Item 71. Minutes for the Grex 1/26/99 Board Meeting Scott Helmke (scott) Tue, Jan 26, 1999 (20:51). 83 lines, 72 responses. The January, 1999 Grex board meeting was held in Zingerman's Next Door on Tuesday, January 26. Attendees: Jan Wolter (janc, outgoing President), John Remmers (remmers, Board), Mark Conger (aruba, Treasurer), Misti Tucker (mta, Board), Mary Remmers (mary), Steve Gibbard (scg), Drew (drew), Charles Mitchell, (arthurp), STeve Andre' (steve, Board), Scott Helmke (scott, outgoing Secretary) Absent: Dan Gryniewicz (dang, Board) Afteryule Initial Gavel Pounding - janc, valerie, arlo, STeve The meeting was gaveled to order by janc at 6:35 pm Solmath Election of 1999 Officers - all Nominations for President: mta, remmers, steve nominated, nobody enthusiastic about serving. votes: mta 1, remmers 3, steve 2 after the 1st vote tied. Remmers is President. Nomination for Treasurer: aruba Aruba is elected by acclamation. Nominations for Secretary: janc Janc is elected by acclamation. Rethe Treasurer's Report - aruba Dec in black by ~$75, 3 new members. Jan. doing very well (4 members) this month P.O. Box renewal ($44) is this month. InterNIC billing strangeness, we just paid $35 to avoid complications. auction: total closed $1359, paid so far $747. Astron Publicity Committee - mta nothing to report. Thrimidge Technical Committee - staff new hardware (Sun CPUs and memory, SCSI disks) was donated. We may be getting a donated modem rack (33.6!) A flaky terminal server port was causing modem problems mic's new menu system in testing staff is trying to push FAQ rather than email for questions from users. Forelithe Stupid Landlord Tricks - aruba Having problems w/ building management about rent, electricity and lease conditions. We recently got a letter saying we owed money, related to electricity use changes. After some discussion w/ management, we have been informed that they are dropping our lease and will be offering a new lease at a slightly higher rent. The management person was apparently difficult to deal with, and we may get some other weirdness (including very little time for us to review new lease). However, the owner (from before the management co. was brought in) has been helpful. We may want to research other locations to strengthen our bargaining position. Aruba will enter a Coop item. Afterlithe Ratifying HTTP Access - remmers HTTP access for nonmembers. This has been the default, but was never actually ratified by board. Remmers moved that outgoing HTTP access be given to all users. Misti seconded. Vote is 6-0-0 (dang is absent), motion passes. Wedmath UPS Purchase? - all Purchase a UPS (uninterupptable power source) to replace power conditioner, saving electricity $? STeve estimates ~$120/year savings, plus better reliability. Probably would cost $600 for our needs. We need to research this more, need a proposal to vote on. Halimath Credit Cards - all Should Grex accept credit cards? Most people starting to want this, but needs research. Probably need to have a secure way to take card #s (Web server?). Need to find some proposals from banks, etc. Winterfilth New Business - all 1. The person who arranged for our donated Sun hardware has asked for outgoing telnet access in return. This is normally not something we do. However, he paid for shipping, so we could reimburse with money put into membership for that person (Grex was planning on paying for shipping originally anyway). No objection about this. 2. Valerie welcomes the new board. 3. Are there any better meeting locations (aruba)? Basically this (Zingermans) is about the best for now. Blotmath Final Gavel Pounding - remmers The meeting was closed at 8:10 pm. 72 responses total. ---------- (71) #1 Valerie Mates (valerie) Wed, Jan 27, 1999 (01:11). 2 lines. Minor nit: Some of the meeting attendees are listed under Afteryule instead of with the list of attendees. ---------- (71) #2 Scott Helmke (scott) Wed, Jan 27, 1999 (06:59). 1 line. Ah, that's where those names went. ---------- (71) #3 Richard J. Wallner (richard) Fri, Jan 29, 1999 (17:55). 6 lines. should be a run-off election between remmers and steve for president since neither received a majority of the votes of the board members. just as you cant have quorum without 4 of 7 board members, you shouldnt elect board officers who dont have the votes of 4 of the 7 board members. or at least the President of the Board shouldnt be elected without a majority. ---------- (71) #4 Rob Henderson (robh) Fri, Jan 29, 1999 (18:34). 4 lines. The by-laws don't specify how many votes are needed to elect the officers of the Board. The only thing specified is that a quorum of 5 Board members must be present to conduct official business, which would include that election. ---------- (71) #5 STeve Andre' (steve) Fri, Jan 29, 1999 (21:23). 