Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Nathan Zook

Members
  • Content Count

    150
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Everett, WA
  • Interests
    Programming, Politics, and Playing Fair.

Recent Profile Visitors

201 profile views
  1. My example is a quote from the form which I have observed the Speaker of the House use. It's entirely unrelated to bodies using RONR, particularly since "laying upon the table" means something very, very different.
  2. If find the form that is used in the US House to be...interesting. "It-appears-the-ayes-have-it-The-ayes-have-it.-Without-objection-the-motion-to-reconsider-is-laid-upon-the-table." It's the sort of thing that makes one wish to run for congress solely for the joy of playing merry havoc with the thing...
  3. There is an unfortunate tendency to attempt to use rules to settle or prevent disputes within organizations. RONR already states that it is the duty of each member to cheerfully support the implementation of decisions by the body until they can obtain the vote to reverse the decision. If a committee, or the president is defying the body, adding another rule is not likely to fix the problem. A body can discharge a committee from duties if necessary, or even dissolve the committee (subject to limitations of the bylaws.) Individual members, including the president, can be brought up on disciplinary charges. Such matters are often painful to contemplate or execute, but by bringing the dispute to the direct attention of the body, they bring the issue to a definite close.
  4. As I take it, the order of events is as follows: 1) The board adopts a rule permitting email voting. 2) A motion has been made, and "discussions" relating to it, have occurred. 3) The voting opened. 4) Some votes have been cast. 5) Email sent prior to the opening of balloting arrived. (This can generally be verified by checking the headers of the email which has been received.) 6) At some point, the balloting will close. This conundrum is inherent to attempting to conduct business via email. The lack of physical presence, and of immediate voting, means that situations of this sort are the norm. Moreover, email voting is fundamentally different than any of the forms of voting contemplated by RONR. If anything, it is closest to the "lightboard" voting common in the US congress and many state legislatures. 1) I can think of no meaningful way to stop email between members while a vote is ongoing. Any rule supposing to do so is really attempting to legislate the impossible. 2) Ongoing discussions, by their very nature, have the ability to change people's minds. I personally have seen a vote flip from unanimously for to unanimously against when a person who had been offline weighed in during an email vote. 3) The natural solution seems to be to allow members to change their vote at any time prior to the close of polling. I must stress that nothing in RONR requires that this be the practice. Note that if this IS the rule, there remains the problem that email is by design not an immediate form of communication. In general, it is immediate enough to be effective, in my view. 4) If a body follows my suggestion to allow votes to be changed, then I strongly recommend that polling be held open for a set time, and not just until everyone has voted. That way, any late-arriving information has a clearly delimited time for arrival and effect. Note that I am implying that emails are being sent to all members, and not solely to the chairman. From the standpoint of the security of the vote, I do not see any other way to handle voting. For the purposes of smoothing the process, I would recommend that members make a practice of explicitly abstaining. Again, there is no way to make an effective rule requiring them to do so.
  5. My point is that the word was chosen more than a century ago. This a historical question. Of course, some of the folks here are history buffs as well, so the complete answer may be forthcoming.
  6. That's more question for a linguist...
  7. In an earlier life, two professional organizations in my field had a tradition of holding a joint week-long annual convention. My understanding is that the business meetings were held on different days during that week. This would be acceptable.
  8. That reminds me of a post from the earlier days of Usenet, talking about the nature of debate, "It has been said that academic politics is so nasty because the stakes are so low. Welcome to the new low." Certainly, a society may do as it pleases. But a couple of excited people may be able to convince a society to take a course of action which is dangerous for the society. Few people outside IT understand the fundamental problem that anonymous-internet-secure is impossible, and that any decision will, at best, be making tradeoffs.
