Optimizing Committee Meetings Using RONR

Optimizing Committee Meetings Using RONR James J. Connors, PRP

As a university professor, I have had the pleasure of chairing my university’s curriculum committee for the past two years . This committee meets weekly to discuss proposed new courses, course changes, degree program requirements, new degrees and other academic issues . The committee consists of representatives from all seven colleges at the University of Idaho, a small land-grant university in Moscow, Idaho .

As the chair of the University Curriculum Committee (UCC), I’m in the unique position of knowing parliamentary procedure and serving as a parliamentarian .

As a UCC committee member, prior to serving as chair, I noticed that a lot of time was spent voting on approval of the minutes, waiting on members to move and second motions and asking for a motion to adjourn the meeting . When I began my tenure as committee chair, I proposed several committee procedures prescribed in Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) to improve the efficiency of the weekly meetings and facilitate handling of the numerous proposals that come before the committee members . The committee accepted the following proposed procedures .

Assumed Motion

Most of the proposals that come before UCC have already been discussed and approved at the department and college levels . Resolutions are entered into an on-line Curriculum Information System so all members can view the proposals on their computers during the virtual meetings held on Zoom . This follows the recommendation in RONR (12th ed .) 4:5 that, “A resolution, or a long or complicated motion, should be prepared in advance of the meeting, if possible, and should be put into writing before it is offered . ”

These proposals are also put on the weekly agenda that is disseminated to the committee members at least five

days before the meeting . Because of this, we need not require a committee member to “move” the proposal as an original main motion . RONR (12th ed .) 49:21(5) states, “When a proposal is perfectly clear to all present, a vote can be taken without a motion’s having been introduced . ”

Second

Another procedure UCC now uses is that we no longer require a second for the proposals . In relation to a second, RONR (12th ed .) 4:11 states,

“A motion made by direction of a board or duly appointed committee of the assembly requires no second from the floor (provided the subordinate group is composed of more than one person), since the motion’s introduction has been directed by a majority vote within the board or committee and is therefore desired by at least two assembly members or elected or appointed persons to whose opinion the assembly is presumed to give weight regarding the board’s or committee’s concerns . ”

Because the department and college level curriculum committees are almost considered sub-committees of the UCC, the committee values their opinion and therefore does not require a second for curriculum proposals . In addition, because UCC acts as a small board, the guideline that seconds are not needed for main motions is followed . RONR (12th ed .) 49:21(2) .

Series of Resolutions

In some instances, an academic unit wants to make similar changes to numerous courses . An example would be when a unit creates a new course prefix (e .g ., Agricultural Education = AGED) . Recently a department created a new prefix and wanted to change dozens of courses from the old prefix to the new prefix . To save time during the meetings the committee treats these as a series of resolutions offered by a single main motion . RONR (12th ed .) 10:25 . If any member were to object to handling the proposals as one main motion, then the committee would handle them all individually . Also, if the series consists of independent resolutions relating to completely different subjects, one member can demand that a resolution be handled separately and not approved with the others in the series . In this instance, the committee does not require a formal motion to Divide the Question . RONR (12th ed .) 10:25 and 27:1 .

Postponing Action

The committee regularly uses two motions to delay action on motions . When the committee doesn’t have enough information on an issue or wants to see changes to the proposal, motions may be postponed definitely (RONR (12th ed .) 14:1) to the next week’s meeting or recommitted (RONR (12th ed .) 13:4) back to the college curriculum committee .

Beginning and Ending

Other parliamentary steps that have been utilized to improve efficiency is approving the minutes of the previous week’s meeting without any formal vote (RONR (12th ed .) 41:11) and adjourning without a motion or vote . If the committee finishes its agenda for the week, the meeting is adjourned without a vote; if the scheduled time to adjourn is reached (5:00 pm) then the agenda is interrupted and the meeting adjourned . RONR (12th ed .) 21:14-15 .

Conclusions

The incorporation of these RONR procedures have been eagerly embraced by the UCC members . They help speed up meetings and make handling numerous proposals easier and less taxing on everyone involved in the process . At the same time, proposals are given full consideration and formal votes of the committee are taken to approve or reject the proposals . Hopefully, future committee chairs will continue to use these parliamentary rules to run efficient meetings and facilitate the handling of important committee business . NP

James (Jim) Connors, PhD, PRP, PAP, is a professor and head of the Department of Agricultural Education, Leadership, and Communications at the University of Idaho in Moscow, Idaho. He has taught parliamentary procedure for over thirty-five years. From 2001 to 2015 he served as superintendent of the National FFA Parliamentary Procedure Leadership Development event in which over 250 FFA members competed each year. He has worked with youth organizations on their parliamentary procedure competitions and served as parliamentarian for numerous local, state, and national organizations. He is a member of the National Association of Parliamentarians®, American Institute of Parliamentarians, and the Society for Agricultural Education Parliamentarians.

