>If you can't say something helpful/productive, don't say anything at all
I am tired of committee meetings in the summer, but more than that, I'm tired of everyone kicking the can for hours but then shooting down any suggestion that someone makes to move forward, without any suggested alternative. I get that everyone's burned out and tired, but the time it takes to gripe about a suggestion could be better spent thinking of an alternative idea. Say nothing or propose a different approach. How short and lovely meetings would become!
Sorry, I had to get that off my chest. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.
Does anyone use an alternative framework to Robert's Rules of Order (RRO) to run department or committee meetings? I found A Short Guide to Consensus Building which describes a simple way of building consensus through voting and facilitation. I appreciate the simplicity and the focus on getting the majority to agree.
Answers to anticipated questions; No, my department does not have bylaws. Yes, some faculty are using RRO in ways that limit debate. No, I'm not going to ask faculty to learn RRO because *gestures broadly at everything*. Yes, I have taken a sample of faculty and found that they find RRO limiting.
Does anyone in academia actually understand how Robert’s Rules of Order works, or do we just like to cite it to sound clever? Is this a rhetorical question? The more I learn about it, the more I understand that the way our meetings have historically been run is more like a bad misreading of RRO.
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-alchemy-this-29981355/episode/superman-has-a-take-2-71019096/
Our president says that we can’t email more than three directors at a time (there are 6 of us) because that would be considered an official meeting.
Is this true? He claims it’s in Roberts Rules of Order
TIA!
Question at the bottom of post.
The title pretty much says it all, and I'm fairly new to parliamentary order so please forgive me . I sit on the executive board for my union chapter. Over the last two months, per our C and Bs, we had a first and second reading of an amendment to our C and Bs.
For a little background, currently our chapter meetings for the calendar year are set in January by our Executive Board. According to our most senior members, the meeting time hasn't been changed in at least 20 years.
Recently, a certain group has asked to move the meetings to 5:30. Since the meetings are already set (and frankly, 4:30 seems to work for more people than 5:30), he decided to propose an amendment to how meetings are set. He proposed a 5:30 start time be written explicitly in the Constitution.
We held the vote last night after the second reading and it failed by one vote. He was upset, and stormed out. This specific member is brand new and has been, honestly, causing a lot of strife between other classifications and his (we work for a school district). He's also been making false or unfounded claims against the district, so it's a separate source of stress on us. His classification makes up a large group in the bargaining unit, and they've already voted down a few things that didn't specifically benefit them.
The question is: Can he just keep proposing the same amendment until the end of time? There is nothing in our Cs and Bs about it. Robert's Rules of Order govern our rules as long as they are consistent with our Constitution.
So I’m a Sophomore and I went to States last year placing 7th. I have been told that by reading Robert’s Rules of Order I would be able to accomplish more. So out of curiosity, does Robert’s Rules of Order actually help at all or is it a complete waste of time?
What are some good resources for learning Robert's Rules of Order? There is a Robert's Rules for Dummies book and I'm not sure how good it is. Can anyone suggest other books? I learn well with video as well so any youtube videos or channels would be appreciated as well.
The ancient world saw multiple democracies - such as Athen's - and multiple republics - such as those of Rome, Carthage, and Phoenicia.
Did these bodies have something similar to Robert's Rules Of Order which they used to structure their meetings with?
- Make a motion
- Seconded
- All in favor?
- Etc
Do we know how meetings were actually run, how motions/bills were proposed, and then voted on?
Any insight you could give would be fascinating.
Shamrock wanting to follow Robert’s Rules to a T was really interesting to me. Considering he ends up snitching at the end of season three, which coupled with him “taking notes on a criminal fuckin conspiracy” makes it pretty funny. I thought it was a nice little detail that he wanted to make sure meetings went smooth and followed Robert’s Rules.
My group is a bit chaotic: Last session the DM and active player were talking at full volume, someone was talking across them with BS OOC stuff, etc.
It was unpleasant.
Is there any sane, not too controlling way to maintain some semblance of order at the table?
(Note: I've never had this issue before. I don't personally know any of the players: I found the group on a website, which teaches that one should take from the grab bag of humanity as carefully and gravelly as one draws from the deck of many things.)
I run a small Minecraft Discord server with one other person. It's a group of about 30 (11 highly active). We are trying to decide what happens with a particular area of the game map, but we don't want to make the decision in isolation from the group.
I thought about creating a channel specifically for this discussion and having the rules of discussion based on Robert's Rules of Order. The idea being that the group would be able to manage themselves and bring up their own ideas, but it wouldn't be complete chaos, as ideas and discussion would need motions to pass and would be monitored and judged by the community (obviously we'd still have to moderate).
Though there are certain parts of Robert's Rules that would need tweaking to work on a platform like this. Has anyone else tried this with any level of success or have any suggestions on how to modify Robert's Rules to work with a community like this, where everyone isn't always around at the same time?
I am a member of a Student Senate in Minnesota, and we are currently in a little situation. Without going into details, is it a majority vote to overrule a chair or a 2/3 vote? And what article is this in? (So I can reference it)
The entire book is about how to have a discussion. It is the king of meta discussion.
I was at the IRC meeting for /r/RedditIsland last night, and it was a clusterfuck. I then missed about half of the conversation because I was thinking about an IRC client that only allowed you to post (or, really, just didn't show posts that were out of turn) if you were following Robert's Rules of Order.
You'd have to input a command or press a button to get on the speaker's list or make a motion, you'd be timed on how long you could speak for, one person would be the chair, etc.
I think that kind of thing would make meetings like that go so much more smoothly. What do you think?