1 line. I was perfectly happy with the way things were done. ---------- (71) #6 Rane Curl (rcurl) Fri, Jan 29, 1999 (23:36). 2 lines. If you follow RRoO, only a majority of *those voting* are required to adopt a motion, unless the bylaws (or state law) require otherwise. ---------- (71) #7 C. S. McGee (cmcgee) Sat, Jan 30, 1999 (15:49). 1 line. We don't ;-) ---------- (71) #8 Rane Curl (rcurl) Sat, Jan 30, 1999 (23:46). 1 line. True, which is why no one knows what is the right thing to do. :) ---------- (71) #9 Dave Lovelace (davel) Sun, Jan 31, 1999 (16:14). 1 line. Nope, everyone except Richard knows what the right thing is. ---------- (71) #10 Rane Curl (rcurl) Mon, Feb 1, 1999 (01:11). 3 lines. That's just the majority running roughshod over the minority, since no rule has been adopted to resolve the question. Sounds like the partisan politics so popular right now, but not based on "rule of law". ---------- (71) #11 C. S. McGee (cmcgee) Mon, Feb 1, 1999 (08:34). 3 lines. Concensus is _not_ the majority running roughshod over the minority. Running an organization by concensus is just as orderly as using Roberts Rules. And, in this organization, it creates a more harmonious organization. ---------- (71) #12 Rane Curl (rcurl) Mon, Feb 1, 1999 (11:29). 8 lines. Concensus functions essentially on intimidation. In order to keep "harmony", people swallow hard and go along with the majority. Our national constitution was not founded in concensus, and neither should those of small clubs, for the same reasons. If concensus really worked, then you could substitute for it a voting rule that required a unanimous vote on every motion. An organization would then grind to a halt on addressing many issues. ---------- (71) #13 Misti Tucker (mta) Mon, Feb 1, 1999 (13:07). 5 lines. I know of very few situation in Grex history where anyone has had to "swallow hard and go along with the majority". In almost every case, the decision is held off until a solution is found that can satisfiy (if not please) everyone. That has resulted in some far more creative and satisfactory decisions being come to than would have been the case otherwise. ---------- (71) #14 Mark A. Conger (aruba) Mon, Feb 1, 1999 (14:59). 6 lines. Re #12: I see some pretty big differences between our national government and the government of Grex. Size, for starters; Grex has about a hundred members, which makes it a lot easier to find consensus ehan if we had, say, 260 million members. THere is also a lot more at stake in governing the nation, so there are a lot more strong opinions. When considering issues of governing Grex we can afford to be more relaxed. ---------- (71) #15 Steve Gibbard (scg) Mon, Feb 1, 1999 (19:33). 10 lines. There were certainly times when I was on Grex's board when the majority wanted to do something, but somebody vocally objected and a bunch of people changed their minds, refusing to do something that one person objected to. It struck me as a form of reverse-consensus. In those cases, I often voted against the eventual majority, or at least urged a vote until it became clear that that would be futile. Other board members certainly could have also decided to disregard the naysayer and push things through, had they wanted to. The reason Grex board decisions tended to go towards what some people for some reason decided to claim was consensus was because a majority of the board wasn't willing to vote differently than that. ---------- (71) #16 Rane Curl (rcurl) Tue, Feb 2, 1999 (01:25). 7 lines. Of course, the Grex board does not act by concensus anyway, since they conduct votes. However there are no bases for the votes, since there are no rules that govern them. So it is sort of a crazy system in which unfounded votes are held and if the board "feels" a decision has been made, they so declare that. It works, of course, because there isn't enough at stake to create big arguments, as well as the fact that there is still a core of leaders that others don't mind following. ---------- (71) #17 Pete Vassoff (pfv) Tue, Feb 2, 1999 (02:30). 1 line. "Consensus" ---------- (71) #18 C. S. McGee (cmcgee) Tue, Feb 2, 1999 (07:13). 4 lines. Consensus is a decision that everyone can support. It is not necessarily a decision that everyone likes 100%. But the process does require continuing to work on a statement until everyone agrees that they can support it and its consequences. ---------- (71) #19 Dave Lovelace (davel) Tue, Feb 2, 1999 (07:30). 4 lines. Rane, I don't think I'd offer the current, polarized condition of national government as an argument in favor of adopting RRO (or anything else). Pete, don't be so picky. (That's *my* job.) 8-{)] ---------- (71) #20 Pete Vassoff (pfv) Tue, Feb 2, 1999 (09:13). 