The last item is a reaction by the Executive Committee to my motion at the November Council meeting regarding the transportation survey, and a new policy is to be proposed that will thwart any such impertinent actions by a Council member from happening again. According to the Executive Committee meeting minutes of 1 December 2011 (included with the agenda package):
Discussion was held with respect to the motion passed at Council by Jeremy Richards respecting the Transportation Survey. It was expressed that there was inadequate notice of the motion. It was suggested that 72 hours written notice be provided for any motion being brought to Council.A few points here to correct:
Don Heth suggested establishing a tradition that doesn’t require a formal resolution, and will maintain the capacity for members to make motions on the floor. It is unfair to spring matters on Council members, and through that device get something through. Motions are proper when the item is on the agenda and then Council can decide whether to accept or table it and that there be a requirement for written notification of new items after the agenda is circulated.
A motion will be formulated for consideration at the next meeting of Executive in January 2012.
1. I notified President Ian MacLaren prior to the Council meeting of my intention to bring a motion to Council regarding the Transportation Survey (not 72 hours, but then there is currently no policy that requires any prior notification; nor was a request for agenda items sent out to Councillors prior to setting the agenda).
2. When the agenda was presented for approval at the November Council meeting, I formally requested the addition of this item (and one other) to the Other Business section of the agenda, and Council voted to approve that amended agenda.
3. There is absolutely nothing in Robert's Rules of Order (the parliamentary procedures adopted by AASUA Council) that says it is "unfair" or not "proper" to make a motion in a properly constituted meeting, especially when the item has been approved as part of the agenda. I find the insinuations in the sentence "It is unfair to spring matters on Council members, and through that device get something through" very troubling.
4. So too is the implication of impropriety in the sentence "Motions are proper when the item is on the agenda" — the item in question was placed on the agenda, and approved by a vote of Council at the start of the meeting.
At the end of all of this, I made my motion because the Executive Committee overstepped its authority and approved distribution of a flawed survey to AASUA members without consulting or seeking approval from Council (if anybody "sprung" anything on anyone, it was the Executive Committee "springing" this survey on Council and AASUA members; and talk about a "device to get something through" — if the survey wasn't a "device" to push someone's agenda on commuting I don't know what it was). Council duly debated the motion at some length, an amendment was proposed but but was not approved by a vote, and the final motion was approved by a significant majority of those Councillors who voted. For the Executive Committee to suggest that this was somehow "improper" indicates a lack of respect for AASUA Council, which is the final authority of ASSUA (not the Executive Committee).
This all seems to me a little like sour grapes.
This post will serve as a 7-day notice of my intent to object to the wording of the Executive Committee minutes at next Thursday's Council meeting.
Posts
How is allowing Council members the opportunity to take part in a survey "springing" anything on them?
ReplyDeleteHow many Council members actually voted in favour of your motion (as opposed to how many were even present at that meeting)? Would that number have changed if members were aware this issue was going to be brought up? or if members had had a chance to think about the issue rather than have to hastily decide on the spur of the moment when the question was called?
What exactly is the problem of giving Council a head's up about a significant issue?
Council minutes record that 11 members voted for the motion, and 3 opposed. The point is that at least Council got a chance to vote on this motion. They were never offered that chance to review or vote on the survey.
ReplyDeleteAs for giving Council a head's up about significant issues, I think that's an excellent idea, and I intend to vote for the new proposal regarding introducing motions at Council, so long as some changes are made (for example, actually inviting agenda items from Council members in advance of setting the agenda).
Further to my comment of 07:28 this morning, I have checked Robert's Rules of Order, and in fact the "motion on motions" being proposed for approval by Council is not consistent with the rules. I therefore will not be voting for it after all.
DeleteJeremy said "The point is that at least Council got a chance to vote on this motion"
ReplyDeleteOr, rather 14 people got to vote on this motion. And in doing so, they invalidated all the surveys (and maybe I'm naive, but I imagine there were more than 14) done by AASUA members.
To Anon@6:21, do you think Council members are that stupid that they wouldn't have turned down a motion for lack of information and/or if advance warning was necessary? I think its ridiculous and disrespectful of executive to have jumped to that conclusion. Its just a control issue. Also, I would like to see a time limit put on the amount that the President or other executive members are allowed to lecture at us on any given topic. Quite frankly, I find it condescending and a way of preventing Council members from bringing anything up when they go on and on and on...
