An Interpretation of the March 2 General Meeting and a Response to Members' Letters

Sumitted by Yvonne Sabraw

The letters written after the March 2nd meeting deserve a response. An apology, for sure, from one of the people who was perceived as dominating the meeting and clearly upsetting many people. Last year, when we headed into the June 7th meeting, Richard quoted me in his opening statement to the meeting. It was a piece of a letter I had intended to send to the whole membership regarding what I feared was about to happen at that particular meeting, and asking newer members who might not be familiar with co-op practices to be aware that this was going to be an unusual meeting. Perhaps I should have prepared some kind of preamble for the March 2nd one as well.

What would it have said? What follows here is a mix of what could have been a preamble and my interpretation of the March 2nd meeting.

Preamble:

That people should know that they were going into a meeting that had no motions, and therefore, following Robert’s Rules, unless they asked for it, there would be no forum for discussion. Reports would be submitted, and it is standard to simply note that these were received, only discussing them if there is a recommendation that requires a motion that comes out of them.

That whether they agreed with Richard’s essay’s conclusion or not, they might want to take exception to any single member in our co-op stating that they have just given the final word on how our community documents its meetings. We could all appreciate the work that Richard put into this effort. And thank him for it. It is valuable to bring this research and thought to the discussion. Nevertheless , no one person has that special position or power in our co-op and we should not set such a precedent. Which is why I asked him to make a motion that the membership accept his proposal and this would give us all a voice. And if we agreed with him, the conclusions would be our membership’s word, not just Richard’s.

If there were argument on this, I would have had to go a bit further and say I was disappointed to read assertions in Richard’s essay that “almost a year of discussion” had taken place on minutes. It is a perennial discussion. But besides the challenges over the documentation of the June 7th meeting, there hasn’t actually been a forum for ANY community discussion. I would have welcomed that forum - as an opportunity to educate ourselves and as a chance for every member to think hard about what works for us.

That I hoped somebody other than me would point out that our Board had gone directly against co-op policy when it had failed to promptly provide minutes of our meetings to the membership. That even Robert’s Rules makes a statement about minutes having to be presented in a timely manner. There was no justification for holding back the minutes of P&D general meetings from Sept and December. Or the special meeting requested by Grounds on July 28 for that matter.

I wish someone had raised their hand and asked what a “Consent agenda” is. And why no one has ever presented a consent agenda at a meeting this way before. And what was the purpose this time around.

I wish someone else had pointed out the errors in the minutes that were being presented. Members at the meeting should know that in these minutes there were items contrary to what we had just said we wanted from our minutes. Truly, folks, I waited for others to speak on this. No one raised these points. Our July 28 minutes would have passed with an obvious error if we’d all just raised our hands and said “aye” for the consent agenda.

That a “committee of the whole” is more or less what we do every year when we discuss the proposed budget - for members to make recommendations before it comes back to another meeting for a vote. But there are no examples on the internet of a “Committee of the Whole” being the title of the facilitated/mediated group therapy session like the one we had on June 7th.

And - after reading the letters in the special edition, I want to thank people who commented on how we use Robert’s Rules. You have confirmed that we do still need dialogue and thought in this.

Okay - fun part of my letter:

True or false: a member who was not at the meeting for which minutes are being read and approved can not vote to approve them (actually - this is False! You don’t have to have been at a meeting to approve the minutes... this is apparently a common fallacy!)

True or false - the names of the person making the motion and the person seconding it should be recorded in the minutes? (Also false! The person making the motion can be named, the seconder should not. There should be no assumption that the seconder supports the motion - only that they believe it has merit in being discussed!)

A final word. I’m glad that the newsletter might now be a forum for discussion.

Finding a Path Forward Through Conflict

Submitted by David Broadhead

Dear neighbours,

In response to Phil’s note about the investigation that the Board reported on recently, I tapped out a few thoughts. This note is meant to engage ideas and push pull and tug at them. Let’s see where they land.

I can’t know where the investigation started and stopped. It was confidential and needs to stay that way. That honours the folks who contributed, believing in that confidentiality.

Let me quote a chunk here:

“Where we have difficult interactions across the membership that are traceable to personal styles and convictions and not malicious intent…,”

In this statement I find assertions that lack support. They need to be filled out. Are these conclusions of the investigation or the judgement of a member or members?

If these are conclusions from the investigation, they can’t be discussed. There is necessary context that members cannot know. Conclusions like these would be a stab in the dark.

Should these judgements be the opinion of a member or members, where does that take us? Most of us have strong feelings about inter-family conflict. Much of the time we don’t understand the full story. With respect, the stabbing here is in the same darkness.

And thus the next question – are we equipped to deal with tough conflict in our community?

