Main Motion by E-mail then Amended by E-mail then Ratified at Phone Meeting

[nicholasforbes]

I am hopefully looking for some help on how to correctly attribute the below in meeting minutes as well as if an attribution is required.  Please pardon any incorrect terminology of which I will correct when it becomes known.

 

A motion was proposed by E-mail that read, "I move “That we accept the proposed JE Revised form as presented today from the JE Chair.” ", which was then seconded by E-mail.

 

The motion was then amended by E-mail that read
"I move to amend Member A's motion of earlier today to the following:

I move that we accept the JE mentor application/agreement as written and distributed (RS please insert time LAST form was distributed).  All  PCA members currently listed as JE mentors will be automatically accepted as a mentor, however, everyone is required to fill out and sign the new mentor agreement.", which was then seconded.

 

At the next conference call Board Meeting a motion was made to ratify the above-amended motion.  

 

My questions are:

1)      Given how different the main motion and the amended motion are, whom is this attributed to?  The original maker or the member making the amendment?

2)      Is this actually a substitution versus an amendment?

3)      Do either or both the maker of the Main Motion and/or Amendment need to be noted in the meeting minutes?

4)      As the motion to ratify was stated as a generalization rather than restating the above, is it only the ratification statement that is written into the meeting minutes? 

 

 

 

 

[jstackpo]

First necessary question (upon which all further responses will hang):

 

Do your bylaws authorize "e-meetings" or "e-decisions" of the sort you describe?  RONR doesn't.

[nicholasforbes]

John, currently the Bylaws state:  "Format Of Meetings:

The Board of Directors may conduct its business by mail, telephone, facsimile, or

email through the Recording Secretary" and "The Board may conduct business by utilization of a conference telephone call"

[jstackpo]

OK.  Then, per p. 97 of RONR, you has best adopt some rules that cover the situations you describe.

 

Here's a suggestion or two:  link1, link2

[nicholasforbes]

Thank you very much.

[George Mervosh]

 

John, currently the Bylaws state:  "Format Of Meetings:

The Board of Directors may conduct its business by mail, telephone, facsimile, or

email through the Recording Secretary" and "The Board may conduct business by utilization of a conference telephone call"

 

 

You might not find much help in RONR for your problems in the future as it seems your group doesn't even meet the definition of a deliberative assembly in most cases.

 

"*A group that attempts to conduct the deliberative process in writing—such as by postal mail, electronic mail (e-mail), or facsimile transmission (fax)—does not constitute a deliberative assembly. When making decisions by such means, many situations unprecedented in parliamentary law will arise, and many of its rules and customs will not be applicable (see also pp. 97–99)."   RONR (11th ed.), p. 1, fn.

[jstackpo]

Yeah...  but with a little expansion of one's thought processes and horizons, e-mail meetings can be brought under the big tent of "deliberative assembly" and use (most of) RONR's rules with little alteration and quite successfully.

 

It's not nearly as bad as the footnote makes it sound.

 

Voting by e-mail, on the other hand .....

[Gödel Fan]

Can you explain the distinction you're making between email meetings and voting by email?

[jstackpo]

E-meetings involve opportunity for full discussion, amendments, &c. of all sorts of motions;  e-voting is simply the process of actually making decisions about the issues (motions, &c) discussed or debated when the talking (or more accurately typing) is done.  It can be accomplished by e-mail or other less precarious means.

 

See here and here for more (lots more!) detail.

[Dan Honemann]

 

See here and here for more (lots more!) detail.

 

 Still trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, huh?

[jstackpo]

My view is that RONR and its rules show remarkable resiliency and utility in an age of technology far beyond the most fervent imaginings of its original author almost 150 years ago.  And so (almost) trivial a task to adapt it to our times speaks volumes as to both its fundamental correctness and broad applicability.  Henry the First just got it right and his successors made it even better perhaps without even realizing the potential of their work.

[Dan Honemann]

My view is that RONR and its rules show remarkable resiliency and utility in an age of technology far beyond the most fervent imaginings of its original author almost 150 years ago.  And so (almost) trivial a task to adapt it to our times speaks volumes as to both its fundamental correctness and broad applicability.  Henry the First just got it right and his successors made it even better perhaps without even realizing the potential of their work.