1 line. Sorry, it was grating an exposed nerve ;-) ---------- (71) #21 Rane Curl (rcurl) Tue, Feb 2, 1999 (12:10). 1 line. cmcgee started it... 8^P. ---------- (71) #22 C. S. McGee (cmcgee) Wed, Feb 3, 1999 (00:11). 1 line. Ack! ---------- (71) #23 Rick Green (rtg) Wed, Feb 3, 1999 (02:12). 3 lines. The religious Society of Friends (aka Quakers) has always run their meetings on the basis of consensus. Change happens slowly. cmcgee's definition in resp:18 sums it up pretty well. ---------- (71) #24 Rane Curl (rcurl) Wed, Feb 3, 1999 (11:38). 6 lines. They are involved in few decisions that have much urgency. Families function by consensus as do most neighbors (though battles arise in both, with no agreed upon procedures to resolve them). It is, however, not as good an idea for businesses with legal and financial responsibilities that also claim to be democratic, to rest upon consensus. The minority is never treated fairly (or is driven out by a domineering majority). ---------- (71) #25 C. S. McGee (cmcgee) Wed, Feb 3, 1999 (14:34). 20 lines. Rane, how on earth did you go from needing a decision style that can react to urgent problems (businesses with legal and financial responsibilities) to "The minority is never treated fairly" and "(or is driven out by a domineering majority)" Roberts Rules doesn't guarantee that minorities will feel like they've been treated fairly. In fact, I've seen technically adept RRO users who can silence a minority in a heartbeat. To assume that consensus decision making is more likely to be undemocratic than up/down voting systems and to conclude from your assumption that therefore people are treated unfairly in groups that use consensus methods is a pretty big leap. And to then say that people in consensus using groups are driven out by a domineering majority is so far from the reality of our normal political use of RRO that I suspect you've never been silenced by RRO. I have. As an elected official, the mayor refused to recognize me for 4 straight hours. How well do you think democracy was functioning then? And yes, RRO was our official policy. Do you think my constituents were better off under RRO? ---------- (71) #26 Rane Curl (rcurl) Wed, Feb 3, 1999 (15:13). 10 lines. I made no assumption that people are treated unfairly in consensus groups. I already cited families as one users of consensus. Did you rise to a question of personal privilege? It takes precedent over all other business except when another member has taken the floor and is speaking. If the chair doesn't like it, it can be appealed. A minority *cannot* be treated fairly with consensus, since there is then no definition of fairness to which to hold. ---------- (71) #27 David Cahill (dpc) Wed, Feb 3, 1999 (15:45). 7 lines. "Personal privilege" is not the same thing as not being recognized. According to Robert's, section 19, page 194, states: "Questions of personal privilege--which seldom arise in ordinary societies and even more rarely justify interruption of pending business-- may relate, for xample, to an incorrect record of a member's participation in a meeting contained in minutes approved in his absence, or to charges circulated against a member's character." ---------- (71) #28 Dave Lovelace (davel) Wed, Feb 3, 1999 (21:46). 2 lines. Heh. So we're into the endless procedural debate phase of RRO, *without* even using RRO. Imagine what would happen if it *mattered*. ---------- (71) #29 STeve Andre' (steve) Thu, Feb 4, 1999 (00:16). 3 lines. Yup. Endless recursive wandering around the drain of argument. ---------- (71) #30 Rane Curl (rcurl) Thu, Feb 4, 1999 (00:52). 7 lines. Re #27: this is irrelevant. The personal privilege claims the floor to state a reqest. dpc would rule the request out of order, but two members can appeal the ruling, and if there is support, cmcgee would get her hearing in due course. If she didn't, everyone would know that the chair was acting unfairly, so a point would still be made. This all takes just a moment, and does not involve procedural debate, since it just ones one-two-three, and is done. ---------- (71) #31 Dave Lovelace (davel) Thu, Feb 4, 1999 (07:45). 2 lines. But *in reality* it is *not* done without procedural debate, when stuff like this happens. ---------- (71) #32 C. S. McGee (cmcgee) Thu, Feb 4, 1999 (08:13). 