 |
Author |
TOPIC: Another Wasted Meeting! |
| Uncle Mertog
October 28, 2008
12:22:15 AM
Entry #: 2964173
| I know I sound like a broken record when I invoke the name of "Robert's Rules of Order" but it needs to be said again and again and again until it sinks in.
My first concern revolves around the very first paragraph of our by-laws which states:
i1. All order of business to be governed by parliamentary procedures. Roberts rules of order.
However I have yet to see one meeting that has any semblance of Robert's Rules of Order and this begs the question...does anyone know what Roberts Rules of Order are? If not, how can we conduct any business following a set of rules that no one knows anything about? Does this even make sense to anyone?
Just how unorganized we are as an organization was illustrated once again at the meeting tonight when it was suggested that we should not proceed to elect officials for the league until it was made known to everyone that positions were open. This is absolutely ludicrous since this is neither in the League by-laws, nor is it in Robert's Rules of Order. The only thing necdessary was a quorum of eligible voting members to be present to hold elections for office. For those of you who do not know, a Quorum is 50% +1 or a simple majority of eligible voting members. The league has 16 teams and 16 managers...thus you only need 9 members to qualify for a Quorum...we had 11, thus a vote could have been conducted.
Secondly the suggestion to suspend the vote till the next meeting was in fact illegal since no motion can be made by a non-member of the quroum or in other words...someone who is not serving in the capacity of a manager, since only managers are allowed to vote at meetings or make motions. Managers are there to represent their respective teams and NO ONE else has the right to make a motion or even voice an opinion except through their manager. In addition for anyone to speak at a meeting they need to be recognized by the president or chair...which did not occur. Also, this suggestion was not motioned by a manager and was not voted on by the quorum thus it should not have been entertained. Essentially we wasted an entire night which could have been very productive for absolutely nothing due to an illegal motion which was never recognized and never voted on.
In addition to all this, votes are not conducted properly, motions are not tabled correctly, debate is not formatted correctly, essentially we ignore all the rules. Now I can't tell you how many times I hear from managers...RULES are RULES...yet we break them each and every meeting. If we are truly going to hold people accountable for Rules, I suggest we start with ourselves and follow the rules ourselves when we conduct meetings. As I mentioned earlier, it becomes difficult to follow rules that we have no grasp on.
I have a few copies of Robert's Rules of Order and I have ordered a few more. I plan on distributing these to the league officials and to the managers so that we can get the meetings more organized in the future and become more productive. It becomes extremely annoying to show up at a meeting and get nothing done because someone decides that they don't want to be there or because someone decides to put off an issue until the next meeting...then the next meeting comes and then want to put it off until the next meeting. We have wasted too many meetings entertaining notions and suggestions that have no business being entertained. I for one am sick of wasting valuable time listening to the same nonsense. There was absolutely no reason Kevin Dolan couldn't be elected tonight as our new treasurer and begun sorting out the financial situation, now we have to wait a couple more weeks due to a non-manager making an absolutely illegal suggestion.
In addition, we were told that Ian does not take over as vice president until January??? Why? Our by-laws mention nothing about any elected official not taking over until January. It only mentions that elected officials are voted for in August. I consulted Roberts Rules of Order and it essentially states that this is established by the organizational by-laws, and as I stated this is not covered by the by-laws. So where did we get January from??? Who made this up?
There is one provision...and that is past practice. When nothing is established, then past practice shall prevail until it is properly established or changed by organizational by-laws. Since we have not had any change in organizational leadership in years, there is no established past practice and thus Ian Smith should be Vice President now. He was elected, he is used to answer questions and settle problems already and we rely on him all the time. No one calls Baxter to answer their questions...we all call Smitty, so why should he have to wait until January to be considered the Vice President. Once again, we are wasting time. Give the man the job we elected him to do and let him go to work.
Also, on the issue of voting and tie breakers, we actually conducted that situation entirely wrong this year. We settled tie breakers with a coin flip, and I'll bet by now you know what I'm going to say...WRONG! Nowhere in Roberts Rules or our by-laws is there a provision for a coing flip.
It's a bit ridiculous for us to continue wasting valuable time when meetings could be far more productive if we simply followed time tested and proven methods established by Roberts Rules which we already established through our by-laws as being the rues we are to follow for this organization.
Lets get our act together!
|
| Uncle Mertog
October 28, 2008
12:32:09 AM
Entry #: 2964178
| In addition it was posted on this website under the title "Meeting October 27" where Ian posted:
7:00 PNA MONDAY 10/27
ALL 16 SUMMER MANAGERS NEED TO ATTEND. WE HAVE SEVERAL ISSUES TO DISCUSS MOVING FORWARD INTO NEXT YEAR THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED NOW.
