Limit Debate

[YFaure]

For a college organization, the Executive Board, made up of the President, Vice-President, Secretary, and Treasurer, meet weekly. An agenda is distributed at the beginning of every meeting, Our meetings tend to go on for two hours or more, and some of the Board members are frustrated with how long the meetings are taking. Even though we take two hours+, we manage to get a great deal of business done.

The Secretary is currently in charge of creating the agenda, but the Chairman (a 5th member of the Board, who has no powers, only chairs the meetings) is the one to keep the order.

The secretary suggested that a time limit be placed on every point of business. These times would be proposed at the secretary's discretion.

• Considering we are a small Board, is it practical to place time limits on discussion/how long points of business should last?
  
• If motion passes to limit points of business, would a motion to simply "limit time for points of business" need to be made? Or is it better to adopt the agenda entirely (with the proposed times) before the meeting starts? And if we do adopt the whole agenda, any member can motion to change anything on it, correct?
  

[jstackpo]

This is a shot in the dark but have you attempted to enforce the "NO discussion without a motion on the floor" rule described on p. 34, line 7 ff. It REALLY speeds things up (and makes the Secretary's job a breeze as well). Try it, if you haven't yet, and you may not need to fool around with (hard to enforce) time limit rules.

[JohnR]

If you are doing a great deal of business in two hours, you are doing very well! I wonder if the dissatisfied members have much experience serving on boards.

You could certainly adopt rules to limit debate at each meeting or for all meetings, but your chairman will need to monitor time and speech limits carefully. Or you could adopt an agenda with time limits for each matter, but there is a greater risk of unfinished business. An agenda can be changed at any time by adopting a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted.

[Guest Edgar]

Even though we take two hours+, we manage to get a great deal of business done.

And this is a problem because . . . ?

[YFaure]

And this is a problem because . . . ?

I ask myself the same thing lol But there are several personal clashes going on between some of the officers, so personal issues are bleeding into the supposed professional environment of the EB meetings.

It also perhaps has to do with lack of motivation of wanting to stay for that long in a room, and they rather go home faster.

And to John R, this is the first time they've served on a board such as this one.

[Rev Ed]

I have been to meetings where things could have gotten done in one and half hours instead of two or more hours simply because of wasted time talking about nothing (both in the RONR as there is no motion before the assembly, and in the general sense) because the Chairman does not know how to run a meeting and allows dilatory discussions. Lots still get done, but only when you start insisting that the rules are followed.

However, a rule could be created to limit debate, or a motion at every meeting.