Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

p. 470 line 31 definition of "discussion" please


Guest loose

Recommended Posts

Informal rules for small board permit informal "discussion" when no motion pending. What do you mean, "discussion"? Do you mean debate or chit chat? I suppose debate erupts anywhere it likes in the midst of chit chat. That's what worries me. When things start getting heated, is that when somebody pulls the plug and makes a motion so as to tame the lions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Informal rules for small board permit informal "discussion" when no motion pending. What do you mean, "discussion"? Do you mean debate or chit chat? I suppose debate erupts anywhere it likes in the midst of chit chat. That's what worries me. When things start getting heated, is that when somebody pulls the plug and makes a motion so as to tame the lions?

Debate is not a bad thing, and does not imply heated tempers. Debate is often the more correct term for discussion, depending on the circumstances. RONR classifies motions as debatable (or not) rather than discussable (or not).

Debate is merely the attempt to convince other people to a point of view by appeal to their intellect and emotions, and is the essential element of deliberation. It is what makes the deliberative assembly deliberative.

And if the rules of decorum are enforced by a knowledgeable chair, there is no reason why anything should turn ugly or get heated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Debate is not a bad thing, and does not imply heated tempers. Debate is often the more correct term for discussion, depending on the circumstances. RONR classifies motions as debatable (or not) rather than discussable (or not).

Debate is merely the attempt to convince other people to a point of view by appeal to their intellect and emotions, and is the essential element of deliberation. It is what makes the deliberative assembly deliberative.

And if the rules of decorum are enforced by a knowledgeable chair, there is no reason why anything should turn ugly or get heated.

The words "informal discussion" on p. 470, l. 31, are meant to imply a relaxed exchange of views about a subject that is not formally before the board by means of a motion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The words "informal discussion" on p. 470, l. 31, are meant to imply a relaxed exchange of views about a subject that is not formally before the board by means of a motion.

True, but nothing that would be a breach of decorum in debate should be tolerated in these informal discussions either.

And if the atmosphere begins to become less relaxed, then so should the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I'm still just a little bit confused about what sort of conversation is permissable in a formal or informal meeting. I get the impression that members are not allowed to speak at all except in debate when a motion is pending or when making a motion or voting. But what about general topics brought up? Is a topic of conversation "business"? How about news, current events within the organization? Does this belong rightfully to the reports section of the meeting or can the agenda include non-motion stuff? And on the subject of agenda, who gets to whomp the agenda draft up? I know its non-binding unless adopted but who initiates it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still just a little bit confused about what sort of conversation is permissable in a formal or informal meeting.

S1. I get the impression that members are not allowed to speak at all except in debate when a motion is pending or when making a motion or voting.

S2. But what about general topics brought up?

S3. Is a topic of conversation "business"?

S4. How about news, current events within the organization?

S5. Does this belong rightfully to the reports section of the meeting or can the agenda include non-motion stuff?

S6. And on the subject of agenda, who gets to whomp the agenda draft up?

S7.I know its non-binding unless adopted but who initiates it?

S1. Right. A meeting is not a place to "share information" or "to inform the membership" except in the form of a report, or except in the form of an announcement (See "good of the order"). If it isn't a report, and it isn't an announcement, and isn' a motion, then it's idle chatter, gossip, a distraction, and a waste of valuable meeting time.

S2. General topics, without a motion, are not in order. You are free to suspend the rules, and discuss a topic with no motion made or no motion pending. But that is a suspension of the parliamentary rule, and isn't "normal".

You don't (a.) chat, first; (b.) make motions, later. -- It is supposed to be #b then #a.

S3. A topic of conversation probably isn't business yet. Without a motion pending, it is hard to say exactly what it is. It's gabbing and babbling, which might turn into business. Or not.

If it goes off on a tangent, then I think we all know what we've got, right?

S4. See "good of the order". See "announcements." Those things will not result in a motion begin made, and will not result in a vote being taken.

S6. and S7. = The secretary or the president, or them together, draft a memorandum. That's what The Book says. One or the other, or both in coordination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still just a little bit confused about what sort of conversation is permissable in a formal or informal meeting. I get the impression that members are not allowed to speak at all except in debate when a motion is pending or when making a motion or voting. But what about general topics brought up? Is a topic of conversation "business"? How about news, current events within the organization? Does this belong rightfully to the reports section of the meeting or can the agenda include non-motion stuff? And on the subject of agenda, who gets to whomp the agenda draft up? I know its non-binding unless adopted but who initiates it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have a chairman who runs the meetings like a coffee klatch. He presents us with an agenda which is a list of topics he wants to soliloquize about which he then does with occasional outbreaks of general hubub amidst the members. Motions are resigned to the last 10 minutes of the meeting, the "Robert's Rules" section of the meeting. The Chairman then makes all the motions he thought up during the first part of the meeting and then goes directly to a vote with no debate. How do I put it into words when I confront the chairman on the agenda, which contains no motions, just topics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some things to keep in mind:

The purpose of the small board meeting is still primarily the (orderly) transaction of business of the organization. The rules are relaxed in small boards to facilitate this without the hindrance of the more structured process of larger meetings. While members are not required to obtain the floor, and limits on speaking (twice for ten minutes) are removed, that does not suggest disorderly discourse is the order of the day. While subjects (the business of the organization) can be discussed with no motion pending, that doesn't mean the standard rules (motion, debate, vote) are tossed out the window. These relaxed rules are designed to make the meeting more efficient, not less.

If your chairman does not understand this, either through ignorance or willful disregard, then your problem is more of a societal one than anything else. If you're asking here how to convince him otherwise, I'm not sure your going to get the answer you're looking for. He seems to be a bit full of himself, judging by some of your comments.

