Sumitted by Yvonne Sabraw
The letters written after the March 2nd meeting deserve a response. An apology, for sure, from one of the people who was perceived as dominating the meeting and clearly upsetting many people. Last year, when we headed into the June 7th meeting, Richard quoted me in his opening statement to the meeting. It was a piece of a letter I had intended to send to the whole membership regarding what I feared was about to happen at that particular meeting, and asking newer members who might not be familiar with co-op practices to be aware that this was going to be an unusual meeting. Perhaps I should have prepared some kind of preamble for the March 2nd one as well.
What would it have said? What follows here is a mix of what could have been a preamble and my interpretation of the March 2nd meeting.
Preamble:
That people should know that they were going into a meeting that had no motions, and therefore, following Robert’s Rules, unless they asked for it, there would be no forum for discussion. Reports would be submitted, and it is standard to simply note that these were received, only discussing them if there is a recommendation that requires a motion that comes out of them.
That whether they agreed with Richard’s essay’s conclusion or not, they might want to take exception to any single member in our co-op stating that they have just given the final word on how our community documents its meetings. We could all appreciate the work that Richard put into this effort. And thank him for it. It is valuable to bring this research and thought to the discussion. Nevertheless , no one person has that special position or power in our co-op and we should not set such a precedent. Which is why I asked him to make a motion that the membership accept his proposal and this would give us all a voice. And if we agreed with him, the conclusions would be our membership’s word, not just Richard’s.
If there were argument on this, I would have had to go a bit further and say I was disappointed to read assertions in Richard’s essay that “almost a year of discussion” had taken place on minutes. It is a perennial discussion. But besides the challenges over the documentation of the June 7th meeting, there hasn’t actually been a forum for ANY community discussion. I would have welcomed that forum - as an opportunity to educate ourselves and as a chance for every member to think hard about what works for us.
That I hoped somebody other than me would point out that our Board had gone directly against co-op policy when it had failed to promptly provide minutes of our meetings to the membership. That even Robert’s Rules makes a statement about minutes having to be presented in a timely manner. There was no justification for holding back the minutes of P&D general meetings from Sept and December. Or the special meeting requested by Grounds on July 28 for that matter.
I wish someone had raised their hand and asked what a “Consent agenda” is. And why no one has ever presented a consent agenda at a meeting this way before. And what was the purpose this time around.
I wish someone else had pointed out the errors in the minutes that were being presented. Members at the meeting should know that in these minutes there were items contrary to what we had just said we wanted from our minutes. Truly, folks, I waited for others to speak on this. No one raised these points. Our July 28 minutes would have passed with an obvious error if we’d all just raised our hands and said “aye” for the consent agenda.
That a “committee of the whole” is more or less what we do every year when we discuss the proposed budget - for members to make recommendations before it comes back to another meeting for a vote. But there are no examples on the internet of a “Committee of the Whole” being the title of the facilitated/mediated group therapy session like the one we had on June 7th.
And - after reading the letters in the special edition, I want to thank people who commented on how we use Robert’s Rules. You have confirmed that we do still need dialogue and thought in this.
Okay - fun part of my letter:
True or false: a member who was not at the meeting for which minutes are being read and approved can not vote to approve them (actually - this is False! You don’t have to have been at a meeting to approve the minutes... this is apparently a common fallacy!)
True or false - the names of the person making the motion and the person seconding it should be recorded in the minutes? (Also false! The person making the motion can be named, the seconder should not. There should be no assumption that the seconder supports the motion - only that they believe it has merit in being discussed!)
A final word. I’m glad that the newsletter might now be a forum for discussion.