FEATURES Virtual Deliberative Participation Adrian Stratton, RP

Virtual Deliberative Participation

By Adrian Stratton, RP

Virtual group interactions are a relatively new convenience that have expanded the possibilities of connectivity. Never before has it been possible to simultaneously interact with groups of people in distant places with such ease. Disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has forced organizations across the world to reconsider options of operating when gathering together in person is not a possibility. As society has maintained physical separation and social distance, utilization of available software to conduct business has increased. Virtual meetings for assemblies should be embraced, and governance must adapt for balance between the freedom of organizations and the fundamental principles of parliamentary law.

For decades, parliamentary authorities have discussed the concept of electronic meetings and how rules of order apply. A virtual meeting takes place when one or more members participate in deliberations without face-to-face interaction with the other attendees. It has become typical for boards and committees to interact virtually. Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th edition provides critical guidance on this inclusiveness of assemblies, but rightfully leaves the decisions of how to each organization, based on their unique circumstance. Regarding active virtual deliberative participation, a clear distinction should be made between a regular meeting and an informal gathering used to update memberships. Gatherings where the expectation is that most members will act in a passive capacity would not apply to a virtual meeting concept where all members have equal rights.

To fully understand the concept of virtual deliberative participation, required governance, and the impact to an assembly, presiding officers, parliamentarians, and members must recognize the unique ways in which virtual interactions can be held. Virtual participation can broadly be thought of in one of three ways: complete virtual participation, partial virtual participation, and mixed virtual participation. To illustrate each, consider an assembly of 23 members who wish to participate in a properly noticed regular meeting but are physically separated in multiple localities. The bylaws of the assembly authorize virtual regular meetings.

Complete virtual participation:

a gathering where all members join

the meeting from separate individual locations, without any groups. The connections would equal the number of members who are each using the same technology to participate from separate individual devices for each attendee. There is no in person, faceto-face interaction between two or more members for the duration of the meeting. In this meeting, an assembly of 23 would require 23 separate connections across 23 separate devices. All participants would have equal technology access to the meeting.

Partial virtual participation: a gathering where all members join the meeting from separate group locations. The connections would equal the number of groups with each group sharing the same technology through a common device to participate with the other individuals or groups. There is at least one in person, face-to-face group participating in this type of meeting simultaneously with at least one other individual or group. This meeting would require at least two separate connections across two devices that would allow all 23 members to interact. All groups would have equal technology access to the meeting.

Mixed virtual participation:

a gathering where all members (or groups) join the meeting from separate individual or group locations. The connections would equal the number of non-group members (plus the number of groups) with at least two attendees (or group of attendees) using a communicative technology different from some or all the other participants. There are, at a minimum, two different communicative technologies in simultaneous use and the number of devices in use would equal the number of non-group attendees (plus groups). For example, a meeting of 23 members that supports and allows attendees to participate by video and voice as well as voice only (no video) would be considered as mixed virtual participation. All members may not have equal technology access to the meeting.

Technology has developed to accommodate fair virtual deliberative participation. In each of the scenarios described, the fundamental principles of parliamentary law could be protected if proper rules of order are observed, decorum is followed, and the technology works properly. The chair would preside, and members could make, debate, amend, and vote on motions. The deliberative characteristic1 that a group “meets in a single room or area or under equivalent conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participants…” can be achieved in a virtual meeting.2 For good reasons such as security, secrecy, familiarity, and fellowship, it is practical for most assemblies to meet in person, face-to-face. But in times of distress and in consideration of future organizational preferences, organizations will need to seriously consider virtual meetings.

Virtual meetings enable the full assembly to act in times of crisis. Most organizations would be wise to keep

in person, face-to-face meetings as the norm and not the exception. However, for organizations that would like for the entire voting membership to have the opportunity to meet in times of crisis, virtual meetings are an effective method. Technology that previously did not exist now creates the possibility of an entire assembly coming together to conduct business during an emergency when a meeting is scheduled but it is simply not practical, or possible, to meet face-to-face.