I experienced difficult conflict last year, in fact I know I contributed to the conflict. At times I turned the heat up rather than dowsing the flame. However we describe that time, it did not feel like “personal styles and preferences”. I can’t know if others were acting out of “malicious intent”. Hopefully malicious intent was absent from all of our words.

What’s the point? It’s this – we can’t go back and redo or undo the investigation. Nor can we journey rearward and do a better job of handling old conflict with our neighbours. This is a one way street.

Many of us think that we were unprepared for community life over the past couple of years. The careful writing and lots of it on this page shows that. Members speaking. There are strong, deliberated ideas here. Hear the calls for us all to be better.

Let’s all contribute to the questions about Continuity Planning. We are hungry for courage and compassion. The whole is wiser than any one or group of us.

I have to work Roberts Rules in somehow. Here is my attempt:

I am a fan. That is, I am a fan of any operating policy that helps the shyest among us find equality with the brashest. That making way for others is a beautiful thing. Without waiting for survey results or construction grants, I can do exactly that now.

The question of what to do about past pain is too much for this note. People hurt, the community must acknowledge it in some way. We need wisdom and big soft hearts.

When I arrived at Sunnyhill I soon heard about Vision 2020. Didn’t know much about it, but it was the first time I associated Phil with anything. Since then he has constantly looked to the future and at times I get to work with him. Let’s keep our future in focus and head that way together.

To Follow up on the March 2 Meeting in Preparation for the Meeting March 14

Submitted by Richard Harrison on behalf of the Board

Dear Members of the Co-op, 

Thank you to all who’ve written for the recent Special Edition of the Sunnyhill Voice, and thank you, too, those of you who’ve spoken or written to me personally since March 2. And thank you to the Board, who had an intense and lengthy conversation in its March 10 meeting to analyze the one on March 2 and craft a response to it. Thank all of you for your comments, and more, for your faith in Sunnyhill and our ability to deal with our current issues in such a way that we not only maintain but enhance our co-operative identity. 

It’s clear that we don’t want what happened in March 2’s meeting to happen again. It is clear, too, that the method to make sure of it isn’t just Robert’s Rules, it’s the will to support and apply them for the good of the whole. I’ve been in this situation before, where a meeting completes its agenda, but misplaces its spirit, the fellowship that makes it the meeting of a community. Over and over, I hear that we can no longer allow individuals to turn the common purpose of the meeting to their own agendas – and do so without appropriate respect for their fellow members of the Co-op. 

It’s widely accepted that each of us ought to have freedom, and at the same time, that the freedom we each have is limited by the freedom of others. But how that almost universally accepted principle works in practice is a political problem that requires constant thought. I think the Co-op itself is a metaphor for the answer: our homes are our own, but our walls belong to each other. 

This is the difference between Co-op living and private ownership. In a stand-alone house, your walls are your own; you can enjoy your home by playing your music louder than you can when you share a wall with someone else. You can raise your voice along with the music. You can tend your garden, or not, as you see fit, without regard to the weeds you might spread to your neighbors. You can put up pictures in the middle of the night. You can let your place fall to ruin. You can refuse to volunteer time or money … you get the idea. In a Co-op all of those individual exercises of freedom are limited by the walls you share with others, giving you your own space, but holding up both your houses. Living in a Co-op means to willingly contract to give up the liberties and privileges that private ownership permits. 

In return, we get community. We all know 10 or 20 or 60 of our neighbors. We share food and games and clean up duties in the common area and a financial future and the making of decisions. I love that. And while many of us might have come here at first attracted by the affordable housing charge and the view and the cedar ceilings, the ones who’ve stayed, I believe, stay here because the kind of love that’s found in a fellowship worth giving up stuff for. 

In meetings, Robert’s Rules are our shared walls. The complete book of them is 716 pages long. It has been in print, revised and reissued since 1876. Its 11th Edition is the result of 130 years of study of the way collective decision-making can best be facilitated as times and technology change what we expect of each other. I’ve acted as Chair in various organizations for decades., and I know I’ve made mistakes with the rules, and I’ve learned that sometimes, in interpreting them within the boundaries that they themselves allow, I have erred on the side of letting unproductive things go too long. I’m sensitive to the accusation that that the chair can become dictatorial. We are all sensitive to the accusation that we aren’t offering respect or are limiting someone else’s freedom of expression – those two are two of the great sins of our age – but certain latitude with the rules here has led to alienation and disrespect. So for a while at least, listening to the voices I’ve heard rise to a chorus over the past few days, as Chair I am going to use Robert’s Rules in the strict sense. 