To which I responded with:
I would also venture to guess we have to find out just where Baxter stands and if he wants to continue, if not we will have to elect a new president which will have dominoe effect, meaning a new vice president, and perhaps secretary/treasurer.
If Baxter wants to stay, we still need someone to step up as treasurer, since Ian is the new vice president. I think Baxter, Ian and Rob Raymond could handle the job nicely. If Baxter decides he can't continue, Ian for president, Rob vice president and my choice would be Bob Botelho or Kevin Dolan in the tresurer/secretary position.
So people were fully informed of the situation, and we had a quorum. Those who chose not to show for whatever reason, tough shit!
|
|
| Ryno
October 28, 2008
12:39:08 AM
Entry #: 2964182
| I don't know who you are posing as my friend Uncle Mertog but I have to insist you stop. I very much enjoy his marriage related rants littered with typos and misquoted heroin addicted writers.
However to counter your ramblings about a book about organizing government meetings that not many would know about, you would end up with ... a government meeting! Plenty of tabling of agenda itmes to go around.
I agree you need to have rules and order and structure and enforce them. But it does not have to be elaborate.
But lets table this until next week and get back to last weeks question? How big are Ernies tits?
|
|
| Uncle Mertog
October 28, 2008
12:59:26 AM
Entry #: 2964193
| It's not a book about government meetings, it pertains to NPO's, Union Meetings, Clubs and leagues such as ours. It creates structure and provides guidelines.
|
|
| EW33
October 28, 2008
1:05:24 AM
Entry #: 2964197
| My tits are big. There really isnt much more to say.
As far as elected officials....
How about Mertog for meeting policeman? He can bring his full riot gear and threaten to tear gas the whole meeting room if the rules aren't followed.
|
|
| Ryno
October 28, 2008
2:38:27 AM
Entry #: 2964223
| I am liking that idea.
|
| ARTIEKARATE
October 28, 2008
9:30:31 AM
Entry #: 2964389
| my boys wicket smart !!! too smart !!!
|
|
| gopher
October 28, 2008
11:18:22 AM
Entry #: 2964644
| Mert..
First off let me say that I do respect you and everything you do in and for the league
I am sorry if I wasted an evening for the Managers that were there, but I was invited to attend and also thought maybe I could learn a little more about how the league works. I was there with 4 other non managers and I didn’t see anything wrong in voicing my opinion...and that is all I did was speak about what I thought might be right. Maybe I was considering stepping up and trying to see if I could be of assistance to the league. I like the choices of who" the Managers" choose and yes I am not one of them. But my question to you is, if I was out of line in speaking out, then why didn’t the President or Vice president ask me to stay quiet?
I thought I was offering something important but I guess I was wrong...Sorry to ruin your evening
Maybe I should have stayed home with my 2 young kids that I Choose not to see till the next morning in order of trying to help the league out in a time where it would have been nice to see come together as a whole.
N. Robert Brodeur
Aka(gopher)
|
|
| Hinske
October 28, 2008
12:23:32 PM
Entry #: 2964775
| Whats the N stand for NANCY? you homo. Dear mert im gay and im fat and im dumb. WAAAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHH. Take your tampon out gopher and keep your apologies to when you go down on hodde in the bathroom of club jokes.
|
|
| Uncle Mertog
October 28, 2008
12:38:14 PM
Entry #: 2964799
| 
Mein Kampf Revisited!
To my good friend Ryno, don’t you have more pressing obligations than busting my balls? Like scouring the backwoods roads of “Deliverance Country” looking for some small animal to run over with your pick-up truck for dinner?
(That’s a keeper right thar yessss sarrrr!)
Secondly….I don’t recall the list of Dr. Thompson’s self-administered pharmaceuticals including heroin. I know for sure the list included but was not limited to: marijuana, mescaline, blotter acid, cocaine, uppers, downers, screamers, laughers, tequila, rum, beer, raw ether, and amyl nitrate. As the good doctor said: “It’s not that we needed all that stuff, but once you get locked into a serious drug collection the tendency is to take it all the way.”
Addressing the various typos in the Planet, well you will just have to take that up with young Mr. Smith since he is supposed to edit the Planet. I always send the Planet to him and say: “Ian could you please read this over and make sure there aren’t any errors.” Apparently Mr. Smith is asleep at the wheel. You’re supposed to have my back Smitty, nice catch buddy!
