Discussion formality on the small board

[loose]

I am trying to sell my small board on the idea of debate formality, that is, the motion mover gets to speak first (if he wants), everyone may speak once before anyone may speak twice, everyone may speak twice before anyone may speak three times, etc. One person speaks at a time.

They will want to know why it's done this way and I'm wondering if it's commonly done or necessary on small boards (we are 9 in number.)

My answer would be that it somewhat protects opponents from each other - it doesn't let people necessarily jump on top of somebody they disagree with - they have to wait their turn.

If you can give me a compelling reason why debate is done this way I might be able to sell this basic principle of parliamentary procedure to the group.

[jstackpo]

I suggest your use of "opponents" is the key.

I, as a consultant, worked for a 5 (!) person board at one point and they used the most formal Robertian procedure possible. It was because 1) they hated each others guts (it was a HOA, whatdyaexpect, roses?) and 2) they HAD to do the HOA's business.

It worked. They didn't "get along", but the roads were maintained, &c. Another feather in the cap for Gen. Robert!

If folks all agree and get along, you can forget the formal stuff. Disagreement and dispute requires detachment, which only strict formal procedure can supply.

[David A Foulkes]

I am trying to sell my small board on the idea of debate formality, that is, the motion mover gets to speak first (if he wants), everyone may speak once before anyone may speak twice, everyone may speak twice before anyone may speak three times, etc. One person speaks at a time.

They will want to know why it's done this way and I'm wondering if it's commonly done or necessary on small boards (we are 9 in number.)

My answer would be that it somewhat protects opponents from each other - it doesn't let people necessarily jump on top of somebody they disagree with - they have to wait their turn.

If you can give me a compelling reason why debate is done this way I might be able to sell this basic principle of parliamentary procedure to the group.

Couple points:

1. No one gets to speak three times, unless your rules authorize it. The rule is no more than twice on any motion per day, and no second time until all who wish to speak their first time have had the opportunity to.

2. In small boards such as yours, even #1 need not be adhered to. Members can speak as many times as needed, although order should still be maintained, such as one at a time, and so forth.

I may catch heck for this here, but as to your general question, in a bigger picture RONR is a book of etiquette for people who can't behave. If all the members can respect the "rights" of others and allow meetings to be handled in a civil manner, with (perhaps) exception of a few voting thresholds and other restrictions, the book is not necessary. Play fair, behave, majority rules, and things should be fine without all the guidelines RONR presents. And if you ever get in such a group, let me know. Until then, there's a reason the General put quill to parchment, and it holds today as much as it did then.

[Josh Martin]

I am trying to sell my small board on the idea of debate formality, that is, the motion mover gets to speak first (if he wants), everyone may speak once before anyone may speak twice, everyone may speak twice before anyone may speak three times, etc. One person speaks at a time.

The default is that a member may only speak twice per question per day, actually, not three times.

They will want to know why it's done this way and I'm wondering if it's commonly done or necessary on small boards (we are 9 in number.)

The rules of debate are intended to balance the individual right of each member to speak with the needs of the assembly to complete the debate in a timely and orderly fashion. The rules are usually somewhat relaxed in small boards, and the number of times members have spoken is no longer a concern. In assemblies of any size, however, it is not appropriate to interrupt a speaker.

My answer would be that it somewhat protects opponents from each other - it doesn't let people necessarily jump on top of somebody they disagree with - they have to wait their turn.

If you can give me a compelling reason why debate is done this way I might be able to sell this basic principle of parliamentary procedure to the group.

I think your answer is perfect. If you're looking for more arguments, I don't think you can do any better than the explanation of the RONR authorship team in RONR In Brief, Ch. 1: The "Why and Wherefore" of Meeting Rules.

I may catch heck for this here, but as to your general question, in a bigger picture RONR is a book of etiquette for people who can't behave. If all the members can respect the "rights" of others and allow meetings to be handled in a civil manner, with (perhaps) exception of a few voting thresholds and other restrictions, the book is not necessary. Play fair, behave, majority rules, and things should be fine without all the guidelines

You shouldn't catch much heck. The authorship team makes similar observations in the first chapter of RONR In Brief (at least with respect to very small assemblies).

[loose]

I suggest your use of "opponents" is the key.

I, as a consultant, worked for a 5 (!) person board at one point and they used the most formal Robertian procedure possible. It was because 1) they hated each others guts (it was a HOA, whatdyaexpect, roses?) and 2) they HAD to do the HOA's business.

It worked. They didn't "get along", but the roads were maintained, &c. Another feather in the cap for Gen. Robert!

If folks all agree and get along, you can forget the formal stuff. Disagreement and dispute requires detachment, which only strict formal procedure can supply.

Thanks. That's great.

[loose]

Couple points:

1. No one gets to speak three times, unless your rules authorize it. The rule is no more than twice on any motion per day, and no second time until all who wish to speak their first time have had the opportunity to.

2. In small boards such as yours, even #1 need not be adhered to. Members can speak as many times as needed, although order should still be maintained, such as one at a time, and so forth.