  9. While addressing this section, you might want to think long & hard about there being an office for and ex-president at all. Suppose a president were removed with cause, but retained membership in an organization. There might well be a great deal of acrimony. The ex-president would then be in a position to cause a great deal of trouble. The in-between option would seem to me to be: "Be informed of all meetings of the Executive Committee, and, subject to the will of the committee, be permitted to speak and make motions and to speak in debate." The "subject to the will of the committee" then permits the committee to adopt a motion to exclude the ex-p by majority vote should that become necessary. But that's just one thought.
  10. The start of the post addresses public elections & their machines which won't matter for many assemblies. When he gets into voting over the internet, however, it DOES apply. Anonymity, secure, internet--pick at most two.
  11. Also, keep in mind... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs
  12. As I said, this transcript is more for edification than for questions. This class of behavior is not new, it's just that it is in practice impossible to correct an abusive chair in an online meeting. The process of seeking recognition itself is difficult, when it comes to points of order. He did "rule" that the point was too late. What was too late was his acknowledgement of the point of order--I did raise it before he moved to the vote. And yes, he went to the vote on the rules without any debate.
  13. For those who are not familiar with how these things go down, I'm posting what just happened when we move to the question of adopting the rules. The chairman was speaking in video. The comments should be reasonably self-explanatory. What happened was not a surprise. This is why I do not agree that such events can be considered deliberative assemblies. My point of order was not acknowledged until after the vote was opened. Then, he stated, "If the motion fails, then we will have debate." There is no parliamentary question here. I'm simply wanting to ensure that the assembled luminaries have seen what some of us are up against.. Nathan Zook27 minutes ago How do we debate the proposed rules? thomas watson26 minutes ago second Nathan Zook26 minutes ago Snohomish county: point of order: debate ! Alexis Wallace25 minutes ago floor debate Marcello Mancini25 minutes ago Second - Marcello Mancini 8 - 25 - 296 John Berg25 minutes ago POINT OF ORDER: Debate needed. Hannah Joy25 minutes ago huge delay! Andrea Sehmel25 minutes ago I second Alexis’ floor debate Natalie Zook25 minutes ago Snohomish county: point of order! Debate. Mark Naulty25 minutes ago Point of order is appropriate John Berg25 minutes ago POINT OF ORDER: Debate needed. Edward Norton25 minutes ago Snohomish County. Point of Order! Debate Sami Jensen25 minutes ago Why would you be asked to input on the rules and suggestions, when your emals are not acknowledged? Andrea Sehmel24 minutes ago Retract all votes under Point of Order is resolved Debbie Knutsen24 minutes ago Do people know they need to vote, submit and CONFIRM? Nathan Zook24 minutes ago Snohomish county: Appeal ruling of the chair Andrea Sehmel24 minutes ago This is what happened in Thurston 5 weeks ago. Natalie Zook24 minutes ago Debate comes first. Everyone knows this. John Berg23 minutes ago I APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE CHAIR: Rules are debatable before vote. Sami Jensen23 minutes ago debate first!! Joseph Murphy23 minutes ago Who cares if its what happened somewhere else. If you have a problem with it vote no. Easy to do. Martin Metz23 minutes ago The process to move to an action is being presented to preclude use of rules of order. May need to slow down those technological procedures. John Berg22 minutes ago I APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE CHAIR: Rules are debatable before vote. Nathan Zook22 minutes ago My point of order was raised before the voting was opened. C Davis22 minutes ago Isn’t a motion debatable, before the call of the question? Stephanie Gleason22 minutes ago We need more time to discuss these. I don’t believe the chair should be fast to call for votes Jessie Westcott21 minutes ago vote to reject the rules if you want the debate. everybody is doing the best they can under very unusual circumstances… William M Johnson21 minutes ago I agree just vote no if you disagree Joseph Murphy21 minutes ago Then vote no if you want it to get turned down. How hard is that to do. Mark Naulty21 minutes ago Caleb, it doesn’t matter if the Rules look great, we still are beholden to Robert’s Rules of Order which requires debate on this motion. Sami Jensen
  14. Uggh. Not my night. Sorry.
  15. That's what I get for cowboying. Sorry. I'll check more carefully next time.
×
×
  • Create New...