Carmen Harris

I agree with this. I just tried to clarify and it got voted down. Led by the person who changed the language in the first place.

I appreciate the instruction. This body, and I, are not well-trained in Robert's. Without knowing the stuff you know, confusion has ensued. I understand Section 57 and the prior expectation that a meeting had to occur in advance. However, the omission of any reference to a meeting and amendments under 2.1 seemed to be an intentional change from past practice. That led me to section 2 of Robert's (see below). I am here because the elaboration appears to have introduced inconsistency --or at least confusion--into the process. My reading was that this new process, although at variance with Robert's superseded Robert's on this matter. Section 2 Robert's Newly Revised 11th edition. •Special rules of order supersede any rules in the parliamentary authority with which they may conflict.* •When a society or an assembly has adopted a particular parliamentary manual—such as this book—as its authority, the rules contained in that manual are binding upon it in all cases where they are not inconsistent with the bylaws (or constitution) of the body, any of its special rules of order, or any provisions of local, state, or national law applying to the particular type of organization. But under section 1 as a deliberative body we are suppose to deliberate.

So my confusion is this: The document is segmented. 2.1 is about the process of amending the manual only. In that section there is no reference to holding a meeting to accept amendments and the like. It says that "feedback" is collected to prepare a draft for the vote. That preparation for the vote implies that there is a meeting beforehand? 2.2 is about the general faculty and 2.2d is specifically about general faculty meetings. For special meetings the text says the the chair must call a vote under certain circumstances. In the language being cited the meeting is "recommended" This is a revision has introduced confusion in a body where most are not Robert's experts. As stated previously the language before that in the attached was simple and clear "Proposed changes to the Faculty Manual must be provided to the faculty in writing at least one month prior to the meeting at which these changes will be considered." I'm challenged by the changes in the language which seemed to me an intent to change the process. Thanks for your feedback.

Actually I'm back. that meeting in 2.2d says it is "recommended" and there's no reference to a meeting in the voting procedures section. Are recommended meetings required?

Thank you. I did not notice this. In fact that's the only mention of a meeting in that section and is easy to miss. That's why I was focusing on the part in 2.2d. Thanks. Makes sense.

I chair a deliberative faculty body and am overseeing the revision our governing document. It is multifaceted including description of the body, description of how to modify the document, governance committees, and other employment related matters. Until 2021 the process to revise that document was clear. "Proposed changes to the Faculty Manual must be provided to the faculty in writing at least one month prior to the meeting at which these changes will be considered." Since 2021 the process has been spun out. The references below are from a chapter on Faculty Governance organization. 1) In a sub-section of 2.1 that focuses on changing the document it reads proposal process it reads: "The Chair announces a period of faculty review and organizes the methods for gathering feedback from faculty. The Senate may request a public forum for discussion of the proposed changes. In coordination with Faculty Advisory, the Provost, and the Chancellor, the Chair considers faculty feedback, makes appropriate revisions, and produces a final draft of the proposed changes for the purposes of a faculty vote. The Faculty Chair presents items for a vote by the appropriate faculty body;" There is no reference to a meeting. 2) In a different sub-section of 2.1 on voting procedures it reads: "Proposed changes to the Faculty Manual must be provided to the Faculty in writing at least one month prior to the vote." In another section, 2.2 of the same chapter the focus is only on meetings. It reads: "In years with substantive proposals to revise the Faculty Manual, it is recommended that the General Faculty be convened for a special meeting in March to discuss proposed revisions and prepare for a vote. This recommendation permits an opportunity to revise and reconsider the proposal before the end of the academic year. Amendments can be made from the floor and do not necessarily require an additional 30 days before the vote. Any member of the faculty may request an anonymous vote. Votes can be conducted by show of hands, written or electronic ballot during the meeting, or electronic ballot over a period of three days within a week after the meeting ends (see Voting Procedures)." I have attached the full document (pages 1-2 and 5) for those who are interested. I have spoken to a parliamentarian at a different institution who suggests that as we are a deliberative body as described §1 of Robert's members have certain rights that can't be individually violated. From that the person said that it can be inferred that voting requires a meeting beforehand with the opportunity for motions and amendments. I am in no way opposed to motions and amendments. It may be that the material above by omitting a meeting in the process section and only recommending one in the other is out of order with Robert's. 07-chapter2-2022facmanual72 (1).pdf