Guest cougar12 Posted October 24, 2012 at 02:11 PM Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 at 02:11 PM What is the role of the moderator? Is the moderator supposed to address a comment made for or against a motion? Is the moderator supposed to explain the reasons for a motion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted October 24, 2012 at 02:27 PM Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 at 02:27 PM "Moderator" is simply an alternative term for the presiding officer, in most organizations that use the term. If that's how your organization uses it, then the rules that apply to the presiding officer (referred to as "the chair") as described in RONR would apply to the moderator.The presiding officer (except in small boards and committees) should* remain impartial, which would mean not participating in debate, nor voting, except when that one vote could make a difference in the outcome, or when the vote is by (secret) ballot.__________* but cannot be compelled to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted October 24, 2012 at 04:02 PM Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 at 04:02 PM What is the role of the moderator? Is the moderator supposed to address a comment made for or against a motion? Is the moderator supposed to explain the reasons for a motion?In addition to what Gary said, it is a duty of the presiding officer to make sure the members know exactly what effect their vote will have. Doing so in an impartial way might seem like a fine line on occasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rthib Posted October 24, 2012 at 07:09 PM Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 at 07:09 PM Having Chaired contentiousness meetings, when I get the feeling that people are confused about what a motion is about.I will ask the simple question "Is everyone clear about what we are voting on?". If people speak up and say they are not, I will suggest that perhaps more debate might help clarify the issue.If it is procedural, If necessary I will offer explanation if there is confusion, especially early in a meeting of a group that may meet only annually and has new members who do not understand all that is RONR. An example being a motion to end debate (A yes vote will end debate and we will move on to voting on the motion, which will be a separate vote).But it is very dangerous to try and "help" the membership "understand" a motion on anything else. Restate yes, explain No.If the membership is not sure of the motion, I would not presume to clarify, as my understanding may just be as wrong.Also, if a motion is so badly worded as to cause confusion, then its defeat is probably a good thing.Even worse is the suggestion to help explain the "reason" for a motion.It is up to those who are debating to give reasons for or against.Again, if those on either side of a motion are not able to explain their reason, then as a chair it is not my duty to help their cause.I have seen very bad results when a chair, thought they were being helpful by explaining the reason for a motion. They only succeeded in convincing one side they were biased and upsetting the other side by giving what they felt were the weakest reason in support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnR Posted October 24, 2012 at 08:08 PM Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 at 08:08 PM Having Chaired contentiousness meetings, when I get the feeling that people are confused about what a motion is about.I will ask the simple question "Is everyone clear about what we are voting on?".If people speak up and say they are not, I will suggest that perhaps more debate might help clarify the issue.If members don't know what they're voting on, the proper course is to repeat the question. Suggesting that debate continue may appear to favor one side, depending on the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.