Parliamentary Procedure - Redux

For those who doubted any part of my last post, here is a photo of a section of one of my book shelves.

Parliamentary Procedure

I have not written about this topic for a bit, but a recent incident has prompted me.

I am a little bit of a "process junkie" and have been from way back. Maybe it was growing up in a large family (I have seven younger brothers and sisters). It definitely comes from my father. He was active in local "affairs." At various times he was on the Board of Health, served on state associations related to that, and had been elected to the Town Meeting. [Aside: in New England, some of the larger towns, rather than having a Town Meeting where everyone gets to speak and vote, there is a Representative Town Meeting, where  people run, and are elected to represent a district. The town I grew up in is one such town. There were about 20 (or more) people from each of the 6 precincts who served on the Town Meeting. My father was one.]

Next to his chair, there was a book case (of course), and among the things in the book case were a couple of editions of Roberts Rules of Order, as well as Cushing's Manual.(Here is the Roberts web site, as well as the Wikipedia article. here is the Amazon link to the latest edition of Cushing, mine is older!) He would take me to the Town Meeting, and I got to sit in the audience. Before and after, he would explain some of the intricacies of what was going on. (Well, also at the "smoking break.") I have to believe, that learning about this at my father's knee, is part of what has given me my love of process.

Well, on to my most recent experience. A library user came up to the desk looking for Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure. I had never hear of it, but sure enough, the library owns it -- two copies, actually, one in Reference, and one in our circulating collection. She wanted to make some copies, so I directed her to the machines. In a little bit, she was back.

She could not find what she wanted. I took a look in the index, for a moment or two I was stymied. But then I remembered some of my lessons from ALA's wonderful Parliamentarian, Eli Mina. I thought, "how would Eli express this question as a parliamentary one." That was just what I needed. I looked in a different part of the index, flipped to the page, and there was exactly what she was looking for.

After she left, I took a closer look at the book. Now, everyone knows, well at least refers, to Roberts Rules of Order, but there are others. Actually the American Library Association uses the Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure edited by Alice Stugis (4th edition). Over my years of service, I became familiar with the 3rd and 4th editions under the tutelage of two different parliamentarians.

When I opened Mason's, there is an introduction which includes a list of ten "principles that govern procedure in group decision making." What a revelation! One of the headers after the listing of principles is "Principles are easier than rules to remember and apply." I guess that if I had been paying closer attention to Eli Mina, I would have realized that. It is how he operates. That and there is a principle of fairness to avoid the tyranny of the majority.

The next time I chat (in person or electronically) with Eli Mina, one of the things we will talk about is the principles and why Mason's does not have as much "traction" as a parliamentary guide. Hey, I will admit it. This is the kind of geeky stuff that I find fun. One of the joys of my service on ALA Council was in finding a number of other kindred spirits.

This post was written over a couple days. I scheduled it to post on December 7. That is an important day to me. The "date that will live in infamy" was my father's 15th birthday. If he had lived, he would have been 86. This can be a little bit of a tribute who someone who died way too young for my liking. He was 48 when he died in 1975. I was 21.

Majority rules or Majority Rules!

ALA-Anaheim 2012 is now over. Just before the conference, I received an email from the ALA Parliamentarian (Eli Mina) not in that role, but in his "day job" role as a professional parliamentarian. First, you can find his web site here. If you are interested in group dynamics and in procedure, Eli has some great words of wisdom.

In his recent e-newsletter he had the following to say:

"Is the Majority Always Right?"

At a recent workshop, a newly elected municipal official said this: "A wise person taught me that, with a Council of seven members, the most important number is four. With four votes you can change policy. With four votes you can provide exceptional leadership. With four votes you are at liberty to govern however you wish. "

On the surface, this seems like good practical advice. After all, in parliamentary democracies, a fundamental principle of decision making is: The majority rules. In order to adopt a proposal or enforce a measure, a voting body requires that more members vote yes than vote no. If not, the proposal is defeated. With this in mind, the numbers are "the only thing that matters." Right? Not so. Something significant is missing.

Here is the problem: Have you ever observed an aggressive and impatient majority forcing its will on a helpless minority by cutting off debate prematurely? Ever witnessed a majority being stubbornly entrenched and unwilling to tolerate new data that might lead to enlightened and thoughtful decisions? In such cases, there may very well be enough votes in the affirmative, but this does not change the fact that the decision-making process is flawed, possibly leading to bad decisions that the majority may live to regret.

Yes, the numbers are important. But if the group focuses exclusively on the number of votes, it may end up making its collective decisions on the basis of ignorance, self interest, emotion, and loud and aggressive voices, instead of making them on the basis of objectivity, full knowledge, and a careful analysis of the issues at hand.

With numbers-based democracies, the end (getting enough votes) justifies the means, which may prompt some people to make pre-meeting deals on how they'll vote. On the other hand, with knowledge-based democracies, members refuse to commit their votes in advance of a meeting. Instead, they arrive at meetings with fully open minds, listen to everyone, and treat "minorities" as partners in decision-making.

With numbers-based democracies, assertive and persuasive advocates tend to prevail. With knowledge-based democracies, the people with the most relevant information and the most astute analysis are listened to. The group has a culture that promotes learning, inquiry and excellence in decision-making.

Ultimately, democracies that are primarily focused on the number of votes are more likely to produce flawed and risk-prone decisions. On the other hand, knowledge-based democracies are more likely to produce informed decisions that increase opportunities and minimize risks for the affected organizations.