Purposes of a Consent Calendar

Patricia E. McDougle, PRP

Consent Calendar: A means of prioritizing certain items of business? A timesaving device for handling routine business? A separate vote on individual items grouped together? Or one vote for all? It’s all of these!

Introduction

A consent calendar1 or alternatively, consent agenda, references a list of business matters or items grouped together for consideration under a single category . A consent calendar may serve either of two purposes . It may allow (1) a group of related or unrelated business items to be considered individually or (2) a group of routine and noncontroversial items to be considered in gross (taken together), without debate or amendment, on a single vote . This second group is often the more familiarly used . Placement of the calendar on the meeting agenda must be established in a special rule of order .

A Special Rule of Order Establishes the Calendar’s Priority and Procedures

In order to utilize a consent calendar, an organization must first adopt a special rule of order permitting its use . Beyond authorization, the rule adopted may include, e .g ., placement on the agenda, types of business to be included and approval required to include an item . If an organization has authorized a consent calendar and the authorization does not include its consideration in gross and without debate or amendment, the items on the calendar are considered like any other business . 2

An example of a special rule of order authorizing a consent calendar to consider business items individually follows:

A consent calendar may be utilized to place related or unrelated matters or items of business to be taken up before the matter or item of business would come up in the standard order of business . Any item or matter to which any member objects shall be removed from the calendar and placed in the appropriate class of business on the meeting agenda . The consent calendar shall be placed on the meeting agenda as the first item of business .

1 RONR (12th ed.) 41:32 2 RONR (12th ed.) 41:32

An example of a special rule of order authorizing a consent calendar to adopt business items with one vote and without debate or amendment follows:

A consent calendar may be utilized for routine and noncontroversial matters or items of business provided they are considered in gross without debate or amendment . Upon the request of a single member, any item shall be removed from the calendar and taken up under the regular rules after its placement in the appropriate class of business on the meeting agenda .

The consent calendar shall be placed on the meeting agenda as the first item of business .

Business Items Considered Individually

Business items listed under a consent calendar utilized in this manner are given a higher priority of consideration than they would have if listed under the class of business to which they would normally belong . Examples include the election of officers, the accounting firm’s review of the annual audit report or the attorney’s update on the status on pending legal actions .

The meeting agenda should list each of the items under the consent calendar heading . As each item on the consent calendar is reached, it is called up separately by the chair . If an objection is raised, the item is restored under the class of business on the meeting agenda where it would normally be considered .

Each action item is open to debate and amendment with a vote taken before moving on to consideration of the next item . Reports recommending action, whether oral or written, may be included and when the report is taken up, a recommended action is open to debate, amendment and a vote . In the minutes, the applicable wording and disposition of each item is recorded in a separate paragraph .

Business Items Considered Without Debate or Amendment

A consent calendar is a useful tool for disposing of routine or noncontroversial matters without debate or amendment . 3 Although what is routine or noncontroversial differs among organizations, whether legislative or non-legislative, all may have matters in common; for example, the need for approval of multiple minutes of prior meetings, committee appointments, invoice payments or expense reimbursements not exceeding a certain amount . Other items, such as contracts, policy revisions, grants and loans may need only pro forma approval upon completion of all documentation .

Including reports on the consent calendar

Financial reports, committee reports and legally required reports from a corporate organization to its board of directors, while routine, should not be included on a consent calendar . Robert’s states that:

• No action on a financial report is required, or proper, except perhaps that the report be submitted for audit .