27 lines. *grin* everyone knew the chair was acting unfairly. The members of his party were afraid to cross him, and he wouldnt recognize members of the other two parties. My point is that any decision alogrithm can be misused and tyrants are difficult to stop, no matter what they say about following the rules. Unlike Rane, I know of two published rules systems for groups that prefer reaching decisions that everyone can live with rather than 51% of the group. When appropriate, I suggest that groups adopt them as their rules of order. Not all groups need official rules of order, only ones that are dysfunctional without written guidelines. And even then, the group themselves can often _write_down_ their own guidelines and have that be sufficient clarity for getting their work done. Grex appears to function just fine without adopting any written-by-other-people guidelines. In fact, it was when we used a voting procedure with "51% wins" as the decision rule that created the only situation I've seen in the past few years where we lost active Grexers because they were in the minority. (the anonymous web read-only access to the conferences). I'd much rather be a part of a group that attempts to incorporate 100% of the participants opinions and keep the organization running, than one that gets into STeve's "Endless recursive wandering around the drain of argument" over procedure instead of content. ---------- (71) #33 Rane Curl (rcurl) Thu, Feb 4, 1999 (13:13). 4 lines. I've never been on a board that argued over procedures (except Grex, which doesn't have any)- just used them to be both fair and efficient. We obviously move in different circles. ---------- (71) #34 STeve Andre' (steve) Thu, Feb 4, 1999 (21:54). 1 line. I think thats true, but we love you anyway Rane. ;-) ---------- (71) #35 Dave Lovelace (davel) Thu, Feb 4, 1999 (21:59). 5 lines. I've observed several groups that did. In some cases IMO it was because they *needed* formal procedures such as RRO - things were polarized, & people felt they had to push any way they could to gain an advantage. In others it appeared to be nothing more than a few people who liked to argue over procedure. The desire to see things done right, on steriods, so to speak. ---------- (71) #36 David Cahill (dpc) Fri, Feb 5, 1999 (11:59). 9 lines. Rane, you're wrong (again). In an assembly governed by Robert's, a member *cannot* raise a point of personal privilege to quibble about any old thing, even if s/he has recruited a couple of henchpeople to help him/her by appealing. If the chair is appealed on this issue and through some bizarre circumstance loses the appeal, the chair should probably resign. You can't create new rights or procedures through misuse of the appeal process. I'm *still* waiting for you to cite an *appropriate* rule from Robert's about seeking recognition. ---------- (71) #37 Rane Curl (rcurl) Fri, Feb 5, 1999 (12:50). 34 lines. That's your interpretation. It has no general validity. Procedural practices in different organizations are not just a set of rules, but also the customs that develop in the application of those rules. It is really quite interesting how differnt organizations, still following (say) RRoO, still emphasize different aspects of them. I know, in particular (because I have participated), that rising to a question of personal privilege is *the* procedure for representatives to the annual conferences of the Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC) to be recognized by the chairman to speak about whatever is on their mind. What is on their mind ranges from local problems to the procedures of the assembly. There is absolutely no reason for the chair to resign when the chair is overruled in an appeal. The essence of parliamentary procedure is to give the chair considerable power to expedite the proeceedings, but subject to the rule of the majority and with respect for the minority. I have both "won" and "lost" on rulings as chair, and I felt not the least conflict with my boards, nor did they with me. I could also make an argument for rising on a point of order, in the circumstances cited, since RRoO specify that no member may speak to a question twice until all member wishing to speak the first time have done so. This rule is generally not enforced at the discretion of the chair, but can be, and can be forced by a point or order if the chair accepts (or is forced to on an appeal). In years as chair I only forced this procedure once - the motion was on purchasing a headquarters building and property - and it marvelously focused the discussion. No new rights or procedures are created by the use of the appeal process, if it comes to that. It has conseqences, of course, as it may suppress a really 'illegal' action of the chair (such as refusing the recognize opposition speakers), and some might not like that. ---------- (71) #38 David Cahill (dpc) Tue, Feb 9, 1999 (10:30). 