"discussion" vs. "discussion"

[loose]

I just joined a small assembly and as I sat down to my first meeting the chairman explained to me that the group holds its "discussions" first in a "non-Robert's Rules" section of the meeting. During this time the group sorts out what its motions are going to be. Then - at the tail end of the meeting - the "meeting" is called to order, the Chair states the motions and people vote, usually with nobody debating because we're too worn out by then. I realize this is not Robert's Rules but why is it that Robert's Rules doesn't do it this way, so I can have some ammo when I confront the Chairman? (Aside from the fact bylaws stipulate meetings should be run according to Robert's.)

Loose

[Josh Martin]

I realize this is not Robert's Rules but why is it that Robert's Rules doesn't do it this way, so I can have some ammo when I confront the Chairman?

The primary reason why RONR requires a motion to be pending before debate is so that it is clear whether debate is germane. Without such a rule, the assembly tends to veer off track, and meetings go on forever, as seems to be the case in your assembly. See RONR, 10th ed., pg. 33, footnote.

[Gary Novosielski]

(Aside from the fact bylaws stipulate meetings should be run according to Robert's.)

What more than that do you need? You must follow your bylaws.

[hmtcastle]

I realize this is not Robert's Rules . . .

Nothing in RONR prevents members from gathering before the meeting is called to order (that is, before the meeting begins) to discuss issues which are likely to come up during the meeting. If this facilitates the business of the meeting, you get to go home that much earlier. If enough members (i.e. more than a third) don't like this, they can insist that debate take place during the meeting.

The fact that this informal discussion immediately precedes the meeting may strike some as improper but it's really no different than if. for example, it took place the night before in a different location.

Though I will admit it does sound a tad shady.

[Gary Novosielski]

Nothing in RONR prevents members from gathering before the meeting is called to order (that is, before the meeting begins) to discuss issues which are likely to come up during the meeting. If this facilitates the business of the meeting, you get to go home that much earlier. If enough members (i.e. more than a third) don't like this, they can insist that debate take place during the meeting.

The fact that this informal discussion immediately precedes the meeting may strike some as improper but it's really no different than if. for example, it took place the night before in a different location.

Though I will admit it does sound a tad shady.

But some additional questions arise: Was the meeting called for, say 7 o'clock, but then discussion delayed the start till 8? If that's the case, people's time is being wasted. People should expect to arrive and begin the meeting at the stated time, or else not need to arrive until later. A member of a body has no duty to arrive x minutes early to all meetings just for informal chit-chat.

And does this really facilitate the meeting, or, as I think is more likely, does the "discussion" wander aimlessly, taking several times longer than it would if it were focused by the formal procedure of RONR.

It's not strictly improper, but it's probably a bad idea.

A better method would be to call the meeting to order at the appropriate time, and then consider the business in Committee of the Whole, or As If In Committee of the Whole. That affords some informality, but keeps the focus on business better than not even being called to order.

[Josh Martin]

Nothing in RONR prevents members from gathering before the meeting is called to order (that is, before the meeting begins) to discuss issues which are likely to come up during the meeting. If this facilitates the business of the meeting, you get to go home that much earlier. If enough members (i.e. more than a third) don't like this, they can insist that debate take place during the meeting.

Firstly, it's not clear that this is happening prior to the meeting, and secondly, I'm not sure why the fraction of one-third is significant outside of a meeting context.

A better method would be to call the meeting to order at the appropriate time, and then consider the business in Committee of the Whole, or As If In Committee of the Whole. That affords some informality, but keeps the focus on business better than not even being called to order.

Since the original poster stated that this is a small assembly, I think Informal Consideration would be more appropriate.

[hmtcastle]

Firstly, it's not clear that this is happening prior to the meeting

The OP indicated that the discussion took place before the meeting was called to order. Though I agree with Mr. Novosielski that, if this discussion continued after the scheduled time for the start of the meeting, it's improper.

and secondly, I'm not sure why the fraction of one-third is significant outside of a meeting context.

My thinking was that one third could block the "previous question" after the meeting was called to order.

[Josh Martin]

The OP indicated that the discussion took place before the meeting was called to order. Though I agree with Mr. Novosielski that, if this discussion continued after the scheduled time for the start of the meeting, it's improper.

Whoops. You're right.

My thinking was that one third could block the "previous question" after the meeting was called to order.

