Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'consensus'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • RONR Message Board – Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised
    • General Discussion
    • Advanced Discussion
    • The Robert’s Rules Website
  • About the Message Board
    • Questions or Comments about the Message Board

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Found 5 results

  1. I'm not sure if I have a question or just desire some commiserating... Does anybody know what "Consensus" or "Modified Consensus" would be as a Parliamentary Authority? "All TOLIS activities and organization shall be run though consensus. Training in consensus building and running meetings with consensus management will be provided as the TOLIS board deems needed and will be a part of all the leadership trainings developed. A modified form of consensus meeting management will be used with the caveat that if consensus is not able to be reached (with people in disagreement being able to choose to not block progress with their dissent, which would mean the group has the consensus needed to make a decision), then the issue will be tabled to a second meeting. If it is unable to be decided upon with the second meeting through consensus then a vote will be taken with 2/3 majority of people voting wins. If the issue needs to be decided there on the spot due to timing issues (there not being time to have another meeting) and there is a board member present, they will make the decision. If there are two board members present and they disagree, another board member will be consulted (preferably the MSS or President) for a tie-breaking vote. If there is no board member present the Council Chair will try to bring one in via electronic means first before deciding to go ahead with the voting process. This attempt to communicate with the board will be documented in minutes of the meeting. The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern TOLIS only in cases to which they are applicable, where specific groups have determined through consensus that they want to use them in lieu of consensus decision making, and in cases in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the TOLIS Board of Directors may adopt."
  2. I am president of a fiber arts nonprofit guild. The following is quoted from this Guild's ByLaws: a) In conducting the affairs of this Guild, the final authority for procedure shall be Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 10th edition, (2000), wherever applicable and not inconsistent with the Bylaws. (This will be changed to reflect 11th edition in December.) From our ByLaws: "In the absence or disability of the President, the Vice-Presidents in order of their rank shall perform all duties of the President. In accordance, a Vice-President shall have all of the powers and restrictions of the President." (I had major surgery the week before the Board meeting). c) All Officers are required to keep their Procedure Manuals currently updated and to make this information available to the President and their successors at the joint April Board meeting.' (I have and follow the Procedure Manual, with a monthly task listed "will set the Agendas for the General and Board Meetings) At the last Board Meeting, the following occurred: Format of General Meeting: Discussion was held concerning the new format for our general meeting implemented by "me". Time is too long to sit without a bathroom break "Agenda Item", should it before or after the break? Board reached a consensus that "Agenda Item" should be after the break. Here are my questions: 1) What is a "consensus" within an organization whose authority for procedure is within Roberts Rules? 2) Is there a legal reason I should reset the Agenda according to this "consensus". Thank you.
  3. Consensus: The New Disease Well, it’s not really a "new" disease. It is just that I am seeing more and more arguments in favor of this. However, I have also discovered an article written by a Mr. Scott Henson that was truly a breath of fresh air. Mr. Henson's article, entitled "Death To The Facilitators" is a very well thought out discussion that gathers all the excuses consensus offers and one by one tears them apart, exposing their fallacies. In the second half of his article he launches into a vigorous defense of the use of Robert's Rules of Order as being the only viable alternative to serious decision making. See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1V_M4owXmu8BxbWI37orX0K4XEnKxCwoBtca0tMsozWo/edit?pli=1 I commend Mr. Henson's article to your appreciation and urge you to read it. For me it was extremely enjoyable and refreshing in spite of its left-leaning context, for which I am sure he can be forgiven; his thesis, however, does not suffer on this account. Zev
  4. Must all discussion be related to a motion? For example, a member was recognized. She asked why a prospect was not contacted by the president. The president explained his reasoning. Discussion ensued. The group seemed unanimous in their opinion that president should have contacted the prospect. He agreed that he should have done so, and said he would initiate contact. This occurred with no motion on the floor. Should the member raising the topic have presented it in the form of a motion, or could the rules have been suspended?
  5. Are motions required to open discussions that don't require a vote? Or, should all action based discussions require a vote. We often have discussions to guide general direction and further development of an agenda item---seeking consensus on the direction, without a formal vote---should this informal "consensus-seeking" be put to a vote instead? Is there another less formal, but more appropriate process for "reaching consensus"?
  • Create New...