4 lines. I'm afraid we differ on the fundamentals of parliamentary law. It should not be seen as a bag of tricks. I expect that many chairs *would* resign if the body used the appeal process to create a new right. Of course, most appeals don't involve such serious issues. ---------- (71) #39 Rane Curl (rcurl) Tue, Feb 9, 1999 (13:37). 9 lines. It is not a "bag of tricks". It consists of previously agreed upon procedures. Chairs should we fully aware of the appeal process as part of the rules for resolving an issue on which the chair and the body may have different opinions. A chair should realize that he or she is not a dictator, but is also subject to the will of the majority. A chair may *seek* an appeal purposefully, to resolve a matter. No new rights are created by the appeal process - only rights already inherent in the rules of procedure (hmmm, I just said that in #37: must not have gotten through... :)). ---------- (71) #40 Walter Cramer (i) Tue, Feb 9, 1999 (18:51). 11 lines. If most of the people at the meeting are not familiar with more than a small fraction of RRoO and would rather not go to the (considerable) effort of familiarizing themselves with it, then a person who's well- versed in RRoO has, in effect, a bag of tricks / special advantage / magic wand / call it what you will, and can expect to be resented if he uses to his own advantage. Somewhat like the law, RRoO is there in case it's needed - it's better if people can get along without it. Certainly it's technically more "proper" if two neighbors discuss the watering & trimming of the hedge between their yards with their laywers at their elbows. Most people prefer to be on sufficiently friendly and informal terms with their neighbors to keep the lawyers out of it. ---------- (71) #41 Rane Curl (rcurl) Wed, Feb 10, 1999 (00:14). 6 lines. RRoO certainly works best when the chair is not only familiar with them, but also committed to using them for their sole purpose - providing an orderly framework for conducting business openly and fairly. In that situation, the chair will prompt those less familiar with rules for what motion would expedite what the member is attempting to accomplish. That is the situation in which I learned, and learned to apply, RRoO. ---------- (71) #42 Pete Vassoff (pfv) Wed, Feb 10, 1999 (00:58). 4 lines. *sigh* Even better is to bring a leashed-lawyer... One that's been kept hungry for a few days. ---------- (71) #43 John H. Remmers (remmers) Wed, Feb 10, 1999 (13:19). 2 lines. Re resp:41 - Operating *without* RRO also works best when the chair is committed to conducting business openly and fairly. ---------- (71) #44 Rane Curl (rcurl) Wed, Feb 10, 1999 (15:14). 1 line. No question about that. Good luck in never requiring written procedures. ---------- (71) #45 C. S. McGee (cmcgee) Wed, Feb 10, 1999 (16:24). 3 lines. RRO is _not_ the only written procedures available. Grex has some written procedures that seem to be sufficient. If they aren't we can write some more. Or we might even adopt _published_ procedures that aren't RRO. ---------- (71) #46 Rane Curl (rcurl) Thu, Feb 11, 1999 (01:29). 6 lines. Grex only has its bylaws, and these give some rules for elections and voting by members. There are no written procedures for conducting board business. Grex should consider seriously adopting some written procedural rules for the board. RRoO just happen to be written precisely for small organizations with many volunteer positions. What are the others you are thinking of, McGee (I'd like to see copies). ---------- (71) #47 STeve Andre' (steve) Thu, Feb 11, 1999 (07:17). 29 lines. There will possibly be a board that does that, Rane. The board has always had the power to do this. It's always been an option. But the organization up to this point hasn't seen the need for it, and frankly, I think we operate a lot better than MOST other organizations I've ever been associated with. It works for us, now, not having a bureaucratic maze of legalese in our midst, and I'm happy about that. But that doesn't mean that we might not adopt something like that in the future. I can't see into the future and won't judge the actions of boards that don't yet exist. Perhaps there really will be some good reason for them to do this, and it will be appropriate at the time. That I can't see what that would be doesn't mean that the right conditions might exist, someday. Part of the reason that we've done so well is that we're kind of unusual in our membership. I bumped into an old friend once, who listened with interest as I talked of Grex. Not a technical person, but a legal proceduralist (I forget the title but he studies governments), he made the comment that it was unusual that Grex had people on the board who were so intimately involved with its beginnings, and that usually there would be more of the outside types on the board. I believe he used the terms "participatory" and "advisory" boards, where Grex was was far more of the first kind. Hearing that made so much sense to me. I'd never had the words for that before, but they fit so very well. I *like* that Grex has a board that is tightly-coupled with the organization, one who knows about the operation. I think that this is perhaps one of the reasons why we're different. ---------- (71) #48 Rane Curl (rcurl) Thu, Feb 11, 1999 (12:12). 