4 • A vote to adopt a report in effect says that every aspect of the report, its facts, rationale, and recommendations, is endorsed by the voting body and thus concludes that adoption of a report is rarely wise . 5

Robert’s statements are borne out in an article published in American Banker in 2008 by Dan Clark . 6 According to Clark, “boards and individual directors expose themselves to regulatory and legal jeopardy” by adopting reports included on a consent calendar . Clark writes that:

“The board’s approving of a report creates a specific and unnecessary accountability, and thus personal liability may extend to the individual directors . . . .when a board approves a report, it is saying that it agrees with all of the content and makes that affirmative statement to all who should read that report subsequently . Boards need to let reports stand on their own as the product of those who prepared them . Directors, take the information and absorb it to carry out your duties . ”

In a follow-up article,7 Clark writes that if the practice of including reports on the consent calendar is followed, a distinction should be made between action items and acknowledgment of reports received . This concept is applied to the parliamentary steps followed in the handling of a consent calendar on the meeting agenda, in the meeting, and in recording the minutes .

Consent Calendar on the Meeting Agenda

The meeting agenda should indicate the placement of the consent calendar— as specified in the adopted special rule of order—followed by a listing of the items on the calendar, action items and acknowledgment of reports received . Each item is numbered . The pre-meeting packet sent to members will include the documentation related to each listed item .

Handling the Consent Calendar in the Meeting

When the calendar is reached on the meeting agenda, members are given the opportunity to remove an item or items from the calendar . A single member, without approval, may request the removal of an item . Items removed are placed on the meeting agenda in the appropriate class of business . The chair may use unanimous consent to handle items in the consent calendar, as in the following example:

4 RONR (12th ed.) 48:24 5 RONR (12th ed.) 51:13 6 Clark, Dan, “Why Boards Can’t Afford to Be Careless With Consent Agendas,” American Banker,

October 24, 2008 7 Clark, Dan, “Proper Use of Consent Agendas, Reports Can Streamline Board Meetings,”

American Banker, November 14, 2008

Chair: The first business on today’s agenda is the consent calendar . Does any member wish to remove an item from the calendar? [pause for member requests, if any] Items four, seven, and twelve are removed from the calendar . Is there an objection to adopting the consent action items one through eight with the exception of items four and seven and acknowledging receipt of the reports listed in items nine through fifteen with the exception of item twelve? [pause] Since there is no objection, the noted items are adopted and acknowledged . Items four and seven are placed on the meeting agenda under reports of officers . Item twelve is placed on the agenda under reports of special committees .

Recording the Consent Calendar in the Minutes

In the minutes under the heading Consent Calendar, the following are noted: • items removed • each action item, its wording and disposition, included in a separate paragraph, in the same manner as a motion from the floor • acknowledged reports

A Suggested Minutes Format is as follows:

Consent Calendar

Removed from the Consent Calendar for Separate Consideration [List items as they appeared on the meeting agenda] Action Items Adopted [Separate paragraph for each item on the calendar when adopted] Acknowledgment of Reports Received [List of reports included on the calendar when adopted]

A Last Word

A consent calendar may serve two distinctive and different purposes: 1) to give high priority to related or unrelated items of business to be considered separately; and 2) to provide for disposal of routine and non-controversial items of business with one vote and without debate or amendment; these may be items to adopt or items to acknowledge receipt . The second saves time that may be used for more substantive business and contributes to efficiency in a meeting . NP

Patricia E. McDougle, PRP, has been a member of NAP since 1985 and a PRP since 1991. She serves as parliamentarian and provides training for international, national, state, and local organizations as well as government bodies on a local level. She has supported youth organizations, FFA, FBLA, FCCLA, and others for many, many years as a judge for parliamentary competitions. She is a member of the Broward-Palm Beach Parliamentarians.

Deliberation Dilution

Adrian Stratton, PRP

“Are you ready for the question?” That critical invitation1 is delivered frequently by presiding officers as a means to begin debate on a motion . Parliamentary law is rooted in the concept that members address one item of business at a time . One, cohesive, focused discussion is the method by which assemblies have deliberated for centuries with coordination and cooperation . But when the question is stated today are all members having the same discussion?

Traditionally, following carefully refined rules, the standard flow of information is approved and enforced by the assembly through the chair . Starting with adoption of an agenda and adherence to business arising out of it, members expect to share and receive information in order to dispose of matters before the assembly . The assembly is informed by the members and invited guests when recognized . Increasingly, more options to communicate, are changing how assemblies deliberate . Through email, text messages, and messaging applications members are able to exchange information in ways that are convenient and far-reaching during meetings .