So here is a quick guide to Robert’s Rules:

1. The Philosophy of Robert’s Rules

2. The Mechanics of Robert’s Rules

3. Robert’s Rules and the Agenda

4. Robert’s Rules, Civility, and the Mood of the Room

5. Robert’s Rules and Reading into the Minutes 

6. Robert’s Rules and the Chat Function 

---

1. The Philosophy of Robert's Rules        

A: Robert's Rules are rules in favour of the shyest person in the room. 

Robert’s Rules is a system of discussion that gives everyone their turn and no more than their turn. It appoints a chair trusted by the group to make decisions according to the rules but who also acts in accord with the group as a whole 

B: Robert's Rules recognize that there are two kinds of votes. 

Robert’s holds to the idea that some decisions require more "buy-in" than others. In some cases, a simple majority (half those who vote plus one) is enough to assure the group that the decision in question is supported enough to warrant their support. Things for us like whether we support the Rooftops initiative or what the Housing Charge will be are such decisions. In meetings, these proposals for action are debated under Ordinary Resolutions.

But there are matters -- like bylaws and constitutions -- that do effects on the way things are done that can outlast the participatory lives of the people who make decisions about them. For those decisions, Robert's argues, those motions express Special Resolutions which require a 2/3 majority vote.

C: Robert's Rules are only rules. 

They're not laws, and they don't try to be. Admittedly, any group has its moments where the will of the majority, either expressly by vote or by extension through people voted into positions of authority, is imposed on everyone. In democratic institutions, there are protections against abuse of power, but such protections often take time to work. 

But Robert's Rules are constantly in front of us while we are in a meeting. In a sense, they are the procedures for free decision-making, which, to my mind, is decision-making that can explain itself. They do allow for variations on themselves with consent of the meeting -- things like allowing the maker of a motion to answer a question during the discussion, or the raising of "Points of Information" and "Points of Order" that both break the flow of a discussion when they are invoked and reconnect when they're done. 

It should be noted that Robert’s does allow a group to tailor things to their own needs, so even a consistent reference to Robert’s Rules will produce different results depending on how strictly or loosely the community chooses to use them. 

2. The Mechanics of Robert’s Rules 

Under Robert’s Rules, discussion is guided by a Resolution, which is expressed as a Motion. A motion is a statement about what the group should do. It is made by a member in the form of “I move that …..” . Once it is made, it needs to be seconded by another member in order to be discussed. If no one seconds a motion, it is dropped. 

For seconded motions, the order of the discussion is this: The person making the motion speaks in favour of it. 

Then the Chair opens the discussion to the members who signal their intention to speak. The Chair calls on each in turn. Each speaker can speak only once until the speaker’s list is finished; only then can someone who has spoken speak again. Each speaker must speak only about the resolution under debate. The Chair’s responsibility is to make sure that happens. No speaker can speak longer than 5 minutes/time they get to speak.

When the speakers have finished, the maker of the motion gets a chance to reply if they wish to. 

Then a vote is called. Motions for Ordinary Resolutions require a simple majority vote to pass; for Special Resolutions it is a 2/3 majority.

Everything in Robert’s Rules stems from this core. It’s orderly, and if followed, efficient. 

That said, there are variations on this theme that can complicate it and, if not checked, derail it and the meeting.

During debate, members can Move to Amend a motion. The motion they are proposing to amend is then known as the Main Motion. The amendment they make (if it is seconded), is considered a Subsidiary Motion and debated and voted on. If successful, it changes the wording of the main motion, if not, the main motion is unchanged. 

There are several other motions that can also be made once a main motion is under discussion (or, as Robert’s calls it “on the table”).  These are called Incidental Motions. The most-often used of these is Point of Order through which a member can raise a matter of procedure during a debate. The member can raise this point at any time during the discussion. However, the point of order must actually be a point about rules and procedure. Members cannot use it to add information or make arguments about the content of a motion or presentation under consideration. 

The other is a Point of Information. Like the Point of Order, this can be raised any time during a discussion, but can only be used to request information the member making the request sees as knowledge essential to the discussion at hand. 

When the debate about a motion is finished, the Chair, or a member can Call the Question. This is the call to vote on the motion.  

These are the most commonly used subsidiary and incidental motions. You can go through a whole meeting without needing much more than these. The rest are fine points of procedure, and the Chair will do their best, in future meetings – and in future writing on the subject – to familiarize the membership with these. 

3. Robert’s Rules and the Agenda 

We’ve had some recent difficulties with the agenda that need addressing. The Agenda is a proposal. The Chair puts it forward for the membership to approve the content and order of the items to be discussed. 

Since it is a proposal, the membership can modify it at the beginning of the meeting. However, it should be noted that every such modification, should, strictly speaking, require a vote by the membership in favour of including it before it is added. Likewise with items suggested for removal. Addition of items to the agenda may be spoken to by the member proposing them, but they are not debatable since debating them would automatically be putting them on the agenda. 