That makes sense, although it doesn't solve the problem of the discussion occurring prior to the meeting.

[hmtcastle]

That makes sense, although it doesn't solve the problem of the discussion occurring prior to the meeting.

True, but I'm suggesting that it may not be a problem. It might actually be a solution.

[Tim Wynn]

I think it's probably just a matter of the assembly not know how efficiently a meeting can and should run.

Loose, you might want to try the approach of, "why don't we try it the way the book says and see if that works any better."

[loose]

(Having trouble posting...)Loose here. Many thanks for your input. The meeting is called for 7pm, we show up, the Chair starts talking without calling the meeting to order. We talk about the topics one by one on the agenda after which the Chair moves that we start the meeting. We vote unanimously to start the meeting. The chair states the motions we came up with during pre-meeting chit chat and we vote. We are not asked if there is any "discussion," (but when I asked to be recognized I was allowed to speak. I threw out an opinion or two, just to break ground.) Then the meeting is adjourned.

The trouble is that the chit chat can get pretty contentious, the Chair seems to be the only one coming up with motions and you get intimidated from making a motion because people are free to say what they think of your motion before it's even made.

[David A Foulkes]

The trouble is that either your group doesn't understand RONR's guidelines for meetings or doesn't care to follow them if they do. If you can't get them to change this, you're beating your head against a wall.

Meetings are called to order by the presiding officer. You don't vote to start the meeting, because you only vote IN meetings, so that concept is silly.

If the meeting is scheduled for 7pm, that's when the meeting should start, not the coffee klatch.

If this is a small board (fewer than about a dozen in attendance) there's nothing wrong with the chair making motions. If not, then the chair has no business doing so.

If you want to hammer out the details before 7pm in a pre-meeting unofficial non-voting gathering, that's fine. But 1) there must still be the option for further debate between motion and voting (if the motion is debatable), and 2) if you're spending all the time you would normally spend in-meeting during debate in the "pre-meeting", then there is no time savings, and in fact it sounds like you spend more time than you would if you followed the rules, especially as they relate to the debate portion.

What about the rest of the "agenda"? Do you approve previous minutes? Hear reports? Address unfinished business? (just askin')

Your chair needs a.) a refresher course in RONR, or b.) to be replaced. Your membership needs some education as well.

But if there aren't enough disturbed by the current process and wanting to do it the right way, then step closer to that wall and start banging.

[hmtcastle]

if you're spending all the time you would normally spend in-meeting during debate in the "pre-meeting", then there is no time savings

While the additional facts indicate that this chair is, indeed, acting improperly, hashing out some of the more contentious details before a meeting is scheduled to begin can, indeed, result in a shorter meeting. It "saves" time in the sames sense that Daylight Saving Time "saves" time: by shifting it.

[Tim Wynn]

Well done, David.

Loose, you should probably start by talking to individual members to rally support for your wild idea about doing things the right way. It sounds like the assembly needs to take back control of their meetings from the chair. If the chair is not willing to remain impartial for the good of the assembly, he's not fit to preside. You're seeing first hand how the deliberative process breaks down when you don't have a chair who protects the rules of order and the rights of members.

[Tim Wynn]

It "saves" time in the sames sense that Daylight Saving Time "saves" time: by shifting it.

What a bunch of shift!

[David A Foulkes]

It "saves" time in the sames sense that Daylight Saving Time "saves" time: by shifting it.

Yes, but wait six months and you'll lose it again.

[loose]

The trouble is that either your group doesn't understand RONR's guidelines for meetings or doesn't care to follow them if they do. If you can't get them to change this, you're beating your head against a wall.

Meetings are called to order by the presiding officer. You don't vote to start the meeting, because you only vote IN meetings, so that concept is silly.

If the meeting is scheduled for 7pm, that's when the meeting should start, not the coffee klatch.

If this is a small board (fewer than about a dozen in attendance) there's nothing wrong with the chair making motions. If not, then the chair has no business doing so.

If you want to hammer out the details before 7pm in a pre-meeting unofficial non-voting gathering, that's fine. But 1) there must still be the option for further debate between motion and voting (if the motion is debatable), and 2) if you're spending all the time you would normally spend in-meeting during debate in the "pre-meeting", then there is no time savings, and in fact it sounds like you spend more time than you would if you followed the rules, especially as they relate to the debate portion.