When appropriate, members may rise to speak for or against a motion and share information to strengthen arguments . The clash of debate provides insights for members upon which to form their voting preference . Out of the clash, a decision is made by a majority of members . Now, however, information can be (and often is) received from more than just those speakers recognized . In addition to a request for information2 a member now has the capability to directly ask one who has the floor their question . Further, a member may ask another member—possibly one who has not been recognized by the chair—for clarifications . Guests of an assembly and non-participants can also be queried . On response through a private electronic message, remarks shared and information received may

1 RONR (12th ed.) 4:15 2 RONR (12th ed.) 33:6

be selectively distributed among portions of the assembly . 3 These subtle ways in which deliberations are being diluted has significant impact on the concept of full and free discussion .

One comment can splinter into numerous micro discussions all taking place rapidly, and silently in between statement of the first argument in debate and when the question is put to a vote . With a tap, a message can reach an entire organization or just a few select members . Information received—requested or not—can be the last impression a significant number of members has on an issue prior to a vote . A screenshot of a yet to be presented committee report can be displayed to a closed cohort in an attempt to influence recipients . And information on a candidate can be pushed to a targeted voting block just prior to submission of a paper or digital ballot . Improperly, even undebatable motions may become subject to informal debate in a virtual pseudo-quasi committee of the whole . These diluted deliberations that are expanded into many conversations can privately break rules that all members seem to publicly follow .

Members have probably always shared information among a few during meetings . Private conversations naturally take place with those in close proximity when members gather face-to-face . Hushed speech is the preferred way for a chair to speak with a parliamentarian and members have used this technique among themselves for a variety of reasons . Text messages and direct chats, arguably the digital equivalents of whispers, are now commonly used in person and virtually . Furthermore, few practical rules exist that prevent two or more members from simply removing themselves from deliberations so that they may converse privately . Whether in the corridor of a convention hall or in a private chat, members are free to exit meetings to separately gather how they please .

A whisper among neighboring members and informal caucusing do not typically breach accepted parliamentary decorum . So, it is reasonable to assume some deliberative dilution has occurred before and that it will most likely continue . Nevertheless, of parliamentary concern now is not only the magnitude and reach but the ease and options that one may use to communicate with some members while simultaneously excluding others . Unruly whisperers may be called to order . Too many members leaving a meeting could cause another member to question if quorum is still present . The devices most members utilize for communication has created a new dynamic that enables interaction without much disruption . Enforcing certain rules in a diluted deliberation, particularly when all members are not impacted, may become necessary to address . For example, an entire assembly may not be aware that a previous speaker has continued to

advocate for their points after their recognition has ended and another has the floor . This type of unspoken breach would create a unique presiding challenge if a point of order were raised,4 but the violation may never be addressed if the recipients are receptive to the incoming communications .

Assemblies have a better chance of making great decisions if all are equally informed . All members having relatively equal access to insights on the business before them is fair and helpful . In acknowledgement, parliamentary law provides many means to ensure information may be freely and equally shared . Papers may be approved to be read5, items may be referred to committees for deeper consideration, and special meetings may be called to discuss particular matters . Properly formed quasi committees of the whole6 may be entered to allow deliberation with fewer restrictions . 7 Despite the mechanisms to achieve full and free discussion, some members are now voluntarily distracted with competing conversations among overlapping factions operating in parallel to the entirety of the assembly . What a member learns from debate could become less influential than what is read in private group communications .

The unified debate is becoming more and more diluted . Technology is enabling this change in not only how assemblies deliberate but the way in which members engage . No rule can be enforced that constrains members within one discussion . Rules to ban devices, for instance, could be imposed, but should they? In virtual environments the very devices that could be banned are instrumental to transacting business . The technology enabling modern assemblies is imbedded with distraction only a click or tap away . Some assemblies may choose to impose limitations on how members interact during meetings but it is the intrinsic responsibility of each member to choose to focus . As a result, a staid characteristic of deliberations going forward may be acceptance that some members are possibly readier for the question than others . NP

4 Carl Nohr, PRP, raises excellent points on chat box management and provides great recommendations for consideration in his article “The Chat Box: Boon of Boondoggle?”

See Carl Nohr, “The Chat Box: Boon or Boondoggle?” National Parliamentarian®

Volume 82, No. 4, Summer 2021 (Independence, Missouri: National Association of

Parliamentarians®, 2021), 13-15 5 RONR (12th ed.) 33:20 6 RONR (12th ed.) 52:1-2 7 RONR (12th ed.) 52:19-23

Adrian Stratton, MBA, PRP, is president of the New York Association of Parliamentarians. A member of the National Association of Parliamentarians® and the American Institute of Parliamentarians, Mr. Stratton is a partner at GAACC management consulting.

