
response 78 of 281:
|
Nov 1 23:26 UTC 1995 |
Thanks Rane. To quote General henry M. Robert...
"Where there is no law, but every man does what is right
in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty."
I, too, have experiences such as described by steve. RRO _can_ be used by
some to suppress others, if they know how to use it better.
The fact is, RRO is general in itself. If you go back to by premise, the
Bylaws either need to be as well thought out as RRO, or it (RRO or some
other parliamentary authority) needs to be cited in the Bylaws as filling
any void left by the drafters of the Bylaws.
It's human nature to want things "your own way" and any group in control will
be tempted to make changes in structure that they feel is constructive. The
next group may have different views and make _more_ changes. And on, and on.
_That's_ what corrupts the Bylaws and organizational system, not the length
of the words!
I don't know anything about Total Quality Management, admittedly. But if such
a system works it surely is by the grace of a meeting of the minds of people
with like goals/values. The human condition dictates that this cannot be
sustained without extrinsic safeguards. Sooner or later someone will rise
to a powerful position and corrupt the system. Look to the entire history
of "civilization" to see that this is a foregone conclusion.
Keep the written rules simple, brief, explicitly general (is that an oxymoron,
or am I?), and very difficult to tamper with. _Then_ conduct the affairs of
the organization less formally (perhaps as with TQM) but with that envelope
of safeguards which allows longevity.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 79 of 281:
|
Nov 2 15:47 UTC 1995 |
(I remember once going to an M-Net meeting that was conducted according to
RRO. I couldn't figure out how to get permission to speak, and any time I
tried to speak I got yelled at for not following procedure, and wasn't allowed
to say anything. Most frustrating.)
|
adbarr
|
|
response 80 of 281:
|
Nov 2 18:42 UTC 1995 |
Valerie, don't do that! I almost spilled my coffee! <laugh> I imagine
you were perceived as some kind of threat or rabble rouser from a system
on the edge of the galaxy. If I thought Grex would ever become that
way I would start plotting against the rulers. :)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 81 of 281:
|
Nov 2 19:57 UTC 1995 |
What you do is raise your hand. A good "chair" will recognize a visitor
that wishes to address the board, or explain why they cannot at that
moment (rare). RRO *recommends* this. It is also very contrary to the
philosphy and practice of RRO, to yell (a good chair would request civil
behavior, but also has the right to eject a disruptive person). I
therefore conclude that that M-Net meeting was *not* being conducted
according to RRO.
|
rickyb
|
|
response 82 of 281:
|
Nov 2 23:26 UTC 1995 |
Too true rane. I was at that meeting too (I think).
Meeting agendas dictate how a meeting flows, RRO simply help guide _actions
of the society_ to make sure the "i's" are dotted and "t's" crossed. In the
case mentioned I'm not certain if there was an agenda item for guest input,
or if that was to be left for the "public forum" portion of the meeting.
There's no reason a presiding officer (operating under RRO) cannot _suspend
the rules_ for purposes that enhance communication and conduct of business.
That was not the case at the meeting valerie described because that was not
the 'agenda' of the presiding officer at the time.
I must say, however, don't paint every proponent of procedure with the same
brush. I've attended some meetings which had so many differing and emotional
views expressed that nobody would have been able to say anything without
such rules of order/debate.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 83 of 281:
|
Nov 3 03:13 UTC 1995 |
Sheesh... I shall endeavour to NOT be gone for a week or more from any active
coop discussion in the future !!
kerouac: It has been said that the power of the President (of the US) is the
power to persuade. That is exactly the power you are given here, if you
choose to use it, rather than throw a hissy-fit because you can't vote.
Re #52: I agree that the bylaws should be amended only rarely. That
necessitates a certain generality that is then interpreted by an appropriate
body, usually judicial of some sort, but in an orgainization in which leg &
exec authority are already in the same body, why not add judicial? :-)
Re #63: Um, I think she already said "yesterday's Free Press" on oct 25, so
that would be oct 24's Free Press. :-)
Re #69: He seems to me to be attempting to sketch out a proposal that some
member would then, theoretically, consider formally proposing.
Re #72: To what are you referring, sidhe?
