Guest thom deily Posted June 12, 2012 at 07:02 PM Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 at 07:02 PM what is consenes voting and is it ok if you roberts rules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted June 12, 2012 at 07:20 PM Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 at 07:20 PM RONR p. L says:ROBERT WAS SURELY AWARE OF THE EARLY EVOLUTIONARY DEVELOPMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE IN THE ENGLISH HOUSE OF LORDS RESULTING IN A MOVEMENT FROM "CONSENSUS," IN ITS ORIGINAL SENSE OF UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT, TOWARD A DECISION BY MAJORITY VOTE AS WE KNOW IT TODAY. THIS EVOLUTION CAME ABOUT FROM A RECOGNITION THAT A REQUIREMENT OF UNANIMITY OR NEAR UNANIMITY CAN BECOME A FORM OF TYRANNY IN ITSELF. IN AN ASSEMBLY THAT TRIES TO MAKE SUCH A REQUIREMENT THE NORM, A VARIETY OF MISGUIDED FEELINGS - RELUCTANCE TO BE SEEN AS OPPOSING THE LEADERSHIP, A NOTION THAT CAUSING CONTROVERSY WILL BE FROWNED UPON, FEAR OF SEEMING AN OBSTACLE TO UNITY - CAN EASILY LEAD TO DECISIONS BEING TAKEN WITH A PSEUDOCONSENSUS WHICH IN REALITY IMPLIES ELEMENTS OF DEFAULT, WHICH SATISFIES NO ONE, AND FOR WHICH NO ONE REALLY ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY. ROBERT SAW, ON THE OTHER HAND, THAT THE EVOLUTION OF MAJORITY VOTE IN TANDEM WITH LUCID AND CLARIFYING DEBATE-RESULTING IN A DECISION REPRESENTING THE VIEW OF THE DELIBERATE MAJORITY-FAR MORE CLEARLY FERRETS OUT AND DEMONSTRATES THE WILL OF AN ASSEMBLY. IT IS THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF GENUINE PERSUASION AND PARLIAMENTARY TECHNIQUE THAT GENERAL ROBERT WAS ABLE TO ACHIEVE DECISIONS IN MEETINGS HE LED WHICH WERE SO FREE OF DIVISIVENESS WITHIN THE GROUP.Sorry about the all CAPS but that is how the CD (from where I copy and pasted this) wrote it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted June 12, 2012 at 07:24 PM Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 at 07:24 PM Sorry about the all CAPS but that is how the CD from where I pasted this wrote it.Blame it on the FERRETS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Goodwiller, PRP Posted June 12, 2012 at 07:55 PM Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 at 07:55 PM But Robert's does support the use of "unanimous consent" as a means of moving business along when the chair perceives that there is no serious objection to a matter. As an example of how to do it, RONR says (pg. 55, ll. 34-36) "CHAIR: Is there any objection to the member's time being extended two minutes? . . . [pause]. The chair hears no objection, and it is so ordered."The difference between "unanimous consent" and a more general attempt to settle matters by "consensus decision making" is that when a chair seeks unanimous consent, if any member does object, the question is then stated for the body's consideration in the regular way, subject to the usual rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 12, 2012 at 08:05 PM Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 at 08:05 PM RONR p. L says:Sorry about the all CAPS but that is how the CD (from where I copy and pasted this) wrote it.The 10th CD does come in handy when there are no changes in wording. Still praying for the 11th on CD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted June 13, 2012 at 01:01 AM Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 at 01:01 AM The 10th CD does come in handy when there are no changes in wording. Still praying for the 11th on CD.Amen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintCad Posted June 13, 2012 at 10:09 PM Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 at 10:09 PM As a side note, as the secretary for an organization, the chair liked to do a lot of approval/disapproval by consensus without an actual vote. If there was an actual vote, I would record the results but on the consensus vote I would record in the minutes that the motion passed or failed "without division". Is that an appropriate way to indicate an actual vote was not taken or would "by general consent" be better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted June 13, 2012 at 10:45 PM Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 at 10:45 PM As a side note, as the secretary for an organization, the chair liked to do a lot of approval/disapproval by consensus without an actual vote. If there was an actual vote, I would record the results but on the consensus vote I would record in the minutes that the motion passed or failed "without division". Is that an appropriate way to indicate an actual vote was not taken or would "by general consent" be better?I'm not sure that either "without division" or "by general consent" are terms suggested by RONR. So "without objection" or "by unanimous consent" might be preferable.Or, since there was no vote, it's probably sufficient just to note that the motion was adopted (since that's all that would be recorded even if there was a vote unless the vote was a counted one). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.