Discussion when using Robert's Rules

Robert's Rules are rarely invoked directly for standards meetings, but they do apply.  Most people have not studied them and are unwilling to.  One reason is lack of understanding of how to use the rules without destroying the ability to discuss issues.  (In the hands of the wrong chair and parlimentarian they are very effective at preventing necessary discussion.)  Keith has noticed that they have some real advantages.

How to manage discussion using Robert's Rules.

In order for meetings to be more than a rubber stamp railroading of work prepared by insiders there needs to be effective presentation and discussion.  This is difficult to combine with decision making.  The process is covered in the complete Robert's Rules, and has been since the initial 1876 edition.  (The latest edition is expensive to buy in computer form.  The first edition is available on project Gutenberg.  Most of the following has not changed since 1876.

The decisionmaking meeting process is full of motions, amendments, etc.  During this period speakers are subject to many restrictions.  In many official meetings a speaker may only speak twice, and each time must be on one and only one topic.

A simple CP

An example of this kind of decisionmaking is a recent CP in the IHE ITI committee.  There was a proposal to change one paragraph from applying to "Secure Nodes" by making it apply to "Secure Nodes and Secure Applications".  This is a proposal that needed no explanation.  There were only three speakers:

• The motion proposer, who presented the precise wording on a display
• A supporter who said, "This is an obvious mistake that needs to be fixed."
• An amender who noticed another location in the paragraph that needed to be fixed.  ITI is not very strict about amendments.  We don't require written submission of amended motions.  Instead the proposed amendment was made to the displayed motion, and an informal agreement reached that it was an appropriate fix.

The resulting amended motion was approved.

A more complex proposal

Some proposals are more complex.  For example, consider the motion made to the DICOM Standards committee to "Approve a workitem to investigate incorporating MINT into DICOM".  Many meeting members started by wondering "what is MINT?".  This can be managed by the "report" process.  This involves a series of steps:

• The meeting agrees to the reading of the report.  This means leaving the formal session and changing rules.
• The report is read (which includes discussion also)
• The report is accepted or rejected
• The meeting resumes formal session

Reading the report

The report reading rules vary among organizations.  Most common is a formal report reading followed by a question period.  Many organizations require that the report documents be provided to the meeting members in advance. So it's a controlled lecture then Q/A approach.  There are often strict time limits.

Handling the Q/A session is an acquired skill.  The rules are:

Speakers can make an unlimited number of questions, but

• Only one question at a time.
• Only questions about the report are allowed, not opinions, arguments, or conclusions.
• The chair decides whether a question is duplicate, opinion, argument, etc.

When a report states "we considered alternatives A and B" and the question is asked "what about alternative X?" a skilled report presenter will answer:  "We only considered alternatives A and B".  This closes off all discussion of all other alternatives during the report reading period.  (Persuading everyone that they can no longer bring up any other alternative is a major headache for the chair, especially with certain speakers.  This kind of speaker is sufficiently common that we can all immediately think of several examples.) 

A chair has much worse headaches with unskilled report readers.  I recall one meeting on a civic center where the question "How will this proposal affect parking and traffic?" was answered with "The state thinks a civic center like this is a major priority."  It's a completely unresponsive answer.  With unskilled report readers there needs to be a lot of painful hand holding.  In that particular case the real answer was obtained after several minutes of tooth extraction: "We did not examine parking or traffic implications of building a civic center."  Knowing the answer, you can see why they were reluctant to answer directly.

So what about the report that did not cover alternative X, or consider parking implications?

Accepting or Rejecting the report

At some point, either a time limit or absence of questions, the chair switches topics to whether the report should be accepted.  The meeting is now back in formal session, but on the subject of whether to accept the report. So the two speeches limit is back in affect.

Now is the time for proponents of alternative X speak against the motion.  They should argue that the report is not acceptable without consideration of alternative X.  It's here that emotions will run high.  Very few people realize that their report can be rejected.  In standards work there is far too much willingness to accept incomplete reports.

The most common compromise in formal meetings will be:

• The report is accepted as a progress report rather than a full report
• The working group is tasked to continue preparation of the full report.