I may catch heck for this here, but as to your general question, in a bigger picture RONR is a book of etiquette for people who can't behave. If all the members can respect the "rights" of others and allow meetings to be handled in a civil manner, with (perhaps) exception of a few voting thresholds and other restrictions, the book is not necessary. Play fair, behave, majority rules, and things should be fine without all the guidelines RONR presents. And if you ever get in such a group, let me know. Until then, there's a reason the General put quill to parchment, and it holds today as much as it did then.

This is very helpful. The book is, of course, great, but putting it in perspective is result of experience I don't have.

[loose]

Couple points:

1. No one gets to speak three times, unless your rules authorize it. The rule is no more than twice on any motion per day, and no second time until all who wish to speak their first time have had the opportunity to.

2. In small boards such as yours, even #1 need not be adhered to. Members can speak as many times as needed, although order should still be maintained, such as one at a time, and so forth.

I may catch heck for this here, but as to your general question, in a bigger picture RONR is a book of etiquette for people who can't behave. If all the members can respect the "rights" of others and allow meetings to be handled in a civil manner, with (perhaps) exception of a few voting thresholds and other restrictions, the book is not necessary. Play fair, behave, majority rules, and things should be fine without all the guidelines RONR presents. And if you ever get in such a group, let me know. Until then, there's a reason the General put quill to parchment, and it holds today as much as it did then.

This is helpful. The book is, of course, great, but putting it into perspective takes experience I don't have. Thanks.

[loose]

Let me get this straight. On a small board people may speak as many times as they want. True or false: they still have to speak in rounds, i.e. everyone must have a chance to weigh in once before anyone gets a chance to weigh in twice, etc.? I guess it depends on how civil the group?

By the way, when this is done, who keeps track of who spoke already? I guess the chair with the help of the secretary?

[loose]

The default is that a member may only speak twice per question per day, actually, not three times.

The rules of debate are intended to balance the individual right of each member to speak with the needs of the assembly to complete the debate in a timely and orderly fashion. The rules are usually somewhat relaxed in small boards, and the number of times members have spoken is no longer a concern. In assemblies of any size, however, it is not appropriate to interrupt a speaker.

I think your answer is perfect. If you're looking for more arguments, I don't think you can do any better than the explanation of the RONR authorship team in RONR In Brief, Ch. 1: The "Why and Wherefore" of Meeting Rules.

You shouldn't catch much heck. The authorship team makes similar observations in the first chapter of RONR In Brief (at least with respect to very small assemblies).

Thanks for reminding me about the "Why and Wherefore" chapter. I'm trying to amend bylaws to make it a board member requirement that they own a copy of and read In Brief.

[David A Foulkes]

Let me get this straight. On a small board people may speak as many times as they want. True or false: they still have to speak in rounds, i.e. everyone must have a chance to weigh in once before anyone gets a chance to weigh in twice, etc.? I guess it depends on how civil the group?

By the way, when this is done, who keeps track of who spoke already? I guess the chair with the help of the secretary?

Page 470-471 has the guidelines for small boards. You'll see that it says there is no limit on the number of times a member may speak, and that they don't even have to gain the floor to make motions or speak in debate. Now, that doesn't mean it's a free-for-all, and the Chair needs to maintain some order to make sure all viewpoints are heard, and by heard I also mean that everyone isn't speaking at the same time. So, within reason, the rigidity of meeting rules is relaxed in an attempt to allow business to be conducted more efficiently.

As for those meetings where debate is limited, I don't think I've ever read how that is tracked, but a good Chair will probably be mindful if any one member seems to be getting up to speak more often than others. Also, any member can raise a Point of Order if the rules of debate are violated, so it also falls a bit on everyone's shoulders to make sure everyone else follows the rules.

[loose]

I suggest your use of "opponents" is the key.

I, as a consultant, worked for a 5 (!) person board at one point and they used the most formal Robertian procedure possible. It was because 1) they hated each others guts (it was a HOA, whatdyaexpect, roses?) and 2) they HAD to do the HOA's business.

It worked. They didn't "get along", but the roads were maintained, &c. Another feather in the cap for Gen. Robert!

If folks all agree and get along, you can forget the formal stuff. Disagreement and dispute requires detachment, which only strict formal procedure can supply.

This makes sense. HOA="House of Arrest"?

[loose]

Page 470-471 has the guidelines for small boards. You'll see that it says there is no limit on the number of times a member may speak, and that they don't even have to gain the floor to make motions or speak in debate. Now, that doesn't mean it's a free-for-all, and the Chair needs to maintain some order to make sure all viewpoints are heard, and by heard I also mean that everyone isn't speaking at the same time. So, within reason, the rigidity of meeting rules is relaxed in an attempt to allow business to be conducted more efficiently.

As for those meetings where debate is limited, I don't think I've ever read how that is tracked, but a good Chair will probably be mindful if any one member seems to be getting up to speak more often than others. Also, any member can raise a Point of Order if the rules of debate are violated, so it also falls a bit on everyone's shoulders to make sure everyone else follows the rules.

Thanks for clarification.

[Josh Martin]

As for those meetings where debate is limited, I don't think I've ever read how that is tracked, but a good Chair will probably be mindful if any one member seems to be getting up to speak more often than others.

Larger assemblies (such as conventions) often appoint a Timekeeper for this purpose and other related tasks. Such a task is often performed by the Chair and/or the Secretary in smaller assemblies.

This makes sense. HOA="House of Arrest"?

HOA stands for Homeowners Association.