Welcome to the August 2007 issue of Deliberations.
This newsletter starts with workshop announcements,
and follows with three articles, entitled:

A CAREER LIMITING MOVE

In a previous article I related the dilemma that a staff member encountered.  His manager was always in a rush to bring meetings to a swift end.  The manager made it clear that he generally preferred his staff to keep quiet and avoid slowing things down.  Anything said was deemed to be a potential career limiting move, especially if it contradicted what the manager wanted. 

What can be done to deal with such a dilemma?  One option is to try some upward-management with him.  Consider a script like this:

“Tom, do you have a moment? I have a dilemma and I need you to help me with it. It’s about our meetings. My dilemma goes like this:  On the one hand, your preference seems to be to move meetings quickly and keep discussions brief.  On the other hand, there are times when I have ideas that can potentially prevent mistakes and improve the quality of decisions, but this may slow things down a bit.  How should I deal with this dilemma?”

The above approach is soft and non-accusatory, yet it is direct, honest and principled.  Your starting point is “I have a dilemma,” and not “You don’t know how to run a meeting.”  Your implied goal is serve the organization’s needs rather than your own.  Who will argue against the need to arrive at quality decisions in an inclusive and efficient manner?  Who will suggest that it is okay to remain silent and thereby allow a flawed decision to be made?

Of course, the devil’s advocates will say: “And what if my boss does not take my feedback well?  What if I suffer some repercussions as a result of it?”  In such a case you may want to consider your options, which may include a search for an alternative workplace, where your skills and talents are valued and appreciated, and where your wisdom, knowledge and expertise are proactively sought in the process of making corporate decisions.

Some of the most often asked procedural questions are about re-visiting a previously made decision:  When can such a motion be reconsidered, rescinded or amended?  Is it true that re-visiting a motion can only be initiated by someone who voted on the prevailing side?

The information given here is largely based on Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (10th edition).  Any provisions in your legislation or bylaws that contradict this article will override it.  This article relies on sections 35, 37 and 38 in Robert, which span a total of 33 pages.  Given that most of these 33 pages are rarely needed or used, below are the essential provisions.

1. Re-visiting Adopted Motions (Robert sections 35 and 37)

A motion that was adopted can only be re-visited if it is possible to reverse or modify the action that was authorized by this motion.  For example: If all money that was authorized for a certain purchase was spent, it is too late to re-visit the motion that authorized it.  If a motion was partly implemented, only the parts that were not executed can be re-visited.

Under Robert, a motion that was adopted can be re-visited at the same meeting via the motion to reconsider, which can be made by a member who voted on the prevailing side (in favor of the motion in this case).  In such a case, two steps will be taken: First, a vote on whether the motion will be reconsidered. If the motion to reconsider is adopted (by a majority vote), the group will reconsider and then re-vote on the original motion, possibly with a different outcome.

An adopted motion can also be re-visited at a subsequent meeting via the motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted.  This motion can be made by any member, regardless of how he or she voted originally.  Only one step would be taken in this case: Debate and vote on whether the original motion will be rescinded or amended.

2. Re-visiting Defeated Motions (Robert sections 37 and 38)

A defeated motion can be re-visited at the same meeting via the motion to reconsider, which can be made by a member who voted on the prevailing side (against the motion in this case),   If the motion to reconsider is adopted (by a majority vote), the defeated motion will be back before the assembly.

A defeated motion can also be re-visited at a subsequent meeting by being re-introduced as new business, following the normal processes that apply to the introduction of new business.  The motion to reconsider does not apply in this case. It only applies during the meeting when the original decision was made.

3. Preventing Abuse

Re-visiting motions presents a challenge to decision-making bodies.  On the one hand, a group should not be locked into flawed decisions and should be free to change its mind in response to new information.  On the other hand, it can be tiring and frustrating to listen to the same debate and reach the same outcome meeting after meeting, when petulant members or minorities abuse the re-visiting privileges. 

To prevent abuse of the re-visiting privileges, your bylaws (which override Robert), should say something like this: “The same or substantially the same motion that receives the same outcome two meetings in a row shall not be re-visited for six months, unless the members, by a majority vote, agree to do so.”  Such a clause would shift control of the agenda from individual members to the group.

Practical Notes

Re-visiting a motion often feels uncomfortable.  The group and its stakeholders may perceive that things are getting bogged down, and they may therefore lose confidence in the decision-making process.  This can diminish the group’s credibility and can increase anxiety and resentment.  Clearly, re-visiting a decision should be the exception and not the norm.  To reduce the likelihood of needing to re-visit motions, consider the following tips:

1. Anchor your decisions in your group’s long term plans and ensure that they evolve over time.  Late additions to agendas should be the exception and not the norm. This approach will reduce surprises and the accompanying likelihood of flawed decisions.
2. Avoid articulating motions on an impromptu basis during a meeting, since such motions are inherently flawed.  Take the time to write them down and consider every word, so the motions are clear, concise, correct and complete by the time debate begins.
3. Allow enough time for debate and avoid rushing decisions through.  This means that you should avoid packed agendas, if possible.
4. Develop a shared commitment to your organization’s mission and vision, and build collaboration and teamwork.  In such a climate, re-visiting decisions will be for legitimate purposes, rather than purely political ones.

RECORDING RE-VISITED DECISIONS

I was recently asked this question: “We made a bad decision at a recent Board meeting and want to change it. Can we hold a teleconference call to do that?  And if so, can we then delete the original decision from the minutes of the first meeting?”

My to the first question is a qualified yes.  If your Bylaws permit the Board to make decisions by teleconference calls, you can hold one to rescind the flawed decision (assuming it was not implemented).

My answer to the second question is no.  By definition, minutes are a record of what took place at a meeting.  If a decision was made, it should be captured as having been made, even if it was cancelled or modified at a later meeting.

The latter answer, although technically correct, creates a practical difficulty:  An average person, reading the minutes in isolation, may perceive that the original decision still stands.  Can something be done to avoid forcing such a person to look through several sets of subsequent minutes to determine the status of a motion?

To address this difficulty, it is suggested that you capture the fact that a decision was subsequently rescinded or modified as a footnote in the original minutes.  The original decision will be flagged, and the footnote will say something like: “This decision was rescinded at a Board teleconference call on July 10, 2007.”

BACK TO MENU