4. Robert’s Rules, Civility, and the Mood of the Room 

One of the reasons Robert’s Rules become loosely applied is that the Rules themselves acknowledge that people get used to each other, and that it is possible to read a room. So often things that technically require votes, usually procedural things, are dealt with without the cumbersome making of motions and voting on them. For the near future, in order to preserve the decorum of the meeting from the outset, the Chair will go by the book on all such matters. 

Robert’s also assumes that, once accepting of the rules, people will not speak over one another or break the decorum of the discussion. However, as noted below in the section on The Philosophy of Robert’s Rules, the Rules, from Henry Robert’s first writing of them in 1876 on, knows that it is those who can be shouted down who most need protecting by them. 

So the Chair has certain responsibilities to maintain order and a dialogue of respect. If a member speaks more than their time, uses language outside the bounds of parliamentary respect, becomes antagonistic towards another member, or behave in a way that disrupts the meeting, the Chair can cite that member as Out of Order and ask them to desist. If the Chair names the member, the naming of the member and the reason for it is recorded in the minutes; likewise if an apology is offered, and if a withdrawable remark withdrawn. 

Also, if the Chair does not reprimand a member behaving in such a manner by name, another member can ask for that member to be called out of order. 

If the behaviour persists, the Chair alone does not have the authority to reprimand a member further. That lies with the members at the meeting. The Chair can ask that a member move that the offending member be censured. Such a censure may be a demand for an apology or removal from the meeting. The motion to censure is not debatable, and it can be passed by a majority, voting, given the sensitivity of the case, by ballot. Those who have pointed out in their articles in the Newsletter are in line with and find support in this aspect of Robert’s Rules: the decorum of the meeting the responsibility of the meeting itself. 

5. Robert’s Rules and Reading into the Minutes 

Until these past issues with minutes, it’s been customary here for the Chair and recording secretary to add to the minutes anything a member requests be added. However, this, too, is a loose interpretation of Robert’s on the matter. 

According to a strict interpretation of the rules, which will be followed for the next while at least, only additions to the minutes requested by a member and voted by the membership to be accepted as additions to the minutes will be included. 

6. Robert’s Rules and the Chat Function 

Remember when passing notes in class got you in trouble? Now it’s not only allowed, Chat encourages it. We’re still getting into trouble, only this time it’s the notes themselves that often cause the grief. There is no specific mention of Chat in the 11th Edition of Robert’s Rules, but online updates to Robert’s extend the Rules’ warnings against sidebar conversations within meetings. They divide the attention of the room, and with Chat, they can set up their own parallel, un-chaired and un-minuted meeting within the meeting. 

As long as Chat remains incidental, and private between members as they share information about matters at hand, it can be useful. However, in the case where a Chat thread becomes diversionary or its language unparliamentary, it will need to be restrained. The Chair of the meeting cannot consistently follow two meetings at once. It will be up to members to monitor Chat, and if it becomes a detriment to the meeting, to draw the Chair’s attention to it. The Chair can call members to order and return to the main meeting, or, if the membership finds that the Chat is harming the decorum or purpose of the meeting, it can be disabled for a period of time. 

Letter from Member Regarding the General Meeting, March 2

Submitted by Sherry Kozak

The most recent SHC meeting was monopolized by a few members who were discussing items not on the agenda. In order to avoid this in the future, I suggest we return to a stricter use of Roberts Rules which we have used in the past.

1. The person making a motion may speak to explain the motion, then members can ask questions relevant to that item when recognized by the chair and may speak for a maximum of 5 minutes each. They may not address the issue twice. The mover of the motion may summarize the motion prior to the vote.

2. Due to lack of familiarity with Robert’s Rules, all meetings should be conducted with the basic Robert’s Rules (how to make a motion, second a motion, amend a motion, etc) but should not allow use of Point of Order, Point of Procedure, etc as these have been used improperly by members to interrupt proceedings and expound on other matters.

3. The summary pages of Robert’s Rules should be redistributed on paper to each unit as well as posted on the website.

Open Letter to the Board and Membership

Submitted by Eric Moschopedis

Dear Board and fellow Members,

I want to thank the Board for all of  it’s diligence, kindness, and thoughtfulness over the last many months. I believe that the work you have done will lay the foundation for some positive change in the future. So thank you. You deserve and have earned my trust and respect—and in my opinion, that of the Membership. 