ReplyDeleteActually, Anon @ 08:28 pm, a quorum of duly elected Council members had an opportunity to vote on this motion (several abstained, but abstentions do not count for or against a motion). The result (invalidation of the AASUA part of the survey) was unfortunate, but a majority of elected Councillors who voted felt it was necessary.
ReplyDeleteProper parliamentary procedures in relation to this motion were followed, so although you may not like the result, that's how democracy works. On the positive side, the motion included a charge to two AASUA committees to formulate a properly constructed survey relating to commuting issues:
"Salary and Economic Benefits committees of AASUA should jointly be charged with developing a survey for AASUA members that puts forward realistic, advantageous, fair, and equitable proposals for the facilitation of commuting by all academic staff. The proposal will be presented for debate and approval at the February 16, 2012, Council meeting."
I look forward to seeing this new survey proposal at the February meeting.
So, democracy means that 11 people can muzzle the entire AASUA membership?
ReplyDeleteAnd if you think the vote was "unfortunate," why did you make that motion and call for that vote in the way that you did?
And Anon at 9:24pm -- presumably you're a Council member, so why don't you bring a motion forbidding Executive members from speaking at Council?
Yep, Anon @ 06:32, that's the way democracy works. Otherwise, why bother having elected representatives? Decide everything by referendum? From what you say it sounds like you are on Council, so you would have had the opportunity entrusted to you by the people you represent to speak to and vote on the motion — but once the votes are in, you have to learn to live with the results. (If you are not on Council, ask your elected representative how they voted.) If you feel so strongly about this, why not get involved with the two committees that have been properly charged with coming up with a better survey? — AASUA is always looking for volunteers to serve on committees (you don't have to be on Council to serve).
ReplyDeleteIt was "unfortunately" necessary to bring this motion because of the actions that preceded it. If proper procedures had been followed regarding approval of the survey, my motion would not have been necessary. The survey was thrown out as much for procedural irregularities as for its flawed content.
I find this "motion on motions" kind of ironic given that last year, when I asked that council members be provided with background info in terms of biographical sketches (instead of just a slate of names) on those running for executive ahead of the vote, that request was refused.
ReplyDeleteWell, it wasn't quite refused. 5 or 10 minutes before the vote took place some information was provided verbally at the council meeting. Giving us plenty of time to consider our vote ...
Denise Young said " 5 or 10 minutes before the vote took place some information was provided verbally at the council meeting. Giving us plenty of time to consider our vote .."
ReplyDeleteI'm not seeing the irony on the part of the "Motion on Motions" -- isn't that what Jeremy did with his lengthy motion on the transportation survey : provide little information at the last minute, giving people "plenty of time" to consider their votes?
Anonymous @7:56: So it's okay for the executive to "spring" stuff on council members, but not vice versa? Even if this is how you feel, you are completely missing the point: Jeremy provided at least one day's notice and did not "spring" anything at the last minute. The response of the executive indicates that they are petulantly trying to discredit Jeremy because he expects them to act in accordance with the proper procedures. This is troubling and should be a wake-up call for AASUA members and council alike.
ReplyDeleteHi anon@7:56
ReplyDeleteIn principal, I'm not against the "motion on motions". Having info provided ahead of time so that council members can reflect on it is a good thing.
In terms of the optics, however, it looks to me like it's okay for some people to spring last-second info on council but not others.
What was sprung on Council or the membership? The right to choose to participate in a survey? You're right. That is outrageous!
ReplyDeleteThe issue is symptomatic of every interaction I've had with the AASUA - it is all about control and not rocking any boats. This is how we ended up with furlough days. Lack of full, considered, and an unbiased information. We got the University position shoved on us from the AASUA with dire warnings and prepackaged threats courtesy of the Administration. Anyone out of line was a threat or a radical. Controlling an issue with a 72 hour notice means they can ignore an issue until "next time". As Jeremy points out, where is this is Roberts Rules? When is such a practice ever used? If there's not enough information, defeat such a motion and table it for the next meeting.
ReplyDeleteAs a member of the Executive, I would like to say that many different opinions were expressed on this issue, and I can assure you that I was not alone in insisting that motions must always be able to come from the floor. It would be great if rather than treating this as the occasion for AASUA-bashing, we remember that we all are the AASUA, and when issues of procedure like this arise, what we have before us is an excellent opportunity to (re)consider our principles and ensure that we are operating by practices that help us to realize them.
ReplyDeleteThis is a democratic organization predicated on collegial governance. As such, we must always have the capacity for motions to come from the floor at the primary forum for the exercise of the collegial governance of the organization, which is Council.