And note that the "Robert's Rules" section of the meeting starts at the Call to Order and ends at adjournment. If he thinks otherwise, it may be time to consider replacing him.

And all this is just my soliloquizing on the topic. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do I put it into words when I confront the chairman on the agenda, which contains no motions, just topics?

I would try to convince him that doing it the right way will help the meetings run more smoothly and efficiently. Most people like the idea of going home sooner. If the chair is not cooperative, I'd start selling your arguments to the rest of the board. If you think you have enough people on your side for a 2/3 vote, tell the chair to do it the right way or else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would try to convince him that doing it the right way will help the meetings run more smoothly and efficiently. Most people like the idea of going home sooner. If the chair is not cooperative, I'd start selling your arguments to the rest of the board. If you think you have enough people on your side for a 2/3 vote, tell the chair to do it the right way or else.

Thanks for the advice, beyond the call of duty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some things to keep in mind:

The purpose of the small board meeting is still primarily the (orderly) transaction of business of the organization. The rules are relaxed in small boards to facilitate this without the hindrance of the more structured process of larger meetings. While members are not required to obtain the floor, and limits on speaking (twice for ten minutes) are removed, that does not suggest disorderly discourse is the order of the day. While subjects (the business of the organization) can be discussed with no motion pending, that doesn't mean the standard rules (motion, debate, vote) are tossed out the window. These relaxed rules are designed to make the meeting more efficient, not less.

If your chairman does not understand this, either through ignorance or willful disregard, then your problem is more of a societal one than anything else. If you're asking here how to convince him otherwise, I'm not sure your going to get the answer you're looking for. He seems to be a bit full of himself, judging by some of your comments.

And note that the "Robert's Rules" section of the meeting starts at the Call to Order and ends at adjournment. If he thinks otherwise, it may be time to consider replacing him.

And all this is just my soliloquizing on the topic. :)

Societal, right you are. Thanks very much for the concepts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Informal rules for small board permit informal "discussion" when no motion pending. What do you mean, "discussion"? Do you mean debate or chit chat? I suppose debate erupts anywhere it likes in the midst of chit chat.

Loose,

See RONR(10th ed.), p. 373, l. 10-15, which explains that DEBATE is discussion on the merits of a pending question. I'm convinced this is why p. 470 refers to "Informal discussion of a subject... while no motion is pending," since DEBATE would be impossible at such a time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loose,

See RONR(10th ed.), p. 373, l. 10-15, which explains that DEBATE is discussion on the merits of a pending question. I'm convinced this is why p. 470 refers to "Informal discussion of a subject... while no motion is pending," since DEBATE would be impossible at such a time.

I understand that DEBATE is only possible when a motion is pending. What I'm asking is whether a member may comment during a meeting on a topic (topics like "whatall happened at the fun fundraiser last weekend") found on the meeting agenda. I understand from another responder that news is not what meetings are for. Although maybe you could argue that news is helpful in forming opinions about motions to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to informal discussion of "subjects," I understand from another responder that news is not what meetings are for, really. Our chairman typically introduces a topic, like "the fundraiser last weekend" or "what to do about the City's neglect of our property," we talk about it, people give their perceptions of what went on, he said, she said - it's usually wide ranging, gossippy - and then if anyone wants to make a motion he may. I guess the danger here is in lengthy meetings, overbearing talkers and covert debate. Without a motion, you wonder what you are talking about. Do I have it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand how to delete my previous entry to you.

Guests can't delete posts (because there's no way to verify that the "loose" who posted the entry is the "loose" who wants to delete it).

But you've been here often enough to stop being a Guest. So why not register and enjoy the many benefits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to informal discussion of "subjects," I understand from another responder that news is not what meetings are for, really. Our chairman typically introduces a topic, like "the fundraiser last weekend" or "what to do about the City's neglect of our property," we talk about it, people give their perceptions of what went on, he said, she said - it's usually wide ranging, gossippy - and then if anyone wants to make a motion he may. I guess the danger here is in lengthy meetings, overbearing talkers and covert debate. Without a motion, you wonder what you are talking about. Do I have it?

Well, the Parliamentary Police aren't going to haul you away if you decide to disregard the rules and chit-chat away your meeting time. But you might run the risk of inciting members to raise Points of Order when you stray from the tried'n'true.

If you want to spend some time talking about whatall happened at the fundraiser last weekend, it might be better to have a coffee hour after the (business only) meeting, or some other informal gathering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that DEBATE is only possible when a motion is pending. What I'm asking is whether a member may comment during a meeting on a topic (topics like "whatall happened at the fun fundraiser last weekend") found on the meeting agenda. I understand from another responder that news is not what meetings are for. Although maybe you could argue that news is helpful in forming opinions about motions to come.

It is acceptable in small boards to permit some discussion when no motion is pending. The intent is to help coalesce the will of the body so that a motion may be made, or if a proposal is perfectly clear to all present, the chair may simply request unanimous consent. In small assemblies, this is sometimes a more effective strategy than using the formal procedure of perfecting a motion through amendment. Obviously, the use of this strategy should not be overused. It is intended as a supplement, not a replacement, for the traditional methods of conducting business in a deliberative assembly. It seems clear that in your board, this strategy is being overused to the extent that it is causing the opposite of the intended effect, so it sounds like it's time to rein it in a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

p. 470, line 31 - "informal discussion" permitted - by "discussion" of course he's talking about chit chat? I would think this means one person talks at a time, more or less. Do these "subjects" that people talk about informally appear on the agenda? Does the agenda list only motions or does it include topics of "discussion,"as in "conversation?" Is there any stricture on what sort of subjects you can put on the agenda? Do they have to be "business" related, as in action-oriented?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...