The March 2nd meeting left me, and others who have reached out, feeling sad, bruised, and disappointed. Having the meeting dominated by personal, as opposed to collaborative agendas, wasn’t productive or fair to the rest of the membership. We are a community with a multiplicity of voices, but to be healthy we need to hear them. This means creating safe, fair, and equitable spaces for exchange. Roberts Rules provides a framework for engagement, but it cannot demand respect and kindness, only we, the Membership can. 

I am happy that the Membership was able to come together to pass the motion regarding minutes and that the report about the investigation was presented. But I don’t think that we—the Membership—can ignore what happened at the meeting or we will see this behaviour repeated. As a Membership we need to firmly state that “enough is enough” and not put all of the onus on the Board to curb inappropriate behaviour.

A tremendous amount of time, hard work, and money has been dedicated to the physical infrastructure at Sunnyhill, but without proper intervention (think acupuncture) into the body politic of Sunnyhill, we risk an unhealthy community. Sunnyhill is a courageous idea populated by individuals, but only through kindness, generosity, and honest dialogue can we be a heterogeneous community.

The Board and the Membership have created momentum to affect change. I encourage us to use this momentum to create the conditions for healing and the space to be imaginative about who we want to be. 

Much respect,

Eric

The Principles and Practice of Being Cooperative

Submitted by Rachel Rose

An invitation to Sunnyhill, 

I have been reflecting on what it means to be cooperative and would like to share my thoughts... 

We often speak about “being cooperative” but in my time here I have seen many behaviours we assume are cooperative despite being in contradiction to one another. 

It seems at times that there is an assumption that since we are part of a co-op that we must be behaving cooperatively, but I don’t believe that’s the case. I think being cooperative is an intentional act that needs to be practiced time and time again. It’s not an arrival but rather an ongoing activity. We can’t declare that we are being cooperative, cooperation needs to be driven by shared ethics and values. 

We rely on our policies, Robert’s Rules, as well as norms to govern how we operate, but in many ways these are incomplete. These are merely tools and it’s the ethic and spirit in which they are utilized that can become cooperative or uncooperative. 

I have been wondering, what are the principles of cooperative behaviour? What does this look like in practice? What behaviours undermine cooperation? 

Over the last year I have observed instances of behaviours that I perceive to be uncooperative including: 

• Making assumptions

• Starting dialogue with accusations and adversarial tones.

• Refusing to communicate or shutting down

• Seeking to be right rather than to be heard

• A refusal to take perspectives

I have also seen behaviours that I believe to be cooperative including: 

• Asking questions with curiosity

• Listening

• Turn taking

• Showing appreciation

• Starting with goodwill

• Trusting in the good faith of others to function on our behalf

In my opinion Sunnyhill is at a pivotal juncture whereby we need to begin to further deliberate what it actually means to be cooperative and hold ourselves accountable to this or we risk division, harm, and fracture. My fear is if we don’t do this, uncooperative behaviours will further silence and marginalize members who we so deeply need engaged. Without this our meetings will be empty and we will find ourselves further apart and falling into disrepair.

I am sincerely interested in exploring the ethics and values of how we cooperate and would love to engage in dialogue and learn about what this means to you in efforts of starting to craft a shared vision. 

All my best, 

Rachel 

#807

Robert's Rules on Basic Motions

Submitted by Andrea Bergen

ROBERT’S RULES ON BASIC MOTIONS

Even though it’s the nature of meetings to have more said than done, Robert’s Rules helps keep things on track by requiring that no discussion be undertaken until somebody proposes an idea for action. It’s through motions that everything your group ever accomplishes gets its start. The length of time you discuss something and the ultimate decision your group makes are both based on your members’ use and understanding of the nature of the different types of motions, their relationships to each other, and how the different motions are best used as your tools for effective decision-making.

REMEMBER:

Until a motion is made, seconded, and stated by the chair, no discussion is in order. This rule of “motion before discussion” saves valuable meeting time. When you start off with a definite proposal — “I move that . . .” — your group discusses the motion’s merits and all the details necessary to make a decision. And during the discussion, you and the other members are free to alter your motion as much as necessary before reaching the final decision. This process is much more productive than just starting off jabbering about some vague idea hoping to work it out as you go, and then getting around to making a motion summarizing what you think you may have just proposed.

• A main motion introduces a new subject for discussion and action. A main motion says: Let’s do this about that. The main motion is the starting point on the way to making a group decision.

• Secondary motions offer different approaches to consider in the discussion of the main motion. A secondary motion says: Let’s do that this way. Secondary motions fall into one of the three classes:

  • Subsidiary motions apply directly to a pending main motion (or pending secondary motion) and help the group arrive at a final decision on the main motion. A subsidiary motion says: Let’s do this along with the main motion.

For example, the motion to Refer the main motion to a committee. You use it when you don’t want to spend all night talking about something that could be done at another time by people who are interested in working out the details.