29 lines. You probably forgot that I droned on about that some time ago. Most organizations start with participatory boards, but as they get larger and more complex, and the founders die (or 'move on', in other ways), that original connection between operations and those wanting to be in charge tends to weaken. The evolution is then toward an institutional board (your friend called it advisory). This is not a loss, actually: there must always be participatory types to carry out the functions, and there is some advantage to have people from "outside" to raise the resources for the organization. I think you would agree that there would be some advantage to Grex to have professional business people on the board with good contacts with agencies of all kinds, including those that can generate funds. A lot of non-profits have their board entirely of such, but then the power really lies with officers that are not on the board, who run the organization. The transition between participatory and institutional boards is usually rather troublesome because the types of persons that function best in each don't function too well with each other. I'm in another organization in which I am both an officer and a director, but the organization is structured to allow these to be completely separate, and in fact the organization is trying to evolve and get the "participatory" people into officerships and find "support" people to be directors. Then those that "do" will run the organization as officers, while those that support the organization will be the directors, finding funding, etc. The business of the organization will be conducted by the officers, who will report to the board, and bring their plans and proposals to them for their rubber stamp - and financial underwriting. However this organization is having trouble with conducting this transition, because it does not yet handle enough money to attract directors whose interest lies in money raising. ---------- (71) #49 C. S. McGee (cmcgee) Fri, Feb 12, 1999 (17:04). 3 lines. The one I use the most is Welty's Book of Procedures by Joel D. Welty. Written for groups that want to use consensus decision-making as their primary procedure. ---------- (71) #50 Rane Curl (rcurl) Fri, Feb 12, 1999 (18:08). 2 lines. Would you recommend that be adopted by a business like Grex for the conduct of board meetings? ---------- (71) #51 STeve Andre' (steve) Sat, Feb 13, 1999 (11:30). 7 lines. Rane, why is is that *our* particluar brand of rules offends you so? I'm really curious about this. It isn't the case that we abandon our clothes and rules during board meetings, is it? Do we resemble the ancestors of homo sapiens sapiens when we meet for a board meeting? Why is it that we can't use the system we've developed over time? How would our lives (or Grex's) have been improved? ---------- (71) #52 C. S. McGee (cmcgee) Sat, Feb 13, 1999 (11:53). 30 lines. I would not recommend that any published set of rules or procedures be adopted by a group unless it ceased to function effectively without them. Rules or procedures are simply a conflict-resolution tool. If you don't have conflict, you don't need procedures to handle it. And if you do have conflict, you don't need published rulebooks to develop a procedure. I would recommend that the group agree on some group norms before they start, write them down on newsprint, or if they are meeting over and over, keep them in the front of their record book/system. Especially in consensus focused groups, the rules should be totally transparent. If a conflict arises then discuss what two underlying norms are in conflict. If the group can't think of a way to handle the conflict themselves, bring in samples from other groups' methods and procedures. Once a group has ceased to function effectively, it does not matter what formal rules of order it has adopted. And if the group cannot come to agreement about how to handle conflicting norms, then you are likely to see resentment, apathy, and/or attrition. You may even have an organization that cannot be sustained in its current form. It doesn't matter who wrote (or published) the rules and procedures. Unless every member of the group agrees to the conflict-resolution method the group uses, you will get disfunctional groups. So, no I don't think businesses like Grex need to adopt Welty, or any other procedure. The conflict-resolution measures that the board uses seem to work just fine. There is no legal requirement that the board adopt someone elses solution to problems they don't have. ---------- (71) #53 Rane Curl (rcurl) Sat, Feb 13, 1999 (14:30). 