What about the rest of the "agenda"? Do you approve previous minutes? Hear reports? Address unfinished business? (just askin')

Your chair needs a.) a refresher course in RONR, or b.) to be replaced. Your membership needs some education as well.

But if there aren't enough disturbed by the current process and wanting to do it the right way, then step closer to that wall and start banging.

[Josh Martin]

While the additional facts indicate that this chair is, indeed, acting improperly, hashing out some of the more contentious details before a meeting is scheduled to begin can, indeed, result in a shorter meeting. It "saves" time in the sames sense that Daylight Saving Time "saves" time: by shifting it.

Okay, but if the pre-meeting time, due to the failure to follow rules of debate, ends up taking more time to debate the issues than it would in a formal meeting, then the evening overall ends up taking more time.

I do not dispute that in many cases, informal discussion outside of a meeting context can save a tremendous amount of time. In other cases, however, it has the opposite effect, as seems to be the case here.

[loose]

Thank you very much for saving me head banging. Sounds like the voice of experience. In answer to your question, apparently reports sometimes take place before the meeting is called to order and sometimes after. As you say, they either don't know RR or don't respect it. Surely the reason they hash things out freestyle is because they think it saves time and they're afraid of debate preferring a "friendlier" format. I am seeking persuasive rationale to present to them but maybe that's not your role.

[Josh Martin]

In answer to your question, apparently reports sometimes take place before the meeting is called to order and sometimes after.

Reports should take place during the meeting as they are business of the assembly.

Surely the reason they hash things out freestyle is because they think it saves time and they're afraid of debate preferring a "friendlier" format. I am seeking persuasive rationale to present to them but maybe that's not your role.

In my opinion, the footnote on pg. 33 of RONR is the most persuasive rationale in the text as to why the procedure of having a motion before debate should generally be followed.

[Gary Novosielski]

(Having trouble posting...)Loose here. Many thanks for your input. The meeting is called for 7pm, we show up, the Chair starts talking without calling the meeting to order. We talk about the topics one by one on the agenda after which the Chair moves that we start the meeting. We vote unanimously to start the meeting. The chair states the motions we came up with during pre-meeting chit chat and we vote. We are not asked if there is any "discussion," (but when I asked to be recognized I was allowed to speak. I threw out an opinion or two, just to break ground.) Then the meeting is adjourned.

The trouble is that the chit chat can get pretty contentious, the Chair seems to be the only one coming up with motions and you get intimidated from making a motion because people are free to say what they think of your motion before it's even made.

It is nonsense to vote to call a meeting to order, because until it's called to order you can't vote on anything. The chair simply calls the meeting to order promptly at the appointed start time.

You and anyone else has the right to discuss any debatable motion.

It's no surprise that the chit-chat is counterproductive and stifling. Your bylaws specify that Robert's Rules will be followed and it is the duty of EVERY member to insist that the bylaws are followed.

[loose]

Reports should take place during the meeting as they are business of the assembly.

In my opinion, the footnote on pg. 33 of RONR is the most persuasive rationale in the text as to why the procedure of having a motion before debate should generally be followed.

What happens during the chit chat is that there's this back and forth with the Chairman weighing in at the end so that when you get to the "meeting," when the chair states the motion, you sort of feel that the issue's been resolved already in favor of the last person to have spoken on the subject. It takes the steam out of you.

[loose]

What happens during the chit chat is that there's this back and forth with the Chairman weighing in at the end so that when you get to the "meeting," when the chair states the motion, you sort of feel that the issue's been resolved already in favor of the last person to have spoken on the subject. It takes the steam out of you.

Thanks for p. 33. I get the impression that this group doesn't debate at all, except informally during chit chat, so I guess suppression results in even shorter meetings.

[hmtcastle]

It takes the steam out of you.

Then skip the chit chat. Show up when the meeting is scheduled to start and insist that it start on time. If a majority of members have agreed on a question beforehand, there's not much you can do about it. It doesn't matter that they did so just before the meeting or a week before the meeting. And if two-thirds of the members want to close debate, there's not much you can do about that either.

Get more members to agree with you and the ball will be in your court.

[Gary Novosielski]

Thanks for p. 33. I get the impression that this group doesn't debate at all, except informally during chit chat, so I guess suppression results in even shorter meetings.

Don't bet on it. Often, the formal procedure, by insisting that people speak without constant interruption, and stick to the subject at hand, can often be done more quickly.