Re bunches: Some Rules of Order would be good to have in the wings, such that
if there ever WAS a quetion of whether someon was being treated fairly, these
could be dusted off, and used strictly for as long as anyone thought there
was a need to do so. OTOH, there is no need to get out the official copy and
bow down to it at the beginning of every meeting, either. :-)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 84 of 281:
|
Nov 3 07:10 UTC 1995 |
Good grief.. RRO are not *sacred*! It just helps to use them. One problem
is that many will not be familiar with them, and appear to make mistakes
from the RRO of perspective. What a good chair then does is *helps* the
person make the right motion, or appropriate action (the role of the chair
to do this is *also* a part of RRO).
|
davel
|
|
response 85 of 281:
|
Nov 3 13:37 UTC 1995 |
The problem with that is that it turns significant amounts of the discussion
in your meeting from discussing the actual issues to discussing procedures
for discussing the actual issues. There definitely are places where this
is a price worth paying; I question whether Grex is now, or ever should be,
one of them. (And there are plenty of other, similar costs to running
meetings according to RRO or *any* strict procedural rules, regarding which
I'd make the same comment.)
|
adbarr
|
|
response 86 of 281:
|
Nov 3 16:00 UTC 1995 |
Sorry, davel. You are out of order. ;)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 87 of 281:
|
Nov 3 18:02 UTC 1995 |
I object to the ruling of the chair that davel is out of order. B^P.
Not at all, Dave, except maybe in the beginning. I was "chair" once
of an organization rather unfamiliar with RRO. I introduced its many
finer points carefully and gently, using it to smooth discussion and
avoid tangles. The process never degenerated to discussing procedures.
When a procedure was needed to help, it was a matter of saying "if
you <do this>, it will accomplish what you want". That board became
quite proficient in time, and ran much more smoothly than it had. There
is no "price" - there is only "profit".
|
mdw
|
|
response 88 of 281:
|
Nov 4 08:30 UTC 1995 |
It is definitely the case that the founders were "anti-proceduralists".
It's a bit harder to say why this was so - and it's quite probable that
the various founders have different ideas on why. I guess my idea "why"
is I that I saw proceduralism as something that creeps in kind of like
crab grass or mold. That doesn't mean that all procedure is bad, or
that it would be a good idea to get rid of it even if it were possible.
It does mean that there's really no reason to make procedure happen,
because it will create itself quite naturally. Hence, the real trick is
to avoid the temptation to create procedure for its own sake, or worse
yet, to use procedure as an excuse to do the wrong thing. I think all
of the founders were particularly concerned about this, because we all
knew that if we got bogged down in procedure, we would fail.
The "problem" with RRO, from a TQM perspective, is that it doesn't
actually guarantee good results. RRO does a good job of ensuring not
more than one person speaks at a time, and also provides a mechanism
whereby things can be "decided". That's not at all the same thing as
ensuring that everyone who is interested in fact gets a chance to speak,
or that everyone is willing to stand behind the decisions that are made.
The desirable goal in a group meeting process is to build a consensus.
If you've built a true consensus, then all of the information your group
brought to the meeting will have been used to make the best possible
decision, and because everyone agrees with the resulting decision, there
is the best chance of getting positive results out of that decision.
RRO does not particularly facilitate the consensus building process,
indeed, quite the reverse. Firstly, RRO provides a number of mechanisms
whereby an organized minority can filibuster quite effectively.
Secondly, the chair has an undue amount of power - by selecting who can
speak, and in which order, he has a very effective means to shape the
process to his own end. Thirdly, the vote process itself does not mean
a consensus has obtained; indeed, quite the reverse is true. That does
not mean it's impossible to build a consensus while using RRO. It
merely means that it will require constant conscientious attention by
all, and that the whole process will be somewhat more drawn out and
complicated than it need be.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 89 of 281:
|
Nov 4 17:08 UTC 1995 |
I think there is a limit to what can be accomplished with consensus. It
can drag out indefinitely, even when a decision is *needed*. I've observed
(and participated) in both systems (consensus, and a rules-ordered
process), and I find the latter much more satisfactory. However, it should
be operated so everyone has their say, fairly and openly, and then the
group make a *decision*, even if only by one vote, and everyone abides
with that decision (there is the crux - the majority "rules", but the
rights of the minority are sustained, and a "loyal minority" remains).
