Adding amendments (in a whack system)

[grayduck]

The way our organization deals with motions is whack. I've spoken about this on this Forum before. Our system is all online. Many of you have tried to help, and given some good advice, but ended up saying RONR can't be applied.  It really can't. I know. Please don't remind me how bad it is. (Also, I used a different display name previously, please don't refer to it). But we still have to suffer on to try and apply it as best we can for our meetings. Here is my latest dilemma, maybe someone can try to get their head around it with me, treat it like science fiction, and experiment with a garbled model, i.e. try to have fun and think outside the box.

It deals with amendments.

What we have: Our practice is that we send out an announcement (think newsletter) to the membership announcing ONE VOTING SESSION to be held online. This newsletter includes the agenda and a list of motions to be voted on. That is our stating. Motions in our organization must be submitted before we send out this newsletter. Then the vote happens. (Yes, crazy - these motions don't ever truly come before the assembly). We do have a GM before the vote, but there is NEVER a quorum of our membership at the meeting (450 members requires a 45 member quorum for us). Only ~15 ever come to these meetings. So it is really a meaningless meeting when it comes to dealing with motions. It's just for discussion.

What is proposed: Some members are trying to find a way to insert amendments. They propose that after the newsletter is sent out, amendments can be proposed. Then, when it comes to the ONE VOTING SESSION (quorum required), the already-stated-and-announced-in-the-newsletter motion is set aside for a vote on that amendment. If it passes or not, we then have a SECOND VOTING SESSION (quorum required). 

The problem: In this proposed system, amendments can ONLY be proposed at one of these meaningless, live pre-meeting. Then there is some discussion and the amendment will be added to the ONE VOTING SESSION if it is supported by the majority of the members at that pre-meeting. Those meetings, however, are dominated by 8-12 members who are basically from one faction of the membership. My contention is that by only allowing amendments to be proposed and added to the agenda at that meeting, the process is being hijacked by these 8-12 people. I also contend that by adding a SECOND VOTING SESSION, original motions will be filibustered and sent into a new time slot where it will be more difficult to achieve a quorum.

Precedent: This has process has never been done before and it is not in our Constitution. It says nothing about amendments or a second round of voting. They used it for the first time in February (where none of the "other" faction was present and it hadn't been proposed beforehand) and successfully killed a motion that they absolutely hated by gutting it with an amendment put to the membership in two rounds (many were confused about what they were voting on). Shouldn't that have been declared unconstitutional and the Exec censured? Also, they just made a very detailed motion to add this process in the last vote and it was REJECTED by the membership. I was a vocal opponent. So they can't use it anymore, although I guess they will since they did once before.

My questions:

1. Is it true that in a normal association amendments can only be added in a live meeting with a quorum and that something like this would never be allowed? 

2. Does anyone know of any organizations that only announce motions and then don't allow any more before a vote? Or amendments?

3. Might this have been a reasonable attempt to modify RONR to a whack process? Or a "hijacking"? I ask because, although they shouldn't have done it before and it was just denied by the membership, I suspect they will try to use it again BECAUSE they did it in February (they will call that precedent and still think the process is right). I want to know if I should keep battling it or just accept it. I'll probably be the only one at those meetings who has this position. If I stop my stand, no one in those meetings will make a fuss. I have to decide it if is worth it.

Note: I am not MEO anymore. I do have the book.

[jstackpo]

In the order you asked...

1)  True, indeed.

2)   Not in my 50 years (!) experience.

3)  You might find these two links useful:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/88311344/E-Meetings%202012.docx

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/88311344/E-Meetings%20in%20Real%20World%202012.docx

BTW, please define "whack".  Acronym or abbreviation or ??.

[Dan Honemann]

34 minutes ago, grayduck said:

Note: I am not MEO anymore. I do have the book.

If by "the book" you mean RONR, what difference does that make? The rules in RONR are for use in deliberative assemblies.

As stated on its Introductory Page, this Forum "is provided to allow an open exchange of views relevant to specific questions of parliamentary procedure under Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised."

[grayduck]

1 hour ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

If by "the book" you mean RONR, what difference does that make? The rules in RONR are for use in deliberative assemblies.

As stated on its Introductory Page, this Forum "is provided to allow an open exchange of views relevant to specific questions of parliamentary procedure under Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised."

 

 

 

 

Yes, I have RONR. It is our parliamentary authority. We're doing our best to make it work for our deliberative assembly. Our assembly is just very strange, crazy and unconventional (that's the definition of "whack")

[Dan Honemann]

46 minutes ago, grayduck said:

Yes, I have RONR. It is our parliamentary authority. We're doing our best to make it work for our deliberative assembly. Our assembly is just very strange, crazy and unconventional (that's the definition of "whack")

But unless I have completely misunderstood what you have posted, decisions are not made by your organization in a deliberative assembly.

"It is important to understand that, regardless of the technology used, the opportunity for simultaneous aural communication is essential to the deliberative character of the meeting. Therefore, a group that attempts to conduct the deliberative process in writing (such as by postal mail, e-mail, "chat rooms," or fax)—which is not recommended—does not constitute a deliberative assembly. Any such effort may achieve a consultative character, but it is foreign to the deliberative process as understood under parliamentary law."   (RONR, 11th ed., p. 98)

[grayduck]

Decisions are made by the membership in one voting session online if there is a motion submitted online before a deadline. How we get there is messy. We have no way to deal with secondary motions. Can anyone enter this mess using RONR as a "consultive character" and give a shot at helping me with my situation? i love jstackpo's articles, but we're not there yet. Any suggestions or musings are welcome.

[Joshua Katz]

Well, it seems to me that the proposed amendment system would allow anyone, or maybe two people, to tie up a motion they don't like.  Other than that, I'm afraid I don't have much advice, other than to change the system being used.  I can't think of a good way to make that work.  Usually organizations doing anything similar don't allow "amendments" persay, but instead people talk to other members to float their ideas and see what people will support. That or you have multiple versions of each motion floating around with some rule of precedence.