Getting back to the matter at hand, in the past I have been called way too liberal or lenient when I vote. In regards to issues like the Dutilly incident and when we vote on whether or not players should be allowed to play. I have the same tired line thrown in my face repeatedly, “Rules are Rules”. Now I understand that the integrity of the league must be safeguarded at all times and with that I have absolutely no problem whatsoever, but the mantra “rules are rules” lacks equity. My vote does not necessarily hinge upon nor is locked firmly upon the notion that rules must always be rigidly followed but rather leans toward what will be best for the league and whether said rule is diametrically and diacritically opposed to the overall goal of the league.
In other words I view what I feel is best for the league. If the overall goal is to make the league better and more competitive than that is how I vote. There are times when I feel certain rules or the punishment for violating said rules has been far harsher than is required, and there have been times where I have agreed with the decision of the league. I simply believe that every single incident or request that we deal with must be considered on a case by case basis. Stating that rules are rules lacks equity and fairness in the sense that not all situations can be synonymously juxtaposed and there are definite exceptions to all rules. That is why we have to actually put some actual thought and deliberation into them. Henry David Thoreau said it best when he wrote: “Use good judgment, there are no additional rules”.
The problem we have here in this league is that we are so afraid if we make a special dispensation for one group it will have a huge domino effect and everyone will want the same consideration. I constantly hear “That will open a whole can of worms”, which is yet another overused mantra here in Coventry. This is why you need the league officials to be able to stand up and say: “Not all situations are the same and we will hear them on a case by case basis.” It is not difficult to slightly alter a rule to be equitable and fair to a certain player who has made an effort to abide by the rules and deny the same consideration to another who has not…that is called fair.
Yes it is true that if I brought a bag of dog shit to a meeting and handed it to one of the managers, immediately another manager would stand up and scream: “He got a bag of dog shit and I didn’t, I want my dog shit too…that’s not fair that he gets a bag of dog shit and I don’t!”
Franklin D. Roosevelt once said: “Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are”. I agree with that whole heartedly and that has been the framework for my votes since day one. I will always vote to the best of my ability to do what is best for the league overall, taking into account fairness and equity and not just throwing my hands up and invoking the sacred idiom: “rules are rules”.
Now, because I point out to the same people who toss this tired phraseology around every chance they get, that we aren’t even close to working within the guidelines set forth by our own by-laws and believe that we should conduct all business in a structured format to accomplish something, I have somehow become some sort of rule Nazi! All I can say is Cool!
All that I am trying to say is that if you went to a meeting, you would absolutely rip every last hair out of your head. Artie, Kevin, and I are all bald because it is far less painful to shave it off than to rip it out at the meetings. It is extremely frustrating to pass up overtime or time with your family or whatever the case may be, to attend a meeting where absolutely nothing is accomplished. Nothing occurred last night that could not have been accomplished by a simple phone call. We show up to sit around and simply say let’s not do anything tonight and the fall ball schedule brackets are going to be up on the website. We could have elected officials and put them to work immediately and got a lot accomplished. Considine, Dolan and Riley showed up because they cared enough about the league to show up. If anyone wanted to run they would have showed up. The post Ian put up said: “All MANAGERS or representative need to attend it is an important meeting that is a good indicator that “shit is going to go down” so to speak. If people didn’t show up, tough shit!
The rules, as so many like to invoke, state that all you need is a quorum of the voting body (managers) to show up to hold an election. Nowhere does it state that it has to be posted. I can’t tell you how many times people claim that a rule says this or that and then when it is researched it says no such thing. In addition when we were discussing the Dutilly incident a couple of years ago, we were told that no vote will be taken on the issue and that it doesn’t matter what the players want and that they had no right to attend the meeting to change anything. Yet last night a suggestion was made to table elections by a non-manager. My point is that why do we follow the rules so stringently in one case and not in another? There is no consistency, clarity or structure. This is all that I am asking for simply get everyone on the same page.
Meetings would be far more productive if we had a clue as to where we were going, what we are trying to accomplish and structured it so that ran more fluently. Attend a few meetings and tell me that we aren’t sorely lacking structure. Would you like to come all the way down from NASCAR nation to attend a meeting only to find that we aren’t going to get anything done? I think you would be absolutely pissed off.
We like to administer rules and dole out punishment for violations of said rules but when the finger of culpability turns on us and we find out that we violate rules more consistently than Lindsay Lohan re-enters rehabilitation clinics suddenly rules are all that important anymore. I’m just stating that we should be accountable as well.
|
|
| Uncle Mertog
October 28, 2008
2:47:51 PM
Entry #: 2965080
| Dearest Gopher, Sorry for offending your delicate sensibilities, I did not realize that you were so fragile.
