Protocol for Virtual Meetings

[Guest Guest]

Thank you for the responses to my question a few days ago about a chair denying an appeal to the ruling of the chair: https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/42678-denying-an-appeal-to-the-ruling-of-the-chair-or-from-the-decision-of-the-chair/#comment-250235   Several responses recommended implementing Remedies for Abuse of Authority by the Chair in a Meeting (RONR 62:2-62:9), involving the making and enforcement of Points of Order and Appeals. I intend to follow these extremely helpful suggestions. However, such moves face challenges under the conditions imposed in our organization during virtual meetings (and far too many of our meetings are on Zoom), so I am opening a new topic to address this issue.

During our organization’s meetings, nearly all participants are muted by default, though that practice is not mandated by our standing rules. The only people who can unmute themselves are the organization's officers, staff and a few other selected individuals. Otherwise, one must be recognized to speak before they can be unmuted. The same selected few who can unmute themselves are also the only ones who can post comments in the chat, though the standing rules do not mandate a closed chat. The standing rules do limit the chat to identifying oneself to be recognized to speak, but the practice prevents the vast majority of members from seeing who has raised a motion or asked to speak during debate. All requests to speak must be submitted in the private chat to a designated officer who then communicates it to the chair. Nobody else can see that a member is making a motion, unless one holds up to their computer's camera a sign stating "Appeal" or "Point of Order."

As far as I know, points of order and appeals have, so far, been communicated to the chair and then announced, but it's an extremely cumbersome process. If we need to intensify our efforts to remedy the chair's abuse of authority, I'm not confident that these motions will all be recognized or even seen/heard by others in the meeting. Many other members agree with me that the forcible muting and closed chat constrict democratic participation, but they are afraid that making a motion to change the current practice will precipitate an acrimonious debate on Zoom that will ultimately discourage attendance by many who don't understand why these issues are important.  Thoughts?

[Joshua Katz]

To my mind, these rules are not acceptable, as they do not allow for a functional assembly. There are several motions that may be made, for instance, without recognition.

Let's start here - where did these rules come from? What body adopted them, and as part of what document?

[Guest Guest]

The same body of our organization (called our Representative Council) that is operating under this practice adopted its own standing rules. But these practices are not mandated by those standing rules. The standing rules say nothing about keeping all members muted. Regarding the chat, the standing rules say: 

• The chat feature shall only be to identify yourself as a speaker on an item or as an accommodation for not having the ability to use the microphone during the debate."

• "The chair shall identify pro, con, and question speakers through the chat feature."

• "Amendments from the floor once seconded shall be sent to the Secretary using the Private Chat feature by the maker." (Note this provision does not require members to use the Private Chat to initially move an amendment.)

 

[Joshua Katz]

Then I would raise a point of order and point out that the meeting is not being conducted according to the procedure in your rules.

Backing up a bit more, do the bylaws authorize meetings of this sort? And do they say anything about their conduct?

[Guest Guest]

The bylaws don't say anything about virtual meetings.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 10/27/2023 at 7:14 PM, Guest Guest said:

The bylaws don't say anything about virtual meetings.

Then virtual meetings do not occur.  See [RONR (12th ed.)]:

9:30
Extension of Parliamentary Law to Electronic Meetings.
Except as authorized in the bylaws, the business of an
organization or board can be validly transacted only at a
regular or properly called meeting—that is, as defined in 8:2(1),
a single official gathering in one room or area—of the assembly
of its members at which a quorum is present.  <emphasis in original>

Edited October 30, 2023 at 07:55 PM by Gary Novosielski