Looking at this from another angle: Democratic decision-making bodies often use rules of order in meetings. The core premise should be that rules (relating to quorum, voting, motions, amendments, etc.) should be used as a means to an end and not as an end in themselves. Rules should advance knowledge-based decision-making, rather than manipulate the flow of a meeting and overpower minorities. A flawed proposal should not win solely because its advocates are capable of using rules to advance it. And a good proposal should not be defeated solely because its proponents do not know how to use the rules to pass it.

So, is the majority always right? Is four the most important number on a Council of seven? Only if the four have knowledge on their side; only if members come to meetings with open minds and are prepared to learn from the discussions; and only if the meeting environment is kept safe. Yes, the numbers are important, but they should be backed by objectivity and knowledge.

Sign up for his newsletters, buy his books. If you are in that kind of position, hire him. He is good. I am not being paid to say any of this, and if it were not true I would not say it.

What is Community?

One of the blogs I follow is written by a current library school student at Simmons. It is called Opinions of a Wolf. A majority of the posts are reviews of books, movies, and television shows. Fridays is usually a personal update, and there is enough there to keep me reading.

A recent post was subtitled Thoughts on Community and Environment. It made me think about the meaning of community, what exactly a community is, and where we build our own communities.

"Wolfie" started her discussion by noting that one of her friends "is currently on a kibbutz in Israel, and she emailed me asking me what I think makes a community."

If you go to the dictionary, you get a definition like this:

1. a social group of any size whose members reside in a specific locality, share government, and often have a common cultural and historical heritage.
2. a locality inhabited by such a group.
3. a social, religious, occupational, or other group sharing common characteristics or interests and perceived or perceiving itself as distinct in some respect from the larger society within which it exists (usually prec. by the ): the business community; the community of scholars.
4. a group of associated nations sharing common interests or a common heritage: the community of Western Europe.
5. Ecclesiastical . a group of men or women leading a common life according to a rule.
6. Ecology . an assemblage of interacting populations occupying a given area.
7. joint possession, enjoyment, liability, etc.: community of property.
8. similar character; agreement; identity: community of interests. the community, the public; society: the needs of the community.*

Notice that the first six definitions all refer to a similar geographic location. Even the seventh definition has some relationship to close geographic proximity. I could even argue that the eighth includes a great deal about physical proximity.

I think that maybe because I did not attend the ALA Midwinter Meeting, that I have subconsciously thought more and more about some of my "chosen" communities. It may also be reflective of my holiday season gatherings. Let's go in reverse order.

My family continues to have an annual gathering of the eight of us siblings, with our spouses/others and as many of our offspring and their spouses/others as can make it. It is the one time each year when we all gather together. Given that there are eight of us siblings, and a growing number of the offspring who are married/have significant others, the size of the gathering can be overwhelming for a newcomer. (I certainly noticed this the last two years.) Are we a community? I like to think so. Physically we are stretched mostly on the East Coast from Northern Virginia to Southern Maine, with me as the outlier in New Orleans. Yet we frequently communicate with each other, and certainly keep in touch. Various groupings come together throughout the year for holidays and other events. (This year there were two weddings.) It is a special kind of community, possible most likely because of the size of our family. I guess it raises the question: Is family a community? I vote yes.

We, my wife and I, left the family gathering to spend a week in Jamaica at a resort where we knew there would be a number of friends. Each year many of us spend some time at this resort, and there are a lot of "repeaters." It makes for a kind of community for the week, with the folks who participate coming literally from all across North America (and beyond). I'll note here that social software has certainly made keeping in touch in between times very, very easy.

ALA Midwinter followed. I was able to follow what was happening (as much as I chose to) via postings to blogs, photo-sharing sites, and Twitter. Those folks are a different community. There are some who I normally only see twice a year, and not all of us attend each of the ALA gatherings. For me there are sometimes overlapping groups: from PUBLIB, current and former ALA Council and Board members, public librarians, colleagues from former workplaces and current and former states. Some folks are in more than one group. Every time I make new friends, and build my "virtual" community to be somewhat larger.

Wolfie talks about community as a group which "support[s] each other unconditionally." While she also talks about love, I am not sure I agree totally. There are some in my communities who are folks that I respect. I respect their personal values and intellect, but some are folks who challenge me to think more clearly, to reconsider positions, in general to be better. (And for my money, that is part of what "love" is about, too.)

So, I missed seeing some of my "communities" in January. The good news, is that they will be coming to see me in June at the ALA Annual Conference.

*Source: dictionary.com

Back in the Saddle

I am back to work. What an adventure: six different beds in seven nights; drove 8 different cars registered in 5 different states mostly in two towns!

When I first got the phone call, the hospital staff said "We're trying to keep her alive until everyone gets here." She went home from the hospital a week ago today, and by last weekend, several of us were itching to leave since she was back to her feisty self. I'm now thinking that there was a possible mis-diagnosis. My mother has had a blood disease for a number of years. She wound up in the hospital dehydrated and almost in septic shock. But after a couple of days of treatment which included IV antibiotics and some blood transfusions, she pulled out of it.

I am happy to be home, and able to sleep in my own bed. (I think we all underestimate the importance of that.) The experience of pretty much living with my brothers and sisters as adults was very different than when we were younger. While we often see each other, we are usually also surrounded by spouses and kids. This time, for most of the time, it was just us. That created a different dynamic. The age difference of 12 years from eldest to youngest is also no longer as significant as it used to be. In group dynamic we became a "high functioning team" as we wrestled with some pretty important issues. It was really good.

While it was incredibly disruptive to each of our lives, I think we all also walked away with better connections to each other.

Stay tuned for some posts on the reading I completed while traveling and while there. Those posts will be very different than this.

Finally, I want to thank those who sent me personal notes. The level of support I received from my staff, board, and electronic friends was heartwarming. Thanks.