6 lines. I went looking for Welty on the web bookstores, and could not find it. Re #51: you don't have any "particular brand of rules". You make them up as you go along. It is true that some degree of consistency has arisen because the same people keep serving on the board, but this is not a healthy long-term basis for procedures. ---------- (71) #54 STeve Andre' (steve) Sat, Feb 13, 1999 (14:50). 8 lines. It's worked for eight years, Rane. I think that says something about our proceedures and the success therein. I think that the amount of time we've done things this way counts for long term. But as I have said before, there might be board who wants to change things. Those future boards who don't yet exist could have circumstances which we can't envision, so I won't speak to what I can't forcast. ---------- (71) #55 C. S. McGee (cmcgee) Sat, Feb 13, 1999 (15:26). 2 lines. IF you want to see Welty, check it out of the public library. It is not a mass-market paperback, and is distributed by a small publishing company. ---------- (71) #56 Rane Curl (rcurl) Sun, Feb 14, 1999 (00:54). 1 line. So, its from a vanity press, and not widely respected and hence used? :) ---------- (71) #57 C. S. McGee (cmcgee) Sun, Feb 14, 1999 (10:06). 1 line. No, it's from a co-op press. ---------- (71) #58 Rane Curl (rcurl) Sun, Feb 14, 1999 (15:18). 1 line. Which one? ---------- (71) #59 C. S. McGee (cmcgee) Sun, Feb 14, 1999 (17:55). 3 lines. Caroline House. The book is available from University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives. ---------- (71) #60 Rane Curl (rcurl) Mon, Feb 15, 1999 (00:14). 9 lines. Re #52: rules are not primarily "conflict resolution tools". Rules are so that everyone agrees on procedures for conducting business, with nuances for such things as when a majority or a 2/3 vote is preferred. In my experience their use for conflict resolution arises in maybe 0.1% of the instances of their use, but then they are *very* useful. In normal proceding, they are just the tracks on which matters smoothly ride. The tracks used by Grex are in a few people's heads, and others have to divine what they are during meetings. This puts an unfair burden on those not in the know - or not "in". ---------- (71) #61 STeve Andre' (steve) Mon, Feb 15, 1999 (07:32). 26 lines. Hmmm. I'm not at all sure that Grex's style of business meetings aren't what most people are more familiar with, Rane. I think the case could be made that Grex's model relies far more on common sense and a lack of political stance making than the traditional RRO. Certainly RRO is far more complex. ...And probably the right thing for a large contentious organization which needs a very specific way to be able to accomplish things, when the factions in the org aren't likely to help the process along. In all the time I've been to board meetings (probably most of them, like 70%) I have never heard a single person berate Grex for its style of management during board meetings. Not afterwards, not in the conferences nor via email. I have heard comments that our style was unusual, but when queried no one has ever told me they thought it was wrong--indeed, several said they thought it was refreshing that we din't wallow in a rule structure and yet still got things done. Except of course, for you Rane. ;-) Perhaps others will step up to the pro-RRO plate, but that *I* know of, you are the sole proponent of this. But rather than argue over the merits of the different ways of doing things, let me ask you this: Do you think the various Grex boards would have done a better job of governance had they used RRO? Specific examples would be excellent. ---------- (71) #62 C. S. McGee (cmcgee) Mon, Feb 15, 1999 (11:16). 13 lines. Rane, all conflict is not argument. Any difference between expectations is a conflict. Good conflict resolution tools are subtle, and help avoid the level of conflict you seem to have in mind. For example, anthing that gets a less-than-unanimous vote is a conflict that has been resolved by a procedure call "voting". You know you're using good conflict resolution procedures when it seems like the group could run itself without any rules. Just like a good facilitator makes the meeting run so smoothly you think you didn't need her. Grex seems to have conflict resolution down to a very fine art, and certainly doesn't need more procedures. And I'm confident that if a need arises, we will craft a procedure that gets us back on track. ---------- (71) #63 Rane Curl (rcurl) Mon, Feb 15, 1999 (12:23). 