That said, it would be helpful if lengthy motions that involve intricate details are circulated in writing, either in advance or on the spot. That's what I was pushing for.
The mover will of course always be abundantly familiar with the text of the motion. Council members need time, however, to consider the wording carefully in order to weigh in appropriately on the motion.
In the case of the motion that has precipitated this "motion n motions," I myself abstained because we did not (in my view) have proper opportunity to consider the motion before us. I would therefore like to see the AASUA Council do two things:
(1) stand up for the principle of motions always being able to come from the floor.
(2) establish a protocol that ensures that lengthy motions with multiple clauses are furnished in such a way to ensure proper consideration.
Good idea Carolyn. An easy way to facilitate the latter protocol is to use the visualizer at the front of the room used for Council meetings (I had my motion typed up and ready to provide to the chair for that purpose), or type it up in real time and project it. I agree that that would greatly assist the discussion and amendment of motions.
ReplyDelete@Jeremy 12:52
ReplyDelete. . . or circulate it ahead of time so people can read it and consider it rather than have to deal with it on the fly.
Anon @ 12:56 pm: Yes, in an ideal world. But that cannot be made a requirement (according to Robert's Rules of Order).
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't the right to choose to participate in a survey. It was to endorse the survey. There is a HUGE difference. The latter assumes a level of confidence in how the survey is conducted and the validity of the results.
ReplyDeleteYes but if they don't want to deal with it in the fly they can vote it down or vote to table it. So the current proposed motion is redundant with what is already in place with Robert's Rules.
ReplyDeleteAh, Anon @ 01:15 pm — you get it! Yes, Robert's Rules have been refined over decades to facilitate the appropriate and democratic handling of business in meetings. Anyone who was uncomfortable with being rushed into a decision at that Council meeting had a number of options open to them, including voting against the motion, moving that it be referred to a committee, or moving to table it. Instead, the undecided abstained, which means they decided not to participate at all.
ReplyDeleteMaybe someone should draft a lengthy motion suggesting we do away with Robert's Rules of Order, and bring that up in the last few minutes of a poorly-attended meeting. . .
ReplyDeleteUsing Robert's Rules, a motion to postpone to a certain date or a motion to postpone indefinitely would take precedence over putting the motion to a vote. So I don't understand the complaint. A motion comes from the floor and if you need more time to consider or investigate, then you stick your hand in the air and move to postpone consideration until the next meeting. Get a seconder, , call the vote, and if passed, the motion is postponed. It ain't rocket science.
ReplyDeleteAnon @ 05:53 pm: Someone on Council could indeed make such a motion. It would be interesting to hear what the arguments would be for doing away with procedures that are designed to promote the orderly and efficient conduct of business.
ReplyDeleteA much better use of Council's time would be to lean how to use Robert's Rules of Order properly. I have in the past provided summary procedures to Council and have offered to run or organize workshops (but was never taken up on that offer).
Yes, I have been concerned for a while that Robert's Rules are not followed and its especially disconcerting to hear people able to speak who just call out and/or even interupt the Chair (that happened at the AGM). Its plain wrong and it creates a chilly climate in which people feel they need to have an "in" with the Executive in order to have a say in something. Not to mention that the agenda is always so full of one-way reports that there is rarely any real debate on anything. Re. the motion to not have the Executive talk too much. Actually if we had real elections I would have asked this of potential candidates and voted accordingly (ie. how do they anticipate planning and running the meetings).
ReplyDeleteFollowing up from Anon @ 10:14 am's comments — and please note that this is not intended as a personal criticism of any past or present AASUA president — the role of the chair of a meeting is absolutely critical and maintaining the orderly progress of business. Many people confuse the role of chair, which is to be an impartial facilitator, and if necessary, policeman/woman, of proceedings. If the chair wishes to speak to a motion, he or she should hand the chair to someone else (normally the VP) for the duration of the debate.
ReplyDeleteBecause sometimes the president is not fully versed in parliamentary procedures, when we revised the bylaws in 2007, we added a clause that allowed the appointment of a parliamentarian (Bylaws §6.16, see below). That position has never been filled.
As a suggestion, it might be useful to establish a convention that someone other than the President chairs Council meetings, for example the VP or Past President; or create a new elected position of Chair of Council, who holds no other position on Council.
Bylaws 6.16 Council may, at its discretion, authorize the services of a person to act as Parliamentarian during any meeting of Council, Executive Committee, general meetings, or meetings of other committees. The Parliamentarian shall act in an advisory role to assist in the orderly conduct of the Association’s business, and shall have no vote.