 

That's all very nice, but what RONR says on page 98 bears repeating:

 

"It is important to understand that, regardless of the technology used, the opportunity for simultaneous aural communication is essential to the deliberative character of the meeting. Therefore, a group that attempts to conduct the deliberative process in writing (such as by postal mail, e-mail, "chat rooms," or fax)—which is not recommended—does not constitute a deliberative assembly. Any such effort may achieve a consultative character, but it is foreign to the deliberative process as understood under parliamentary law." 

[jstackpo]

Too bad for p. 98.

 

Folks are doing e-meetings all over the place, deliberating (by the written rather than the spoken word), and coming to decisions.  So let us help them with the best set of meeting tools available, rather than telling them they can't do it.

[Gödel Fan]

I see what you're trying to do, but I am unconvinced by the discussion in those links about subsidiary and incidental motions.  Considering that everything is going into the minutes, it doesn't seem very good to me to just shrug and say "yep, you can't object to consideration."  But that's not my main issue.  I am a member of a few organizations that use these methods, and I have one major objection - people don't read emails.  The purpose, in my mind, of the definition of a deliberative assembly is precisely to ensure that, if you're not going to participate in debate, you're at least going to hear it before you cast your vote.  What I've seen with email motions is quite simple - the temporary majority replies "aye" or "nay," as appropriate, without reading or responding to any emails from the other side.  The initial minority can type itself blue in the fingers, but it makes no difference - violating the basic premise of parliamentary procedure that the majority gets to act, but only after hearing from the minority.

[Gary Novosielski]

Too bad for p. 98.

 

Folks are doing e-meetings all over the place, deliberating (by the written rather than the spoken word), and coming to decisions.  So let us help them with the best set of meeting tools available, rather than telling them they can't do it.

 

I think the point is that they might be able to go through the motions of having a meeting, but written communication simply doesn't have the information transfer rate (bandwidth) necessary to support what most people mean when they say "deliberation".   

 

Sumultaneous aural communication is the bare minimum.  Video would be a substantial improvement on that.

 

I suppose it would be possible to conduct "meetings" by Pony Express, and even develop parliamentary rules covering the differences between that and a deliberative assembly.  Just don't expect the outcomes to be as good.

[jstackpo]

 I have one major objection - people don't read emails. 

 

Sure, but in a lot of associations, most members don't show up for meetings (or sleep through them). They let the "clique" run things (and complain later on).  So what else is new?

 

 

I think the point is that they might be able to go through the motions of having a meeting, but written communication simply doesn't have the information transfer rate (bandwidth) necessary to support what most people mean when they say "deliberation".   

 

Sumultaneous aural communication is the bare minimum. 

 

I'm not so sure that the information transfer is all that efficient in "real" meetings, either.  Lots or repetition where I come from.

 

E-meetings may not be as satisfactory as in-person meetings, but they can get the job done.  And no travel expenses or driving at night. (Or even getting dressed.)  It is a trade-off.  And since it is happening anyway, lets be positive and be helpful parliamentarians.

[Gödel Fan]

Members who don't show up for meetings don't count for quorum, and don't impact the outcome.  People who purposefully do not read emails they know they won't like and cast their votes anyway do impact the outcome.  

 

Teleconferences and video conferences prevent travel expenses or driving at night (although I still prefer to travel cross-country for board meetings, not least because of the ability of the board to socialize at night and so on).  You don't have to get dressed for a teleconference, and you can do a video conference in a shirt and tie (and jacket) without necessarily wearing pants.

[jstackpo]

Don't tell me that everybody in the meetings you go to pay full and continuous attention all the time.

 

Some fall asleep; some don't read all their e-mails.  If they vote their biases, rather that weigh evidence presented in (written or spoken) debate, too bad.  That is hardly unique to e-meetings. 

 

If a quorum is established the way it is described here, then non-readers of e-mail will not be counted toward the quorum, nor will it matter.

[Gödel Fan]

I see no evidence that people who don't read emails debating a motion will not count towards quorum - regardless, as you say, it doesn't matter since your rules don't allow a point of order regarding the absence of quorum.

 

A problem need not be unique to "e-meetings" to be exacerbated and encouraged by them.  Do I see people at in-person meetings who tune out the debate and just vote how they felt like when they came in?  Sure.  I also see their behavior on email, and even have the privilege of belonging to a board that meets via email, videoconference, and in-person meetings, so I get to see the differences among the same people.

 

It is true that people are meeting this way, and parliamentarians should be able to advise them.  Some useful advice might be "don't meet that way."  Other useful advice would, in my opinion, need to come from a parliamentarian familiar with the group, its other bylaws, and its purposes.  That is, I don't think any meaningful guidance in this matter can be provided by a manual, other than the first piece of advice mentioned.  It may be that I am proven wrong at some point.