Incidentally, in matters that come to a one-vote margin, you have
instances generally where the decision one way or the other *doesn't
matter* (it works either way - though of course some close votes make
large changes in direction). Consensus requirements also work against
changing decisions, while it is no trouble at all with rules-ordered
decision making.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 90 of 281:
|
Nov 5 01:40 UTC 1995 |
I'm not sure I understand you, mdw. If consenseus is the goal, then why
object if an organized minority can filibuster?
|
mdw
|
|
response 91 of 281:
|
Nov 5 10:54 UTC 1995 |
A filibuster is only possible when a consensus does not exist; and a
filibuster almost certainly does not facilitate forming a consensus.
Sometimes, building a consensus can be difficult, or indeed, sometimes
impossible. Nevertheless, it's worth it when it can be done - some of
the very things Rane mentions are in fact essential parts of forming a
consensus. Those points include soliciting everyone's input, &
sustaining the rights of the minority. Those aren't automatic
properties of RRO - and as Valerie's story illustrates, it's quite easy
to misuse it such that someone is both shut out & made to feel
disenfranchised.
|
scott
|
|
response 92 of 281:
|
Nov 5 13:07 UTC 1995 |
A filibuster is the human meeting version of a fork bomb.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 93 of 281:
|
Nov 5 13:47 UTC 1995 |
What is a "fork bomb", he asked innocently.
|
scott
|
|
response 94 of 281:
|
Nov 5 14:17 UTC 1995 |
An attempt to grab resourse for no other reason than to deny them to others.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 95 of 281:
|
Nov 5 16:27 UTC 1995 |
Thank you. Always learning new things, even those I wish I did not.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 96 of 281:
|
Nov 5 20:44 UTC 1995 |
Re #91: You are right, a filibuster is only possible when consensus has not
been acheived. If consensus is the way you have chosen to run an
organization, then the threat of filibuster is a necessary tool to make sure
that a minority can be heard, unless a supermajority is required for every
measure before it can be passed.
|
mdw
|
|
response 97 of 281:
|
Nov 6 10:03 UTC 1995 |
But a filibuster can also be used to *prevent* a minority from being
heard. Actually, the issue is pretty simple: in order to form a
consensus, you have to have *another* consensus that says it's both
possible and valuable to try to form a consensus on things whenever
possible. As long as you have *that* consensus, the exact mechanism
doesn't matter, so long as the results are right. The problem with RRO
is that there are plenty of people who have learned to use it to prevent
a consensus - or as I presume Rane would put it, have learned to misuse
RRO.
|
rickyb
|
|
response 98 of 281:
|
Nov 7 18:38 UTC 1995 |
In many ways I agree with you mdw. However, RRO (or other rules of order)
are intended to _protect the minority view_ while permitting _majority rule_.
Filibusters can and do occur both ways, and in all sorts of groups, using
RRO or not.
But, think about this discussion in the broader terms of the 501(C)(3)
discussion. Cyberspace, Inc. is a legal entity, and its directors/members
have certain legal responsibilities and the accompanying liabilities. Getting
a 501(c)(3) will certainly bring at least one additional government arm into
the oversight of Cyberspace, Inc.
Since _most_, if not all governing bodies and arms of such in this country
recognize parliamentary rules of order as a fundamental way of conducting
business in a legally binding manner, they are less likely to closely
scrutinize decisions/actions of the corporation which has followed these
rules than they are in corporations where less formal, concensus process
decisions are used to bind the corporation.
rcurl (up there) explained how RRO can be gently introduced and does not have
to be imposing or cause great distress. the rules are general in nature and
can be "massaged" to fit all, or most, sorts of situations.
Certainly, such rules should be followed in regards to important legal
business of the corporation. They will also help define what "important
legal business" actually is.
Day to day things can still be done by consensus, there is no prohibition of
that.
re#83 re#52:
I had actually designed a "judicial branch" for our professional
association at one point because it seemed a small group had gained
great power and was making really off-the-wall interpretations of
the Bylaws to forward their cause. Ultimately, the fact of raising
the issue brought enough attention to the situation, and a grass-
roots participation that the power-mongers were ousted and peace
settled upon our association once again.
I'm sure I still have the skeleton of my version of an "organizational
supreme court" somewhere, if it is ever needed here (it calls into play
several 'judges' of rotating long terms, and who must have a great
deal of organizational longevity/seniority to be eligible for such
a position. perhaps the founders here would be the best candidates).
|
chelsea
|
|
response 99 of 281:
|
Nov 7 19:20 UTC 1995 |
Yucko.
(I'm getting succinct in my middle age.)
|