• Privileged motions deal with things relating to the comfort of the assembly or other situations so important they may interrupt pending business and must be decided immediately by the chair or by the members without debate. A privileged motion says: Let’s do this even though there is a pending main motion.

• Incidental motions are motions that generally deal with procedures and help process other motions. An incidental motion says: Let’s do this to better handle the pending motion. You use incidental motions to help the group go about conducting its business in meetings.

• A restorative motion seeks to put things back to where they were. A restorative motion says: Let’s undo this and maybe do that instead.

Reference: Robert’s Rules for Dummies

On Robert's Rules: Chapter 4 / Sometimes the Way to Move Forward is to Stop: Tabling, Postponing, or Withdrawing Motions.

Submitted by Richard Harrison

Sometimes during a discussion, it becomes pretty clear that no decision that everyone can live with is going to be made, even if it does get to a vote. There are several things that can be done at that point, and depending on how the meeting got there, the facilitator or a member from the floor can suggest which one to go with.

Remembering that a failed motion can only be revisited under special circumstances (see the section "The Passed is the Past ... Unless"), no one who makes a motion wants to see it defeated if it was presented without all the arguments in its favour made or the arguments against it answered. And no one wants to defeat a motion on incomplete evidence.

So if all a discussion about a motion needs is more time or information before the decision about it is fully informed, that motion can be either Tabled or Postponed at the will of the meeting. These two actions have the same result in the short-term: discussion about the motion stops. In the longer term, they are different.

Tabling a motion sends it off the agenda for an indefinite period of time -- maybe forever. But a tabled motion (Or, in Robert's actual words, "a motion laid on the table"), can be returned to discussion at any time in the meeting in which it was tabled -- again, at the will of the meeting. It's a kind of suspended animation with no fixed return-to-life hour within the meeting. However, the motion must be taken off the table in the next meeting, or it vanishes.

To table a motion, a motion to table needs to be made, seconded, and passed without debate with the simple majority of 50% plus one. There is one side-note here, and Robert’s Rules takes quite a bit of time with it: tabling is meant to help a group organize a discussion; it shouldn’t be used to cut off debate or consideration of a question. In such a case, the facilitator is tasked with calling the motion out of order.

Postponing a motion is putting it into suspended animation with a fixed time for its return. So a motion to postpone has to include a date or time for the discussion to resume -- even if that discussion is only to further postpone the motion to another time in the future. It requires a mover, seconder and, under normal conditions, after a debate on the merits of postponing, a simple majority vote. (In some cases, a motion needs postponing because it has become too large an issue to be discussed in the time allowed. In that case someone might move to postpone the motion and treat it at the next meeting as special motion – something to devote more than half the meeting to. And in that case, the vote required is 2/3.)

Sometimes it's clear that a motion doesn't have the support of the meeting or some argument against it is so persuasive that even the person who made it no longer believes it's right. I think it's possible to argue that that is discussion demonstrating its best properties. In such cases, out of respect for the meeting's time and thought, the maker of the motion might want to withdraw it from discussion. With the consent of the seconder of the motion, the motion is withdrawn, discussion on it ends, and the meeting can move on to other matters.

I've seen all three exit points for a discussion used in meetings, and each of them saves the meeting from discussions that are no longer grounded in the motion itself or could have led to those sorts of debates where everyone, even their winners, loses the goodwill of the meeting or the group.

On Robert’s Rules, Chapter 3: The Philosophy of Robert's Rules

I get asked a lot why I know these rules as well as I do -- or more importantly, why I like and believe in them. The historical answer is that they work to keep discussions on track and on time. They and their variations, adapted for the special needs of organizations such as Parliament, try to ensure that all people get a chance to speak; they work against the tendency of unregulated meetings to become places where the loudest voices carry the day. No set of Rules of Order will create decisions that everyone agrees with, but in my experience so far, Robert's Rules does go a long way to helping a group come to a decision that everyone can live with even if it’s one they didn't support.

These outcomes are the result of certain qualities in Robert's Rules that, once you get a feel for them, can make understanding them -- and predicting the decisions that they will guide you to -- easier. I'm not sure that I'm completely aware of what those qualities are, but after practicing Robert’s Rules for over thirty years, here's what I think they are.

One: Robert's Rules are rules in favour of the shyest person in the room. I don't know what kind of a person Major, later General Robert was, but he made it far in the US Army in the late 1800s – soon after the Civil War -- so I'd expect he was pretty clear, forthright, and demanding in his decision making. I expect he expected to be obeyed and for most of his active military life, he was.