Organizations may desire to operate virtually out of convenience and preference. Many barriers, such as cost, quality of software, and inconsistent internet speeds that have all contributed to the previous impracticability of virtual group interactions have been largely removed. Additional technological advancements will develop, and the way assemblies engage, inclusive of conferences and conventions, will also have to be reimagined. The notion of membership and participation connected by bonds beyond geographical limitations is possible with appropriate rules of order and technology. Virtual participation will enable existing and new types of organizations to conduct business without physical boundaries.

Embracing virtual meetings would undoubtedly do more good than harm, but wide adoption is not without risks that demand consideration. Authorization and the necessary adoption and implementation of actions are unique activities. Valid opposition to virtual meetings goes beyond simple resistance to change but begins to explore questions central to the fundamental principles of parliamentary law.

Over-reliance on virtual meetings could diminish the fairness of parliamentary law, leading to an erosion of rights. Decorum sensitivity and established rules of order correctly applied would still protect the rights of attendees. However, the “weaponization” of technology will be an issue that presiding officers and members must consider and protect against. In the case of mixed virtual participation, risks are possible when all attendees cannot see and hear each other. Dropped participant connectivity could impact quorums, for instance, and deliberate group positioning with regard to partial virtual participation could create recognition issues in debate. Fairness in recognition and debate would need to be monitored by the assembly just as it is in person, face-to-face. Bylaws and standing rules will need to reflect additional governance to protect the assembly.

Unclear guidelines threaten the fabric of parliamentary procedure. Guidelines that are not firmly established and well thought out could be exploited by deceitful participants who understand technology better than other participants. Protection of the rights of every member must be safeguarded,3 and the controller of the selected meeting technology must not be allowed to abuse such authority.

Established rules protecting against an abusive presiding officer would likely need to be expanded to ensure that the rights of members are not limited. If mixed virtual participation is allowed, the impact to debate and voting would need to be clear as to limit, and to discourage abuse of such freedom.

Canon wrote that the “…goals of every member in a meeting should be to understand the issues, to debate freely those issues when debate is appropriate, to express their views clearly, and to make certain that their votes are counted correctly.”4 In order for virtual meetings to be successful these goals and others will surely need to be addressed in organization bylaws and standing rules, and in updated parliamentary authorities with virtual meetings in consideration. As a professional body, the parliamentary community should continue to encourage the adoption of methods that provide flexibility for organizations with appropriate protections. By carefully considering the limitations of virtual meetings, organizations can better prepare for known issues, and rely on the existing parliamentary framework to manage unexpected developments.

Deliberative assemblies will need to confront a growing demand for the authorization and use of virtual participation. For the purposes of transacting business, the intent remains; the freedom to choose the method of participation to achieve the intent will be the difference. As technology improves, clear rules of order to fully embrace the opportunity will be needed to protect the rights of membership and participation. Parliamentarians should continue to educate themselves about virtual possibilities and limitations. The role of technology in parliamentary interactions and how organizations think about coming together must continue to evolve to reflect this reality.

NoTES

1. Henry M. III Robert, Daniel H.

Honemann, Thomas J. Balch, Robert’s

Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th edition (New York: PublicAffairs, 2011), p. 98, ll. 11-19 2. Henry M. III Robert, Daniel H.

Honemann, Thomas J. Balch, Robert’s

Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th edition (New York: PublicAffairs, 2011), p. 1, ll. 12-14, italic emphasis by the author 3. American Institute of Parliamentarians,

American Institute of Parliamentarians

Standard Code of Parliamentary

Procedure (New York: McGraw Hill

Company, 2012), p. 109 4. Hugh Cannon, Cannon’s Concise Guide to Rules of Order (Boston: Houghton

Mifflin Company, 1992), p. 51

Adrian Stratton, MBA, RP, is a member of the National Association of Parliamentarians, Parliamentarians of Brooklyn New York, Inc. unit, and the American Institute of Parliamentarians. Mr. Stratton is a Partner at GAACC management consulting.