 

I think it is interesting that we seem to believe this is necessary because "we're moving into the future, the profession can't be stuck in the past" or some such.  This is absolutely true for video-conferences - which, in my opinion, offer the best hope for a deliberative assembly and ought to be replacing asynchronous voting.  There's a case where technology really can allow advances in parliamentary procedure - and without much modification at all, other than to adopt rules specific to the size of the organization and to the platform used.  Asynchronous voting, on the other hand, has been possible for ages, is not a recent innovation, and was, in my opinion, popular precisely because of the unavailability of alternatives we have today.  So why should "the future is now" be a good argument for somehow updating manuals to cover activities which are, by definition, not deliberative assemblies, in a day when, because of available technology, far better things can be done?

[jstackpo]

G. Fan wrote  (how did you make that umlaut, by the way?):

 

"I also see their behavior on email, and even have the privilege of belonging to a board that meets via email, videoconference, and in-person meetings, so I get to see the differences among the same people."

 

That is very interesting, although, in retrospect, not surprising.  But the big advantage (or temptation, if you will) of e-mail for meetings is that it is convenient and free.  Hence "Don't do it" or "Get a video-conference system" are equally unattractive pieces of advice; the response to the first is "Why not?" and the second is "We can't afford it".  Maybe the cost problem will change but it may be a few editions of RONR later when that utopia is upon us.

 

The main philosophical point of my essays is that RONR is easily adapted to help people using the cheap and dirty alternative (e-mail) for some of their meetings, RONR p. 98 notwithstanding.  And they are holding these meetings as we speak (or type).  Have you got a better alternative? 

[Gödel Fan]

Edgar used it, and I copied and pasted from him.  When I asked him how he made it, he indicated he copied and pasted from elsewhere.  It seems to be a viral thing.

 

To "why not" you explain why not - just copy and paste what I said.  To "we can't afford it" you point out that there are many free or low-cost systems, depending on the organization size.  Granted, the free and low-cost ones generally lack some of the features you'd ideally have, but they're far better than asynchronous meetings.  For instance, a good paid system has multi-colored flags you can use to indicate priority in seeking the floor, ability to control who you see (as a user), and good features for the chair to control the floor.  But even a bad system (such as Skype - just need one person with a paid membership, $10/month) is better than the alternative.  

[Gary Novosielski]

Edgar used it, and I copied and pasted from him.  When I asked him how he made it, he indicated he copied and pasted from elsewhere.  It seems to be a viral thing.

 

It's like déjà vu all over again.  We are nothing if not coöperative.

[Guest Daisy Carrington]

We have e-meetings all the time in between Board Meetings. Send emails to the Board with the subject line, "Need your vote!" Email will describe in detail issue to be voted upon. Sometimes questions arise and are answered by email, reply all. When we've obtained the number of votes required to pass the vote (or not), it's done! So easy. I tried to say we couldn't do this, but the wave of the future rolled over me.

[Gödel Fan]

Yes, it's so easy, there's no disputing that.  What I do dispute is whether or not it would produce the same results as a deliberative assembly would, even on an original main motion.  I've given my reasons for disputing that.  

 

Furthermore, unlike the rules Stackpole mentioned above, the description here gives no indication at all of how other sorts of motions can work.  For instance, a motion to amend might well close after the original motion (you didn't mention it, but one hopes there is a time limit on your email voting).  How are points of order handled, and appeals?  Again, Stackpole at least dealt with these - the alternative is that, if someone wants to make a motion that is out of order, they just wait for an email ballot on it rather than raising it in a meeting.  Even Stackpole, meanwhile, can't deal with objections to consideration.

 

In any case, I hope Daisy's bylaws permit this, and describe how the vote closes, rather than, as it appears, requiring a majority vote of the entire membership to pass or reject any motion.

[Guest Curious]

We have e-meetings all the time in between Board Meetings. Send emails to the Board with the subject line, "Need your vote!" Email will describe in detail issue to be voted upon. Sometimes questions arise and are answered by email, reply all. When we've obtained the number of votes required to pass the vote (or not), it's done! So easy. I tried to say we couldn't do this, but the wave of the future rolled over me.

 

This is a Q&A session followed by a poll. It may be efficient, but it's not deliberation, which entails persuasion, give-and-take and the crafting of a solution which pleases the most members.