11 lines. Steve asks a question: my answer is that various Grex board would have wasted less time if they had followed parliamentary rules. It has been a long time since I attended a Grex board meeting, but I do recall (rather unspecifically) a couple of times that I resolved a question that arose by making a suggestion (that came from RRoO, though I did not say so). I also recall that the Grex board at that time was rather confused about logical procedures of amendment of motions (i.e., exactly where they were in handling amendments up to the third degree), which I have no problem with. There were no "parliamentary crises" however - since so little is at stake. Actions were limited more by lack of resources than lack of procedures. ---------- (71) #64 STeve Andre' (steve) Mon, Feb 15, 1999 (12:28). 5 lines. So the herd of cats was confused at some points, which doesn't seem strange given the participants. I think we'd have been befuddled just as well with the RRO proceedures in place, as without. What we'd have gained by the ruleset would have been offset by the increased chance of not doing it right, methinks. ---------- (71) #65 Rane Curl (rcurl) Mon, Feb 15, 1999 (12:50). 6 lines. No. The board already acts on some general notions from RRoO. For example, motions passing my a majority vote, or even making motions, discussing them, and voting (in that order :)). If they knew a little more, there would be a little more order and simplicity. It just builds. (If you followed consensus rules, you would never even vote, but wait until you had unanimity (because the minority finally wanted to go home...)). ---------- (71) #66 Rane Curl (rcurl) Mon, Feb 15, 1999 (14:14). 10 lines. The only Welty book currently sold by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives is MARKETING MEMBER INVOLVEMENT -- The American Experience. (They don't offer RRoO either.) Welty is described as "popular American writer on membership and board topics", however. In searching the UWCC site, I found regulations of the ICA. They say that "time, venue, and themes (replaces agenda and procedures)" will be used in organizing their meetings. So, shall the Grex board abandon having an agenda, and just discuss "themes"? Themes can also be numbered in funny ways.... ---------- (71) #67 STeve Andre' (steve) Mon, Feb 15, 1999 (17:42). 12 lines. No. The board has never expressed interest in RRO, but neither has it been interested in simple chaos. It isn't that we dislike rules--far from it, since technical people live by rules (protocols, instruction sets, etc)--but that in the course of our interactions we haven't seen the need to increase the rules beyond a simple level. It only now occurs to me that Grex's operation adopts the KISS principal: Kiss It Simple Stupid. A simple yet often overlooked philosophical statement which programmers use (and elsewhere?), which seems to apply to Grex's way of conduction business. Yes, we use the beginning parts of RRO. That layer of the protocol has served us well. ---------- (71) #68 Walter Cramer (i) Mon, Feb 15, 1999 (20:44). 1 line. Looks like STeve is set on spoiling Rane's fun..... :) ---------- (71) #69 Rane Curl (rcurl) Tue, Feb 16, 1999 (00:32). 12 lines. Actually, I've enjoyed STeve's pleasant arguing style in this case, and I think we have both been rather moderate in the discussion. He, of course, is a (very) oldtimer in Grex, and likes keeping doing things the way he always has. I'm a relative newcomer and outsider, with much experience in non-profit management. We just have different perspectives on the fundamental necessities of how best to organize the management of a non-profit corporation. That's KEEP it Simple Stupid. However, it isn't simple when the rules are just in people's heads and cannot be discovered anywhere in order to know how to function - except by doing what the traditional board members do. I find that a rather suppressive atmosphere. ---------- (71) #70 STeve Andre' (steve) Tue, Feb 16, 1999 (07:51). 5 lines. I've kept doing things the way I am here because I've not seen a better way (yet). If and when I do, I'll change--anything that can be done in a better way management wise, I'm all for. OK, KEEP it Simple Stupid. I've seen it said that way, too. ---------- (71) #71 Tim P. Ryan (tpryan) Fri, Feb 19, 1999 (18:04). 2 lines. Why are there only 3 voices in this weeks responses to this item? ---------- (71) #72 STeve Andre' (steve) Sat, Feb 20, 1999 (00:02). 2 lines. Probably because only three people thought it worthwhile to talk about. ;-)