A Majority Elects… How Many?

H. R. (Bob) Hall

In elections with just a single position to fill, the candidate who receives a majority of the votes cast is elected, since only one person can receive a majority . When there are multiple positions to be filled, the election is often faster when members cast multiple votes on a single ballot . The rules for such multi-vote elections (MVEs) are given in RONR (12th ed .) 46:33 .

In an MVE, all candidates receiving votes of at least a majority of the ballots cast are elected . If the number receiving a majority exceeds the number of available positions, candidates are declared elected in descending order of votes received, starting with the one with the most votes and proceeding down until all available positions are filled . In the case of tie votes, or if not enough candidates are elected, then balloting continues among the candidates not yet elected . On each repeated ballot, members may cast from one vote up to the number of open positions remaining, but may not cast multiple votes for any one candidate .

At the 2021 biennial convention of the National Association of Parliamentarians®, the Directors-atLarge, District Representatives, and four members of the Commission on Credentialing were elected in MVEs . The convention standing rules called for the election of one candidate per ballot in the first two cases . After the first single-vote ballot for directors, it was obvious that the elections would take too long, so the assembly approved a change in the convention standing rules to allow MVEs . In the first multi-vote ballot three candidates were elected by majority votes, filling all open positions . But the list of candidates with votes received showed that, with a small difference in vote distribution, four candidates could have received majorities . I was interested in this and decided to look into it .

I wondered what fraction of the ballots in MVEs should be exceeded for electing candidates to all open positions, but no more? Trial calculations revealed the answer: If N is the number of votes allowed on a ballot, and if candidates are elected by receiving more votes than the (N/(N+1)) fraction of ballots cast, then a maximum of N positions can be filled on a single ballot .

The table on page 19 verifies this result . To provide an easy-to-follow example, it assumes that 100 valid ballots were cast, and that all members cast the maximum number of votes allowed . This clarifies the table entries, and does not limit the validity of the results . The single-vote, single-position case is included to show that it fits this result .

Elections: Examples for 100 Ballots

Votes N/(N+1) Votes Votes Total Minimum Maximum per Ballot Fraction for a Tie to Elect Votes to Fill Votes Remaining

1 1/2 50 51 100 51 49 2 2/3 66.7 67 200 134 66 3 3/4 75 76 300 228 72 4 4/5 80 81 400 324 76 5 5/6 83.3 84 500 420 80

Consider the columns in the table above . For each row, the first two columns give the number of votes per ballot, and the numeric fraction for that case; the third and fourth give that fraction of votes for 100 ballots, and the number needed to be elected; the fifth, sixth, and seventh give the total votes cast, the minimum number of votes to elect a full set of candidates, and the maximum number of votes remaining . In each case, it is less than the number required to elect another candidate . The third column is called “votes for a tie,” because if (N+1) candidates each get this number of votes, the ballot results in a full tie among them .

The results presented here apply equally both to SVEs and MVEs, but there is a significant difference between the two: In SVEs, ballots are either valid, or not counted, so the total number of votes and the number of ballots cast are the same . In an MVE, a ballot is counted if it has only one vote on it, so the total number of votes will often be less than the maximum possible . This is clear in the rules for MVEs in RONR: “every ballot with a vote … is counted as one vote cast .” Unfortunately, this rule confounds the words “ballot” and “vote .” I have distinguished ballots from votes throughout this paper . Finally, let me say that I am not advocating changing from electing candidates by a majority vote in MVEs . Since members may cast only one vote for any candidate, those candidates who receive a majority vote are obviously choices of the assembly, and the rules for MVEs in RONR apply . The result presented here is intended to improve members’ concepts about election voting for both MVEs and Single-Vote Elections (SVEs) . NP

Harold R. (Bob) Hall, PhD, NAP member, designed and implemented the 300 Questions website (www.300questions.org) in 2007, adding the 100-question NAP membership exam for online testing until the shorter exam replaced it. He has maintained the website, updating it as needed for the 11th and 12th editions. He has served as NAP Webmaster (two years), CSAP Webmaster (fourteen years), advisor to the NAP Membership Examiners Committee, on the NAP Communications Committee, and in unit officer positions. He earned the BS, MS, and PhD degrees in EECS from the University of California, Berkeley.