Meeting resumes after the report is accepted/rejected

Now you're back in formal session, with the two speeches restriction etc.  But the topic has shifted to the original motion: "Approve MINT workitem".  So the speech limit is reset.  Common outcomes will be:

• Approve the motion.  (This is even possible when the report is rejected, although not likely)
• Defeat the motion. (This is more likely when the report is rejected.)
• Table the motion.  (This is an American usage.  The British rules of order are different than Robert's Rules.  One point of extreme confusion is the definition of "table the motion".  In American rules this means an indefinite postponement of discussion until some later time.  This later time might be a few hours later, or it may be never.  In British usage "tabling the motion" means to make it the current subject for discussion.  That's the exact opposite meaning.)
• Refer the motion to a sub-committee.  (This also tables the motion for this committee until that sub-committee comes back with a report.
• Enter a committee meeting of the whole, quasi committee of the whole, or informal session.  This will eventually end and return to the formal session with the topic still being the original motion: "Approve MINT workitem."  (This is starting to feel like computer programming isn't it.)

When major discussion is needed

Sometimes major discussion is needed.  This can be accomodated by the committee of the whole, quasi-committee, or informal meeting. These effectively mean:

1. A temporary subcommittee has been created, with membership of the entire original committee
2. The original meeting is postponed and the new committee of the whole meets.
3. The committee of the whole is only allowed to discuss the proposed motion and prepare a report.  The report may include a proposed amended version, but no decision is allowed on the motion or any amended version.
4. The committee can manage its time, postpone and resume, etc. as needed.  (The details of rules vary between committee of the whole, quasi-committee, and informal meeting.)
5. Unless there were special rules put in place when the committee of the whole was created, there is no limit on discussion other than a requirement that all who wish to speak be allowed to speak at least once.
6. The committee of the whole eventually reaches a conclusion.  At this point a "Motion to rise and report" is made and approved.  Then someone presents the report.  (This is a report like any other, it has a written form, it is presented, there is Q/A, and there is a vote on whether to accept the report.  These tend to be much quicker because everyone was involved in the original work.)
7. After the report is presented, etc. the original meeting resumes, and formal rules continue as that meeting resumes discussion of the original motion.

Referral to select committees or standing committees

More often, when substantial discussion is needed it is appropriate to refer the matter to a sub-committee.  Discussions by a very large committee are often very time consuming and much less productive than discussion in a subcommittee.  When the whole committee is only a dozen people, there is much less need to refer matters to sub-committee.  The membership of DICOM full committee is limited to full organizations, and still there are over 100 organizational members.  HL7 allows individual memberships so the full HL7 committee is in the thousands. 

Most standards organizations have a collection of standing committees.  The most common result of a proposal like "Approve MINT" is a referral to one of the standing committees to examine some issue and report back.  Select committees are special purpose committees created to deal with that one issue.  The current US term seems to be "tiger team", which sounds more egalitarian and is more ego boosting for members.

Further work

The motion itself may involve referral of work to a committee.  For example, the "Approve MINT ..." was a referral to a standing committee within DICOM.  That standing committee is expected to come back with a report, and probably a proposal to make a change.  The reporting requirements are met by the regular reports from standing committees (called working groups).  The proposed change will go through the DICOM supplement process and emerge as a ballot for the committee to approve or reject.  DICOM differs from Robert's Rules in that it permits supplement ballots to be managed by email independently of active meeting times.

HL7 balloting process differs further from Robert's Rules because it is also used as part of the discussion and consensus building process.  Robert's puts that into the reporting and discussion processes rather than the motion process.  This makes ballot failure and reconciliation a major part of the discussion and consensus process in HL7.

DICOM uses Working Group 6 and the supplement process to manage the discussion and consensus building for major changes to the standard.  This is similar to Robert's reporting process, but with reports split.  The regular reports to the DICOM full committee are summary progress reports.  The reports to Working Group 6 are highly detailed in depth reports (supplements) specifying the exact words to be added or changed, with Working Group 6 sometimes making substantial revisions to the supplements.  DICOM also requires that both the referred working group and working group 6 agree with the final report (supplement).  The final report (supplement) contains the entire recommended change text, is sent to the whole committee for official ballot approval, and generally is accepted with only editorial corrections.  The discussion and consensus building take place prior to the motion and balloting of the change.