Weldon Merritt

That seems reasonable and logical, and the group to which I belong does that to a very high degree of conformance. It meets every one of the distinguishing characteristics listed at RONR (11th ed.), p. 1, l. 8 to p. 2, l. 17, with the sole exception that it does not “meet in a single room or area” (at least in the usual senses of those words), and communication during its meetings, while simultaneous, is not aural. Whether or not RONR would consider that group to be a deliberative assembly, we manage to function just as effectively as many groups that do meet every detail of the definition

I suppose a lot depends upon what is meant by “equivalent.” Certainly, it cannot mean “identical,” so how closely does it have to mimic what takes place “in a single room or area”? I definitely concur about teleconference meetings, which is why I believe chat room meetings actually are superior in the accuracy, if not the speed, of the information conveyed. And, I have no doubt that chat room meetings con use the rules in RONR; the one in which I participate has been doing so very successfully for at least a couple of years now. Which of course leads to the question: What is the real significance, if any, of whether a given meeting is or is not a “deliberative assembly”?

Fair enough. But I doubt most regular chat room users would consider this fourm to be a chat room, as the term normally is used. Perhaps part of the problem is a lack of understanding of the actual nature of a properly-conducted chat room meeting. If so, maybe a debate would help to dispel some of the concerns.

Oh, there was never any doubt in my mind what the intent was. Indeed, all of the other non-aural means of communication listed as examples could have been excluded just as effectively by simply requiring “simultaneous communication” without specifying “aural.” But I do not feel a need to "justify chat room meetings"; some of us have been conducting them for quite some time now, using RONR with a number of special rules of order to fit our unique circumstances. I suspect we will continue to do so whether or not RONR considers chat room meetings to be deliberative assemblies (and I agree that with the current wording, it does not). The question is: Why is the aural component of communication considered important only for meetings that are not conducted "in a single room or area"? The need for simultaneous communication seems reasonably obvious, at least to me; the need for that communication to be aural is not. Yes, I know that the reason for a rule (at least one that is unambiguous) is irrelevant; the rule is what it is. But one can still wonder and seek to understand what it is about chat room meetings, which clearly can be conducted with simultaneous (but non-aural) communication, makes the authors believe they are not true deliberative assemblies. Having participated in both teleconference and chat room meetings, it has been my experience that once you have more than just a very small number of participants, it is much easier (albeit very much slower) to keep track of what is going on in a chat room. If there is indeed a rational reason for excluding chat room meetings from being considered deliberative assemblies (not just “we don’t like them”), I would love to know it.

As the initiator of this thread, I actually did not think it was the intent of the authors to deny the right of the deaf to form deliberative assembles. Rather, I thought it might be an unintended consequence of the attempt to limit how electronic meetings can be conducted. I recognize the use of the conjunction “or” between the elements of the criterion; but it certainly appeared to me that the reference to “equivalent conditions” included both adjectives, “simultaneous” and “aural.” If the authors are now saying that the aural component is not necessary when the group is meeting “in a single room or area,” I have to ask why that component is so important when the group is meeting via the internet. I agree that deliberation by postal mail, e-mail, and fax do not constitute a “deliberative assembly.” But to me, the critical issue is not the absence of an aural component, but the absence of simultaneity of the communication. Chat room meetings, on the other hand, are conducted through simultaneous (but non-aural) communication. Granted, such meetings require a lot of special rules of order to make them work; but as already discussed, the same is true of a meeting of the deaf that takes place “in a single room or area.” As you note, meetings “by webcam, and the like, are rapidly developing and, as they become more common, are becoming less and less expensive,” but that does not necessarily mean that those are the only way to conduct simultaneous communication. And as you now acknowledge, even those means may be used for non-aural communication. So if a meeting of the deaf participants using ASL “in a single room or area” constitutes a deliberative assembly, does a meeting of the same participants “with webcams using ASL” also constitute one? If not, what is the critical difference? And if so, why could groups, deaf or not, using other simultaneous but non-aural means of communication over the internet not also constitute deliberative assemblies? Note that the question is not whether groups other than deliberative assemblies can adopt and use at least some aspects of RONR; clearly they can. The question is why groups using simultaneous but non-aural means of communication over the internet should not be considered deliberative assemblies. Perhaps it makes no practical difference, but for whatever reason, the authors chose to make the distinction.

