Announcements Rather Than Motions?

[hoagluk]

I'm an officer of a small Toastmasters club, which gathers about 15 people for a typical meeting. We have a short business meeting as part of our weekly program. We don't have much "business" to conduct at these meetings. Most of the meeting consists of members making announcements (e.g. reminding the group about an upcoming event, or asking that members do such and such by a certain date). However the meetings quickly devolve into disorganized messes, as member2 comments on what member1 just announced, which prompts member3 to share a great idea related to what member2 just said, etc. Fifteen minutes later everyone is ready to crawl for the doors.

How should we handle this? The motion+debate+vote paradigm doesn't really seem to fit our situation, but we need something!

How about creating standing rules to allow "announcement speeches" in place of main motions? Instead of a second, debate and vote, these could be followed by discussion that would be limited to two responses per member, with every member being allowed to speak once before a member may speak a second time.

Thanks in advance for your great advice.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Most of the meeting consists of members making announcements (e.g. reminding the group about an upcoming event, or asking that members do such and such by a certain date).

However the meetings quickly devolve into disorganized messes, as member2 comments on what member1 just announced, which prompts member3 to share a great idea related to what member2 just said, etc.

Fifteen minutes later everyone is ready to crawl for the doors.

How should we handle this?

What do you WANT to happen? The real solution is up to you, collectively.

Is the key factor QUANTITY of QUALITY? Is the key factor TIME or ORDERLINESS?

What do you want to KEEP? What do you want to ELIMINATE?

For example:

• Begin this "announcement" phase 15 minutes earlier than normal.

• Have a "one person gives one announcement, maximum" rule.

• Have a "30 second time limit for speaking during announcements" rule.

• Create the position of "Announcer" and have the Announcer collect 100% of the announcements before the meeting begins; Allow no announcements except those announcements which the Announcer has collected (and EDITED). No cross talk allowed during announcements.

There are a zillion ways to handle it.

The only question is, "What solution do you like the BEST?"

[Robert B Fish]

It seems to me that your meeting is missing order because you are allowing the "announcements" to break down into "every one talking at once."

There is nothing wrong with the chairman calling the meeting to order and calling on the officers one at a time to make their reports. If a motion develops from the report, you could handle that motion in the normal way. See also Official Interpretation 2007-01..

However, as chairman yu must maintain order and decorum. If others begin interrupting the one to whom you have assigned the floor, you must correct them. A slight rap of the gavel or a declaration "one meeting" or "Mr. Jones has the floor" will probably handle it.

Since this disorder is the norm for your meeting, I expect it will take some time to get back to par but the effort will be appreciated.

-Bob

[Josh Martin]

How about creating standing rules to allow "announcement speeches" in place of main motions? Instead of a second, debate and vote, these could be followed by discussion that would be limited to two responses per member, with every member being allowed to speak once before a member may speak a second time.

It would be a special rule of order, not a standing rule, but the assembly may adopt such rules if it wishes to. It would require a 2/3 vote with previous notice, or a vote of a majority of the entire membership.

There is nothing wrong with the chairman calling the meeting to order and calling on the officers one at a time to make their reports.

I'm not certain that the announcements the poster speaks of are limited to officers.

[Tim Wynn]

Karl,

Here's some advice. Don't make any special rules of order. Take care of the business right up front, then adjourn the meeting and move on to discussion of whatever. This way, you get the business out of the way, so members who aren't interested in the chatter don't have to crawl but can run to the doors.

You'll want the motion+debate+vote system in place for any business that comes up.

[Josh Martin]

Here's some advice. Don't make any special rules of order. Take care of the business right up front, then adjourn the meeting and move on to discussion of whatever. This way, you get the business out of the way, so members who aren't interested in the chatter don't have to crawl but can run to the doors.

Well, I suppose that works unless any of these announcements are actually important.

[hoagluk]

Thanks to all for the great advice. I'm going to apply it. I think I will take the advice to avoid the special rule. I think that all that needs to happen is that the group be trained in what the proper procedure is, coupled with strenuous raising of Points of Order at the beginning until it sinks in. (I'm not the president, so I can't call for order directly.)

I like the idea of putting the business up front with the motion+debate+vote format, and then having announcements later. I found something in RONR that could be very helpful with that: an optional Open Forum session, as described on pp. 350-51. Adjourning and then having informal discussion might work even better.

Thanks again for your thoughtful replies.

Karl

[Weldon Merritt]

I'm not the president, so I can't call for order directly

Sure you can, by raising a Point of Order. You do not have to be recognized first, and if is important enough (and it usually is), you can legitimately interupt a speaker to do it. See RONR PP. 240-247 for details.