Gopher…I’m just kidding! Actually, Gopher none of what I wrote has anything to do with you whatsoever. I have absolutely no problem with you coming to meetings nor do I have any issues with anyone who wants to come to a meeting. In fact I wish everyone would attend the meetings. My boisterous protestations are not directed toward you my friend but rather toward the structure of the meetings itself.
Just a few questions for you and let’s see if you know the answers to them. Can the president, vice president, secretary and treasurer vote on issues? If these same people have vested interest in the vote (they are also serving as managers) can they still vote?
In a tie breaker who breaks the tie? Can a treasurer issue checks for any reason without consulting the legislative body? Let’s say a charitable event? Does anyone have the authority to write out a check for a fundraiser or charity without expressed permission from the voting body?
Can anyone off the street come in and make a motion to be heard by the presiding officials?
Once you answer all these questions…now ask why?
My point is that no one really knows for sure and that is a slippery slope that may have many ramifications. My point is in order to enforce rules we have to know what they are. In order to conduct business we have to know how that is done. What is to stop a manager from coming in and slipping something by the rest of us because there are five separate conversations going at once, the president and the vice president are talking about a completely separate issue and aren’t even involved in the conversation and suddenly a suggestion is made and is allowed to go through. This cannot happen. Surely you can see where the problem is there. You asked why you were not asked to stay silent and the answer is simple, the meeting was never properly conducted and order was not properly established and no one is clear on who can and who can’t raise a motion. Can you see the problem with that? My problem is not with you it is with the way things are done.
Let’s just say that this year a team was allowed to add players to their roster, and let’s just say that said players were exempted players and let’s just say that this was not brought up at a meeting…now ask yourself why? How did this happen? How did this get by us? Can you see the need for some semblance of structure now?
We need to be fully aware of ALL the rules that apply to the league, especially how meetings are conducted. We are far too worried about players playing and not playing due to some technical rule but are not concerned with far more pressing issues such as how certain things are allowed to happen and how the money is spent.
No offense was meant toward you Gopher…I’m just trying to point out some facts.
By the way I have several copies of Roberts Rules both full and abbreviated versions. I think that we should just keep a little more closely in line with the governing system when we conduct meetings. I’m passing a copy on to Smitty, and if anyone needs a copy we can make more copies for you as well.
|
|
| hodde
October 28, 2008
3:05:23 PM
Entry #: 2965118
| we had 11 mangers there last night we should of voted you are absolutely right.kevin dolan is the new treasurer, hopefully we dont have to worry about anyone running against him. he has been involved in this league a long time seems honest and trust worthy.
i thought we were gonna elliminate the secretary cause ian basically does that job already.this league should be fine with baxter,ian,kevin dolan,and with rob raymond,jeff considine,craig riley, and bob botelho we should be all set i would think
|
|
| lawnman
October 28, 2008
3:13:32 PM
Entry #: 2965129
| wow mert that was good and i agree totally but according to roberts rules if a position is open u need an election and everyone concerned must be notified.i agree we should have got that over with thou to get the league in order but we did the next best thing by doing what we did without a meeting hopefully next week
|
|
| Uncle Mertog
October 28, 2008
3:13:46 PM
Entry #: 2965131
| Here is a brief breakdown of Roberts Rules.
Introduction to Robert's Rules of Order
1. What is Parliamentary Procedure?
2. Why is Parliamentary Procedure Important?
3. Example of the Order of Business
4. Motions
5. Types of Motions
6. How are Motions Presented?
7. Voting on a Motion
What Is Parliamentary Procedure?
It is a set of rules for conduct at meetings, that allows everyone to be heard and to make decisions without confusion.
Why is Parliamentary Procedure Important?
Because it's a time tested method of conducting business at meetings and public gatherings. It can be adapted to fit the needs of any organization. Today, Robert's Rules of Order newly revised is the basic handbook of operation for most clubs, organizations and other groups. So it's important that everyone know these basic rules!
Organizations using parliamentary procedure usually follow a fixed order of business. Below is a typical example:
1. Call to order.
2. Roll call of members present.
3. Reading of minutes of last meeting.
4. Officers reports.
5. Committee reports.
6. Special orders - Important business previously designated for consideration at this meeting.
7. Unfinished business.
8. New business.
9. Announcements.
10. Adjournment.
The method used by members to express themselves is in the form of moving motions. A motion is a proposal that the entire membership take action or a stand on an issue. Individual members can:
1. Call to order.
2. Second motions.
3. Debate motions.
4. Vote on motions.
There are four Basic Types of Motions:
1. Main Motions: The purpose of a main motion is to introduce items to the membership for their consideration. They cannot be made when any other motion is on the floor, and yield to privileged, subsidiary, and incidental motions.
