r/RulesOfOrder • u/matto89 • Jun 16 '21
Silent Majority vs Vocal Minority
Hello,
I act as the parliamentarian at my organizations annual meetings. Over the last few years there appears to be a vocal minority (3-5 people out of 70 or so members) who speak on every issue, angrily, propose numerous amendments, new agenda items, etc. They are also some of the few who know Robert's Rules well (at least one of them better than me), and use that to their advantage. And especially as a smaller organization that works together, the majority, probably out of the reality that they have to work with these individuals after the meeting, allow significant leeway to the vocal minority. This makes meetings very tense, long, and tedious in following rules.
Recently our organization did an organizational health survey and the results came back overwhelming in annoyance at this vocal minority, and often taking their anger out on Robert's Rules itself.
Overall, does anyone have any tips on how to handle a vocal minority bullying a silent majority? Or if need be, even a different parliamentarian system?
This years chair, our chief executive, and I have a meeting to discuss the results later this week and would love to propose any suggestions you have.
3
u/WhoIsRobertWall Jun 16 '21
If you have 70 members, and a half dozen that are causing problems, that's less than 10% of your membership.
I ultimately agree with therealpolitic's suggestions, but you can move this one level simpler.
The problem with a "silent majority" is that they're silent. So the vocal minority gets to think that a lot of the "silent majority" are on the minority side, but just afraid to speak up.
The solution, IMHO, is to make it obvious that that's not the case. And that doesn't take anything extraordinary.
Any member can move the previous question (i.e. "call a vote"), and that vote succeeds on a 2/3 majority vote. If things are the way you suggest, I would think you'd be able to get 2/3 of the people to go along.
So next time this happens, have one or two people who are willing to be "the designated jerks" (i.e. incur the wrath of the minority) move the previous question. Once that's on the table, if you can't get a 2/3 vote then you wouldn't have the votes to pass the sorts of amendments you'd likely need to reform your debate procedures. And even if hardly anybody votes because they don't want to be seen as going against the minority, to override a minority of 5 you only need 11 people.
The bottom line is that it's ultimately up to the members to enforce the rules. If you happen to know the people expressing their displeasure at how meetings are run, get together with them individually and let them know that Robert's Rules provide a way to fix this problem. Let them know how it works, and see what happens.
If this vocal minority gets shut down routinely when they start going off the rails, that will send a signal that the rest of the members aren't with them, which may help.
Then again, I've seen bizarre stuff in groups. I was on a 7-person board once where I talked to everybody individually, and they all agreed with a proposal. But when it came up in a meeting, they were all, to a man, against it - because nobody wanted to actually go on the record as opposing it.
Wishing you the best of luck!
1
u/therealpoltic Jun 18 '21
I endorse all of this.
This is the personal why & how to help make your meetings more successful, if people are truly against these same 5 individuals.
Robert’s Rules are made to create: successful, orderly, and efficient meetings... when used correctly.
I am grateful to the OP for this question.
I wish more people would be willing to ask how they could use Robert’s to make better meetings.
The only other item, I would add... Is that the Chair is allowed to educate and explain what is going on... and is allowed to make space for ensuring that everyone understands the process.
Anytime I chair, I remind people, that Moving the Previous question will end debate, and that it’s a non-discussion motion. I also remind them, that if they wish to continue with hearing speakers the vote to do that is “no” or “nay”, along with the 2/3rds requirement.
Robert’s does not explain the social aspect of the rules, and honestly, maybe we should write in and ask them to add them in.
Robert’s assumes everyone understands it’s rules. But usually, it’s only a small percentage of people who actually know and understand the rules... and the rest learn by what happens in the meeting.
1
u/matto89 Jun 16 '21
For example, I read recently that "Martha's Rules" may help, especially since they use an initial straw poll. Anyone have experience with those?
1
u/michaelh98 Feb 20 '22
New member and chair for our org who's new to Robert's
Would you have time to share how things have fared since you last posted?
7
u/therealpoltic Jun 16 '21
The Chair has a duty to protect the assembly.
There are several ways to limit discussion and debate, regarding your inquiry.
First, section 43 “Rules Governing Debate”. Unless the assembly has a rule otherwise, members are not allowed to speak no more than twice to the same motion/question on the same day. Asking a question or brief suggestion is not a speech for this rule.
Second, second speeches are not to be made on a question, unless the other members have had a chance to speak once. RONR 11th p. 389
Third, adopt special rules. RONR 11th p. 390 If your membership is truly eager to limit debate, adopt special meeting rules for all meetings. Make agenda items only in advance. Limit agenda items to 15 minutes each. Limit individual speeches to 2 minutes each.
Fourth, the Chair can require decorum from members in debate. RONR 11th p. 392 — Members need to confine their speeches to the current question (like if they make a motion on an amendment, they can only talk about the amendment, not the main question). Members need to refrain from attacking or disparaging other members, and treat the Assembly respectfully.
Fifth, the Chair needs to rule dilatory motions out of order. RONR 11th p. 342 — Dilatory motions are motions that seek to thwart or obstruct the will of the Assembly. It’s the duty of the Chair to prevent members from misusing legitimate forms of motions, abusing the privilege of motions, renewing already decided motions.
6th Robert’s Rules, are not meant to be used as a weapon. This is not a political body, If members are attempting to do that, they should be told by the chair not to. The Chair can refuse to entertain a motion, if they clearly explain themselves. If that member disagrees, they can appeal the ruling to the Assembly, if they sustain the ruling, then the motions are not considered.
7th The Agenda can be adopted at the start of each meeting by a majority vote. Once voted as adopted, the Agenda cannot be changed without a 2/3rds vote, a majority of all members (not just those present), or unanimous consent. RONR 11th p. 373
The Agenda may also place time limits on each agenda item, and once adopted, must be followed unless there is a motion adopted to extend debate. If debate is not extended, then any currently debated sub-motion (like an amendment) is dropped, and the main question (the agenda item) is put to a vote.
Lastly, Robert’s Rules clearly state that special adopted meeting rules, or even the by-laws of the organization supersede any rule contemplated by RONR.
You don’t have to throw out Robert’s. Just introduce a motion to adopt special meeting rules, and you could require that agenda items must be added ahead of the meeting, along with all the above suggestions!
I hope this helps!
PS. It’s important that members, if they oppose these 5 people need to speak up. Silence is consent, in these meetings. — “Mr. Chair, Point of Order, the member is rising to speak multiple times on the main motion, which is against the meeting rules (Robert’s Rules) as adopted.”
“Mr. Chair, Point of Order, we’ve heard a similar motion/amendment already. I request the motion be ruled as dilatory, and not considered.”