Wednesday 24 February 2010

Your Rights in Debate

You actually have a lot of rights in debate. First, and foremost, if you are a member, you have the right to participate in debate without hindrance. If you are speaking, you have the right to say what you have to say without interference from others subject to the rules of Decorum. Nobody has the right to shout you down. Nobody has the right to interject into your talking time. Nobody has a right to comment while you are talking. All of these are subject to the legitimate right of the chair to come in when an issue arises.

You also have the right to take many sides of an argument (limited to the affirmative side for the mover of the motion). What you say in debate cannot be held either for or against you in the future.

You have the right to timeness -- a point of order about your comments must be made at the time they are said and not a month, a year, a decade later. This is an important reason why minutes contain what was done and not what was said. You can debate in favor of one opinion and then come back, appropriately, later and take the other side. Neither should be held against you -- it is debate which is the presenting of arguments.

Debate should be informative and constructive for you; not destructive.

Monday 22 February 2010

When to Meet

This seems like a very minor question but it actually one of great importance. Meetings are held according to established schedules found in the bylaws, according to procedures established by the bylaws.

You cannot just order up a meeting although many in organizations think that this can happen. You need to follow the rules for calling meetings. These are going to vary from one organization to another.

So look to the bylaws as to when you are required to meet -- either a date, a period, or by special calling of the rules. Outside of these, nobody can order up a meeting. Oh, if you are a non-profit in Japan, the Kanji can order a meeting -- it's the law.

Thursday 18 February 2010

Executive Session

Quite a few people I know have no idea as to what is meant by Executive Session. Basically, it means a session that is to be kept secret from those not entitled to attend. For an Executive Session, nonmembers are usually asked to leave the room. If they are not asked to leave, they are expected not to divulge what goes on in the Executive Session.

What about the results of votes taken in Executive Session? They are not released unless the body votes to release them. Often this is done but it is not automatic.

Executive Session is often used for debating controversial topics. This allows the body to discuss all the various aspects of a topic without worrying that others will find out what was said. It does not mean that the rules of Decorum do not apply -- they still apply. But the body can explore controversial ideas without worrying about their statements being exposed to the world -- if the people attending stick to the secrecy of Executive Session.