transparency

[Greg]

OK you parliamentary guru's out there, based on your experience and knowledge,

how would you use Roberts Rules to promote accountability and transparency in a Union.

Greg

[Chris Harrison]

OK you parliamentary guru's out there, based on your experience and knowledge,

how would you use Roberts Rules to promote accountability and transparency in a Union.

Greg

One way is to amend the bylaws (and other governing documents) to make all parts of meetings of the Board (and any other subordinate body of the Union) open to Union members whether or not they are members of the body in question. Also the bylaws can be amended to require Roll Call votes on all but the most minor of motions. That way the Union members will know what is being done in the Union's name on all levels and will know who voted which way. Of course you might have problems getting people to agree to such amendments and the rules of a body which the Union is subordinate to may prohibit such measures.

[Gary c Tesser]

Greg, consider that the question itself may be flawed. Parliamentary procedure (done right) is about getting things done, fairly and efficiently. Not about what those things are. There's the procedure, which we discuss on this website (okay, also crocodiles ... um, maybe that's just me) - and the substantive matters that you then apply the procedures to.

Accountability and transparency in a union are matters of substance, not procedure. You use procedure to get done what you want to get done. Procedure is neutral, dispassionate, and amoral in this sense. Though bear in mind that the heart of Robert's Rules is the last four words on p. 288.

(Holy cow, I got a citation for this rant!)

[Edited for something]

[Kim Goldsworthy]

OK you parliamentary guru's out there, based on your experience and knowledge,

how would you use Roberts Rules to promote accountability and transparency in a Union.

You wouldn't.

Wrong tool for the job.

Parliamentary procedure is for in-meeting usage only.

"Transparency" and "accountability" is something done outside a meeting.

It is management.

It is philosophy.

It is planning.

It is structure.

It is data.

It is written reports.

It is review plus oversight.

You can "order" all this stuff by adopting motions so.

But there is a vast, vast difference between (a.) ordering it; (b.) seeing that order through to obedience and compliance.

Obedience and compliance is done outside of a meeting.

All the fulfillment happens outside of a meeting.

Example:

• Were the accounting books audited BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING?

• Was the bank statement reconciled BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING?

• Were 100% of the receipts collected and entered into the chart of accounts BEFORE THE MEETING?

Etc.

All you can "do" at a meeting is see/hear, "yes" or "no", that orders/reports/purchases/reimbursements were completed, correctly, in a timely manner.

Enforcement is up to YOU, the membership.

It isn't up to General Henry M. Robert. He only supplied the parliamentary procedure.

[hmtcastle]

Accountability and transparency in a union are matters of substance, not procedure.

Quite the contrary. Procedures (e.g. checks and balances) can be established to ensure accountability and transparency regardless of the substance of the matter in question.