It was his church group that gave him pause. Not being organized along military lines, their meetings frustrated him. I like that story, and I like imagining a group of men and women without rank stopping an army officer in his tracks. But I like to think, too, that Robert’s frustration points to something about the nature of his church community: everyone in it was equal before their God. So the question is, how should equals decide on a direction?

Robert was a student of the procedures used in Congress, and that provided him with the answer in a system of discussion that gives everyone their turn and no more than their turn. It appoints a temporary leader (we would say "facilitator", Robert's Rules now uses the word "chair") trusted by the group to make decisions according to the rules but whose power is also checked by the group as a whole (I'll talk about that in my section on "Loopholes and Challenges"), and right from the get-go, the first motion, a seconder is required; so anyone seeking to guide the direction of the group already has one person in it who’ll stand with them in that suggestion.

Two: Robert's Rules recognize that there are two kinds of votes. Again, I'll speak to this in detail later, but Robert realized that some decisions require more of what we would now call "buy-in" than others. In some cases, a simple majority (half those who vote plus one) is enough to assure the group that the decision in question is supported enough to warrant their support and not so impactful that it breaks the group up, or unreasonably binds the hands of those who follow. Things for us like whether we support the Rooftops initiative or what the Housing Charge will be are such decisions. Not that they're not important; clearly they are, and we desire more than just the half of the voters plus one that we need to support the motions that establish these actions, but such motions are limited in scope, and they need to be decided on in an ongoing way that can't be held up by objectors who lack the support of the majority.

But there are matters -- like bylaws and constitutions -- that do have effects on the way things are done that can outlast the participatory lives of the people who make decisions about them. For those decisions, Robert's Rules argues, a simple majority (who may be swayed by the conditions of the moment or opposed by a sizeable minority) aren't enough to cause such a change. For those changes, motions require a 2/3 majority vote, and that extra 1/6 portion of the group represents the best answer we have to the difference between the decisions we as a group have to make for ourselves alone and the ones we have to make for those who will come after us.

Three: Robert's Rules are only rules. They're not laws, and they don't try to be. Admittedly, any group has its moments where the will of the majority, either expressly by vote or by extension through people voted into positions of authority, is imposed on everyone. In democratic institutions, there are corrections in place for such moments, of course, and protections against abuse of power, but both of these systems can take time to work themselves out, and don't usually change the power structures themselves.

But Robert's Rules are constantly in front of us while we are in a meeting. In a sense, they are the procedures for free decision-making, which, to my mind, is decision-making that can explain itself. They do allow for variations on themselves with consent of the meeting -- things like allowing the maker of a motion to answer a question during the discussion, or the raising of "Points of Information" and "Points of Order" that both break the flow of a discussion when they are invoked and reconnect it when they're done.

And they allow us to tailor things to our own needs and best judgment. Even simple things like when we call the question, or move to adjourn, or suspend the rules a bit for an open discussion (one not guided by a motion), or vote by raising our hands. All these are variations on the Rules that the Rules allow to make things fit with the culture of the community that's using them to make decisions and deal with conversations that can be difficult to have. More and more I have become interested in working on a mutually agreeable and ongoing basis -- the way an ecosystem works – rather than in the top-down law-guided way that I see in a lot of institutions. To me, Robert’s Rules is the balance between what we have to do to make a decision and what we need to be free to do to make that decision truly ours.

On Roberts Rules: Chapter 2

Submitted by Richard Harrison

Navigating the River -- Amendments to Motions in Motion

Once a motion has been made and seconded, it belongs to everyone. We're all involved in deciding whether the group as a whole is in favour of the motion or opposed to it, and the floor is open to anyone to speak for or against it.  The meeting facilitator keeps a speaker's list, and also keeps the discussion on track by making sure that everyone addresses the issue under discussion. According to Robert's Rules, after everyone has spoken, the person who made the motion gets the chance to speak to it last. Then we vote.

There are variations on this pattern, and the facilitators at Co-op meetings have often invited the maker of the motion to speak to an issue as it arises in the middle of a discussion to clarify a point or answer a specific question. This can help clarify the motion as long as this question-and-answer doesn't go too far from the main point, and so most facilitators will not only allow it but help guide the discussion that way if it is needed.

That's the core of the process: motion made, motion seconded, motion discussed, voted on and either passed or not.

But we can also be involved in crafting the motion while we are discussing it. Sometimes considerations of fact or of wording come up in the discussion, and in their light we want to suggest changes to the motion so that its wording better reflects what the motion really means in terms of the actions that will follow from it if it is passed. And so new wording can be suggested for the motion and discussed by the group as an Amendment to the Motion.