What I make of page 2, lines 19-24, is that a group that does not have all of the characteristics of a deliberative assembly (as listed in the preceding six bullets) nevertheless may elect to follow some of the rules in RONR. But that does not really answer my question. Must a group possess all of the listed “distinguishing characters” in order to be considered a “deliberative assembly”? If so, then a literal interpretation of the unambiguous language of the second bullet certainly would seem to preclude a group of deaf participants from being a deliberative assembly, no matter if the group possesses all of the other listed attributes. But if (as Mr. Balch seems to indicate) some other means of simultaneous communication may be substituted for “aural” among a group of deaf participants, then can it really be said that “simultaneous aural communication” is a requirement. And is it only deaf participants who may substitute another means? Suppose a group composed of sign language interpreters want to form an organization that conducts all of its meetings in ASL, so they can hone their skill. Can they do so and still be considered a “deliberative assembly”? As for what difference it makes, that is part of what I am trying to find out. I frankly am not sure what the possible ramifications of being or not being a true “deliberative assembly” may be. If a group that does not meet the criteria for being a “deliberative assembly” nevertheless can adopt and agree to be bound by RONR, with only those changes necessary to accommodate its unique characteristics, then maybe it does not matter. But apparently the authors thought it was important to make a distinction. Perhaps it is too much to hope for, but what I would really like is a clear answer from a member of the authorship team: Is or is not “simultaneous aural communication” a necessary criterion for a “deliberative assembly”? (Yes, I know that the group would have to adopt some special rules to include what means of simultaneous non-aural communication they would use. But if they do so, and assuming they meet all of the other “distinguishing characteristics” are they then a “deliberative assembly”?)

Whish is, presumably, “of or received through the ear or the sense of hearing.” Webster’s New World College Dictionary (4th ed.). So I take it that your opinion would be that a meeting of deaf particpants cannot be a "deliberative assembly" regardless of how many of the other "distingusihing characteristcs" it has?

Thanks. I had forgotten about that thread (and I even was one of the participants!). I concur with Mr. Mountcastle's comment that "[c]ommon sense should prevail." Yet the statement in RONR seems pretty clear and unambiguous. Not only that, but it is emphasized by very similar language in two other places in the discussion of electronic meetings. RONR (11th ed.) p. 97, ll. 22-27; p. 98, ll. 11-19. The authors' real concern no doubt is with electronic meetings, as illustrated by the footnote on p. 1 and the parenthetical comment on p. 98. Yet the actual rule, on its face, applies to all "meetings", not just eletronic ones. So if there is a distinction to be made, I am interested in how it is justified in the face of such absolute language.

The 11th edition, like the 10th, lists as one of the "distinguishing characteristics" of a "deliberative assembly": The group meets in a single room or area or under equivalent conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participants. RONR (11th ed.), p. 1, ll. 12-14; RONR (10th ed.), p. 1, ll. 12-14 (emphasis added). Does this mean that a meeting compirised entirely of deaf people, who communicate solely through simulataneous visual means (ASL, PowerPoint, or the like) cannot be connsidered a deliberative assembly even though they are meeting "in a single room or area"?

Yes, but when your interpretation is directly contradicted by the plain language of RONR, you might want to rethink your interpretation. Based on your past repsonses, this is probably a futile effort, but I refer you to RONR, p. 194, ll. 15-19: "[Previous Question] always requires a second and a two-thirds vote, taken separately from and before the vote(s) on the motion(s) to which it is applied, to shut off debate against the will of even one member who wishes to speak and has not exhausted his right to debate." (Italics in original; bolding added.) Note that it says, "two-thirds" vote, not "unanimous consent." If your interpreatation were corerct, PQ could never be ordered without unanimous consent. In fact, there would be no need for the motion at all.

This seems to happen much too often. Self-proclaiemd experts could get away with a lot less if other members simply had the gumption to say, "Show me the rule."