2. Subsidiary Motions: Their purpose is to change or affect how a main motion is handled, and is voted on before a main motion.
3. Privileged Motions: Their purpose is to bring up items that are urgent about special or important matters unrelated to pending business.
4. Incidental Motions: Their purpose is to provide a means of questioning procedure concerning other motions and must be considered before the other motion.
How are Motions Presented?
1. Obtaining the floor
a. Wait until the last speaker has finished.
b. Rise and address the Chairman by saying, "Mr. Chairman, or Mr. President."
c. Wait until the Chairman recognizes you.
2. Make Your Motion
a. Speak in a clear and concise manner.
b. Always state a motion affirmatively. Say, "I move that we ..." rather than, "I move that we do not ...".
c. Avoid personalities and stay on your subject.
3. Wait for Someone to Second Your Motion
4. Another member will second your motion or the Chairman will call for a second.
5. If there is no second to your motion it is lost.
6. The Chairman States Your Motion
a. The Chairman will say, "it has been moved and seconded that we ..." Thus placing your motion before the membership for consideration and action.
b. The membership then either debates your motion, or may move directly to a vote.
c. Once your motion is presented to the membership by the chairman it becomes "assembly property", and cannot be changed by you without the consent of the members.
7. Expanding on Your Motion
a. The time for you to speak in favor of your motion is at this point in time, rather than at the time you present it.
b. The mover is always allowed to speak first.
c. All comments and debate must be directed to the chairman.
d. Keep to the time limit for speaking that has been established.
e. The mover may speak again only after other speakers are finished, unless called upon by the Chairman.
8. Putting the Question to the Membership
a. The Chairman asks, "Are you ready to vote on the question?"
b. If there is no more discussion, a vote is taken.
c. On a motion to move the previous question may be adapted.
Voting on a Motion:
The method of vote on any motion depends on the situation and the by-laws of policy of your organization. There are five methods used to vote by most organizations, they are:
1. By Voice The Chairman asks those in favor to say, "aye", those opposed to say "no". Any member may move for a exact count.
2. By Roll Call Each member answers "yes" or "no" as his name is called. This method is used when a record of each person's vote is required.
3. By General Consent When a motion is not likely to be opposed, the Chairman says, "if there is no objection ..." The membership shows agreement by their silence, however if one member says, "I object," the item must be put to a vote.
4. By Division This is a slight verification of a voice vote. It does not require a count unless the chairman so desires. Members raise their hands or stand.
5. By Ballot Members write their vote on a slip of paper, this method is used when secrecy is desired.
There are two other motions that are commonly used that relate to voting.
1. Motion to Table This motion is often used in the attempt to "kill" a motion. The option is always present, however, to "take from the table", for reconsideration by the membership.
2. Motion to Postpone Indefinitely This is often used as a means of parliamentary strategy and allows opponents of motion to test their strength without an actual vote being taken. Also, debate is once again open on the main motion.
Parliamentary Procedure is the best way to get things done at your meetings. But, it will only work if you use it properly.
1. Allow motions that are in order.
2. Have members obtain the floor properly.
3. Speak clearly and concisely.
4. Obey the rules of debate.
Most importantly, BE COURTEOUS.
|
|
| Uncle Mertog
October 28, 2008
3:19:54 PM
Entry #: 2965142
| Eddie, absolutely you need an election this is true. To have an election you need to notify those involved, this was done on the website as I pointed out. Those who usually attend the meetings did attend the meeting and the quorum was established. You are right it should have been done last night. There was nothing done last night that couldn't have been done via a phone call.
|
|
| Uncle Mertog
October 28, 2008
3:39:34 PM
Entry #: 2965190
| Hodde my opinion is that we shouldn't eliminate any of the positions but rather make said positions voluntary. The only paid position should be the web master (Ian) because it actually entails a great deal of work. The other positions should be on a voluntary basis if there is a need to save money.
I know no one wants to hear that.
However we must distinguish what each position is responsible for.
President, secure insurance, secure field permits,scheduling, balls and equipment...presinding over meetings and reads his report.
Vice President aides the president in all of those things as deligated by the president and reports to body.
Secretary records all officers reports and keeps minutes of the meeting, reads his report.
Treasurer handles all of the money issues and reads his report.
In the past it was always Helen that read everything and did evrything...now it is time to delegate the jobs to their proper place.
|
|
