Re: Motion to remove the operations manual from the Wiki

[John Jones <jijones@usjoneses.com>]

It is true that Article 10, Section 3 of the AIS By-Laws  (4-04-11) states:
"The parliamentary rules contained in the most recent edition of Robert's Rules of Order shall be used in all meetings of the AIS to cover questions not provided for in these bylaws."

We may have been playing a little "fast and loose" with Roberts Rules (RRs) in the process of making and discussing motions, but I think that what evolved over the last several years serves us pretty well. The whole point of having motions displayed on the big screen and modifying them as directed by the board was to help ensure that the motion gets worded properly to effect the action that the board wants. While this may engender a little more non-RRs discussion, I believe that it saves time in that we don't have to vote to reject a motion only to have it resubmitted in a revised manner, changed again etc. None of use are exceptionally adept at constructing perfect motions the first time and this provides a reasonable process for us to use. Changes are accepted by the originator and seconder prior to a vote being taken.

Certainly there are times when discussions drag on but most often they proceed pretty quickly. There are lost of times when someone's comment brings up an idea for someone that has already spoken and I think that the often short period of open discussion we have used in the past serves to bring us all to better conclusions. The AIS President maintains control of the meeting and can end the discussion if needed or a motion made to Call the Question

With the exception of one meeting (when I was in the hospital) I have served as Motions Secretary at the pleasure of the Board since we started doing this at the Fall 2004 Board meeting. While the process is not strictly according to RRs, I think that it serves the intent behind those rules in that we accomplish a lot in the period of time that we use. certainly in the last 7-8 years we have have has progressively shorter meetings while still getting the business done that we need done.

I don't mean to imply that we should continue doing something just because that is the way we have done it in the past. We should always be accepting of doing things a new way that serves us better,


John
__________________ 
John and Joanne Jones
Registrar-Recorders, American Iris Society
aisregistrar@irises.org

John Jones, Chairman, Electronic Services Committee
aiselectronicsvcs@irises.org

35572 Linda Drive
Fremont, CA 94536





On Mar 13, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Ron Killingsworth wrote:

> Michelle, you are correct, the board of AIS usually brings up an idea, talks about it, works out the kinks and details, then someone makes a motion, someone seconds it, and then the board votes. Technically, nothing is supposed to be discussed by the board unless there is a seconded motion before the board.  This cuts down on a lot of talking and discussion and also stops discussion on an idea of only one person.  I agree that conducting a meeting by a strict interpretation of Robert's Rules of Order can make it complicated. However, I really think that the board should at least follow the general guidelines of Robert's Rules.  The rules actually limit the discussion of a motion -- i.e., once a person expresses his/her opinion on the motion, that person can not again have the floor until everyone has had a chance to express an opinion and unless it is agreed by all to extend the discussion.
> Again, this can get real complicated.  But, following the basic rules of Roberts will help the meetings to run smoother and cut out some of the two hour discussions on a simple matter such as publishing the 2014 calendar.
> 
> If the original motion maker and the seconder is willing to change the motion to something resembling my amendment, I am willing to withdraw my amendment (if the person who seconded it agrees) and to allow the amended by the original people motion to proceed with discussion.
> 
> Ron
> Director, AIS
> Adv Editor
> 
> On 3/13/2013 12:04, Michelle Snyder wrote:
>> I only have the revised 10 edition and it isn't the easiest to understand, at least not to this lay person.  Anyway, for as far back as I can remember, we have always allowed the members to voice their opinion on an existing motion regarding changes but we have also had the changes agreed to by the original motion maker and the second, or the originators have agreed to withdraw their motion.   From what I see from Gary's email, it appears while the motion is pending it can be amended several times during the discussion process.  It appears this could drag out motions for a very long time.  If we accept the motion to amend as presented, that amended motion would have to go through the discussion and voting period (two weeks) and then the original motion, possibly as amended, would have to go through the same process.  This seems like it would stop any motion from going forward in a reasonable time frame.  Perhaps we should discuss this further at the spring board meeting a!
 nd Jim could contact our legal adviser and she could present a definitive explanation of how this should work. Have we been doing our amendments to pending motions wrong all along?
>> 
>> During our Spring and Fall board meetings motions have been amended a lot before being voted on.
>> 
>> Michelle
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off this list, send email to the AIS Secretary
> <aissecretary@irises.org>
> The archives for AISDiscuss are at:
> http://www.aisboard.org/lists/aisdiscuss/
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to the AIS Secretary
<aissecretary@irises.org>
The archives for AISDiscuss are at:
http://www.aisboard.org/lists/aisdiscuss/