In terms of Robert's Rules, an amendment to a motion is actually another motion made while a first motion is under discussion. So, like the motion it is amending, it, too, needs a mover, a seconder, a discussion and a vote. When an amendment is made, we stop discussing the first motion, and move to discussing the amendment. If the amendment is passed, we go back to the first motion and discuss it in its amended form. If the amendment is not passed, the discussion goes back to the first motion as it was at the beginning.

The amendment process makes it a lot easier to let motions benefit from the discussion as it progresses. It allows the group to act as editors of the motion's wording as well as judges of its worth, and it's much easier than defeating motions, and then discussing other motions that are close to them but not exactly the same.

The one area that gets a bit fuzzy in the process is “The Friendly Amendment.” In practice, meetings sometimes try to treat an amendment that the original motion's maker agrees with as "friendly," but almost none of those amendments, even when the original mover likes them, actually are or should be treated that way. An amendment is a change, and almost all changes make a difference.

So if a motion belongs to everyone, which it does,  it shouldn't be changed without everyone's consent. The way that consent is achieved in a meeting is by a motion made, seconded, discussed, and voted on. Even if the original mover objects to an amendment, if the group votes to pass it, then the motion is amended. Normally this doesn't happen. Normally an amendment is designed to refine a motion in keeping with its original purpose, and so normally the amending process doesn't contradict the motion, but we still need to go through the process of voting on amendments so that the actual motion in its entirety belongs to all of us.

Still, "Friendly Amendment" does mean something, and it has an important use. A friendly amendment is one that doesn't change the meaning of the motion but makes a minor correction to its grammar or occasionally word choice so that it says what the mover wants it to.  Things like, "there should be a comma here," or “the word ‘affect’ should be ‘effect’ in the original wording,” are friendly amendments. Usually the facilitator rules on such amendments, and usually the original mover is fine with them.

And as small as such changes might seem, I'm an English professor, and I've seen (as I'm sure anyone dealing with contracts, or law, or advertising -- any business that involves getting the wording right will tell you they've seen too), I've seen arguments over commas go a full half hour or more. The friendly amendment spares us all that and helps us get on with the job, something any friend would do.

On Roberts Rules: Chapter 1

Submitted by Richard Harrison (reprint from February 2017)

Opening Move

Thank you for your reception of my short talk on Robert's Rules at the last General Meeting. I promised that I'd try to condense the big book of rules that Robert drew up over a hundred years ago and that has been updated every few years ever since by the Society that bears his name and shares all our interest in having well-run meetings where decisions are made in as democratic a form as possible. 

So I'm going to attempt to fulfill what many might say is a foolhardy promise: to capture not just the rules, but the practice of the rules in 7 what I called "cards" at the time. 

I do want to add that I feel that our meetings have been very productive and satisfying in many ways not just because we use Robert's Rules, but that the way our community works to solve problems through discussion and participation is the driving force behind those rules. In many ways the Rules fit us and we them because the Rules put into words the spirit in which we meet. 

As I mentioned in the meeting General Robert wrote up the first Rules in 1876. But they were not designed for the army. The army already had enough top-down rules, and a chain of command that gave everyone in it a place. He wrote the Rules for his Church Society, which frustrated him immensely since their meetings often broke down into long contentious discussions with no decision. 

So the question Robert's Rules is designed to answer is this: How do you get the efficiency he was used to in the army (where he was in command) when you are in a meeting where everyone is in command

His answer was that instead of one decision-making person in charge of organizing others around a decision already given to them, he put the decision in charge organizing the people who were making it. 

So the first card in Robert's Rules is the decision to be made. That decision (maybe from the idea of "marching orders") is called the Motion. The motion is the first step in democratic decision-making because it must be spoken out loud in the meeting so everyone knows what it is.

We're used to how these are made -- someone either rises in the meeting to propose a decision to be made, or the decision to be discussed is in the agenda. 

The motion must be precisely worded because it directs the organization to do something. So it has to be something that either the organization or someone representing it can actually do. 

Before the motion can be debated, it needs a seconder. The seconder assures that at least one other person in the meeting agrees that the decision should be discussed. So someone in the meeting needs to say, "I second the motion" so discussion can continue. 

The speaker's job is to regulate the discussion so that everyone who wants to gets a chance to speak to the decision. Notice that all comments need to be directed to the actual motion. The motion itself is the standard for whether a comment is  relevant or not. Speakers wait their turn because they know their turn will eventually come. 

Strictly by the rules (though we do alter this a bit sometimes -- something the Rules also allows), the motion's mover gets to address all the comments that are made for or against it. 

Then the vote. 

Depending on the impact of the decision it suggests making, a motion is either passed if a simple majority of voting members vote for it or if 2/3 of the voting members vote for it. A motion about the normal course of business needs only 50% plus one support. A motion to change the rules in a governing document, for example, requires the 2/3.